Talk:Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks

CopyVio?

I note the new section added is from this site: http://www.myelkslodge.com/~elks794/html/about_elks.html but it is not credited. Could some Smart Person give me an opinion of the copy rights and wrongs here? [[PaulinSaudi 11:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)]]

I wrote to the national Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks for permission to reproduce their articles. These articles actually are originally posted on http://elks.org. I was / am new to wikiposting so I may have jumped the permission gun. When I get their OK, which I am confident, I will post their letter here. --Crickett 02:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seems awful onesided --Alohawolf 10:06, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Discrimination towards atheists by the BPOE

Have the Elks always discriminated against atheists, or was that practice begun during the Cold War? — Coelacan | talk 16:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• 1. To distinguish: Since he was colorblind he was unable to discriminate between the blue and green bottles.

Uh... In considering someone for membership, they have always distinguished atheists from others. And the Cold War, at least, has nothing to do with it.

• 2. To make decisions based on prejudice.

No, it absolutely is not a matter of Discrimination, beyond that of "Distinction".

• & if one applies Occam's razor, the same holds true...;~D

Grye 04:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And if they didn't let blacks join, that would just be "distinguishment" and not "prejudice", right? — coelacan talk — 04:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you would be right there. Not saying that did or didn't ever happen, but to comment cites, & NPOV tone would be needed. Grye 21:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

So anyway, what is their reasoning for the discrimination against atheists? — coelacan talk — 08:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

With the freemasons, there's written reason. I'm not sure (about written reason) with BPOE, & I'm not going to give a quote...;-) I'll look for you though. Grye 21:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I will say that with any group whatsoever, say the PTA to BPOE to Freemasonry, the resons for any given requirement are, of course, so that any given member can know that every other member present is of X, Y, Z history/beliefs, achievements, past officeholder, etc etc. Grye 21:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What? So atheists aren't qualified to be Elks? — coelacan talk — 06:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... no. Just as, not being a parent, nor a teacher, I'm not really qualified to join the Parent-Teacher Association (PTA).

Grye 06:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I call shenanigans. What is it about atheists that makes them unqualified to join a drinking club? — coelacan talk — 06:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I call POV, & I call it quits. I tried earnestly to answer your questions.

1. I have no idea What it is about atheists that makes them unqualified to join a drinking club. BPOElks is a charitable organization which, among many other things, gives hundreds of millions of Dollars, & thousands of millions of volunteer hours, to charitable causes every year.
2. What it is about atheists that makes them unqualified to join BPOE, is that they're atheists.
3. If you're an atheist & can't join, get over it, & since they're just a drinking club to you anyway, Then either go drink somewhere else, or you don't drink, and no big loss.

Conversation's over. Grye 07:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And this is what I don't understand. Why are you bringing up that they are a charitable organization? What does this have to do with theism or atheism? You gave the example of a PTA, and yeah, it makes sense that you can't join a PTA unless you are a parent or a teacher. But there's nothing that stops atheists from being "benevolent" or "protective". So the discrimination can only be described as prejudice. Try this one: "What it is about blacks that makes them unqualified to join BPOE, is that they're blacks." The prejudice and hatred is obvious there, but you're saying the same thing about the BPOE and atheists and yet saying that it's not prejudice. I can't see what the difference is. You're not making any sense. — coelacan talk — 08:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. Try this one: An (say-take any variant) African-American is born an African-American; an Irish is born an Irish. They can't change that, for love or money. are you saying all atheists will always be atheists? A Muslim or Catholic will never be an atheist? That being an atheist is unchangeable? That an Athiest cannot find god(s)? That a devout [X, Y, or Z] cannot lose their faith?

It isn't that I am not making sense, it is your inability to discern sense from my simple statements, & descry the same meaning from them which I intended in writing them, despite references & links added. Which is your problem, not mine. I cannot force you to understand.

Sincerely sorry,

Grye 21:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course people's beliefs do change. But like catching influenza or winning a door prize, it is something that happens, not something one does. If one can simply change one's beliefs at will, prove me wrong: stop believing in your God right now, for five minutes. When you've done it, you can change right back and start believing again, since it's just a matter of choice, according to you. The fact is that you can't do it, no more than you can choose to believe that your keyboard is actually an apple pie. If you wanted to become an atheist, you could investigate the evidence, but if or when your beliefs actually changed, it would be an occurrence that you experienced, not something you did. It is prejudicial to deny membership to a person based on something that is beyond their control, and it is bigoted to say "you can't be in our club because you're incapable of believing what we do without sufficient evidence." And it is shameful to imagine that atheists are unable to act charitably and contribute positively toward the community, which can be the only legitimate criterion of membership for the Elks. It is truly sad that you are so eager to make all these excuses in defense of bigotry. To deny that prejudice is prejudice is to contribute further to it. — coelacan talk — 22:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I nor anyone else here except you said "atheists are unable to act charitably and contribute positively toward the community". No BPOElks that I know actually dislike atheists, nor would disclude them from a BPOElks charitable event, either in attendance or help. I don't know what some BPOElk(s) has done to you, but I nor anyone here has done anything to cause you to be uncivil & make personal attacks. The goal of everything Wikipedia involves a neutral point of view, & that's how it'll be. Grye 23:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

continued to User talk:Coelacan

I just asked why the BPOE discriminated against atheists. I was hoping for some answers that would be included in the article. You started using rhetoric to explain it all away and I disagreed with your premises. My intent was to clarify the issue as readily as possible so that it can be discussed in the article. I'm sorry if you felt I was soapboxing. I do not believe I have been at all incivil or made any personal attacks against you. The only thing I have said directly to you in any regard was that "It is truly sad that you are so eager to make all these excuses in defense of bigotry." That is not a personal attack. And I'd appreciate it if you stop altering my talk page posts to add wikilinks that I did not add. It's very misleading. — coelacan talk — 00:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yaknow, that apple pie was incredible.... had to go get a new keyboard though. Grye 18:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Just another bunch of bigots. If a similar organization banned Christians from membership, it would become a national outrage and the cable news networks would be covering this 24-7. Of course, they're just discriminating against atheists, so no one cares and the general response is "get over it." Biggest Pigs on Earth. Benfea 01:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Race/Sex issues

Interesting that God issue was discussed so much at length. On that subject, you should note that much of the Elks rituals makes reference to God. I don't agree with the policy, but I wanted to explain why.

When my father belonged to the Elks, in the 60s and 70s, the race issue was a big one. The by laws specifically stated that the BPOE was a club for white men. I see that this has changed but I am suprised there is no discussion on the page of how that got changed. I do know it was very controvertial.

In their defence, I want to say, a significant ascpect of the Elks was charity work, which often benefitted people who were racial monorities.