littlebillie

"it is entirely possible that one can embrace values without endorsing a specific religion or group of religions" it is also possible to endorse values to the judgemental exclusion of a specific religion or group of religions - and THAT's the problem. once you say that a person's religion has a message you don't want to recognize (let alone endorse) and so will disallow from participating in certain aspects of your program... well, frankly, that's more than a little ugly... "The BSA can embrace and maintain values that are separate from religious teaching." ...and where the two disagree, then the BSA will disallow the religion from participating in certain programs and offering certain awards that all other religions are permitted. (I think it helps to complete the thought to really see the whole picture!)

I remember when she spoke out against the Deaf Penalty...

OGE, Well, when you said that you "...must be missing something" my response intent was that what you may have missed was that these groups have a written, documented exclusionary policy. Until such policy is revoked, they stand in violation. They have de jure exclusion, while you recommend de facto exclusion as a work-around. Regardless, I went on to consider that hey, ya know what - that's exactly what the Constitution gives us for the Presidency! Foreigners, and naturalized citizens need not apply. I added ironically that - looked at in terms of the topic - that the Constitution itself may be considered unconstitutional. Tongue in cheek, strictly. (What may be confusing is that usually I'm on one side of the fence, but in this case, I'm on the side of the student groups.) Finally, tho', I took your suggestion and tried to imply that if folks think this could work for student groups, why not the BSA? Apply the same principal to gays and atheists - go ahead and let them offer up their volunteer services locally (i.e., join the student group), and see if anyone takes them up on it. I thought it was a step in the right direction! :-) QUESTION, Y'ALL! Can a gay be a merit badge counselor? It's not really leadership, is it?

Rooster7, "I really deserve this. Not because littlebillie is right, but because I didn't speak out earlier to defend kwc57. He faced a similar accusation. I chose not to defend him - not because I didn't understand his example (although I didn't agree with his conclusion) but because I didn't want some old friends to get the wrong impression" this is funny, because when the flack hit the fan on that one, I almost apologized for having agreed with him. I didn't because he's on one side of a fence, and I on the other, and I figured some of my 'tarnish' could have rubbed off on him. and, I figured, heck, it just might make it worse. not sure if he'd a-wanted one of the pink sympathizers coming to his defense, ya know... :-) ironic, huh?

Rooster7, Apparently MY confidence was misplaced. I was hoping that your apparent lack of clarity was a momentary lapse. My citation of Genesis seems to have been overlooked entirely. My use of the word "if" was intended to demonstrate the consideration of a conditional yet to be proven, and the similarly conditional apology hinged on that proof. And the snotty tone of this post is in response to the characterization of mine as theatrical. OF COURSE I really don't think that YOU think this country could raise a Hitler; please extend to me the courtesy of accepting that I would not accept a Biblical justification of a Hitler's action. Exactly my point - let's not get silly. 'k?

OGE, what may be missing (or present!?!) is defined, written requirements for that leadership role. um - kinda like the President's gotta be a natural born citizen. no naturalized foreigners for us! hmmm - so is the Constitution itself unconstitutional? of course, the basic position of open up leasership and let the members themselves choose who gets to be President or Pack Leader is one of the positions of the localists, here, eh?

thanks, pack - yeah, Gilda DID play Emily. I had benn bouncing off the SNL ref earlier on and totally wondering what happened to LN? I remember her hosting a movie some years back - midget Western called something like "The Terror of Tiny Town", and then she disappeared from view. Heck, I see Garrett Morris more than her!

how about voluntary groups that have a professional, paid core group? Executive, in this case, and all paid employees in support of the org and simply the physical facilities?

The image of college as birthplace for new thought philosophy, a marketplace of ideas, seems dead, now - or worse, about to be buried alive. cookie cutter, assembly line brains stamped out of a milquetoast curriculum, or worse, an envirnoment wherein individual professors can promote certain positions but students can't? sigh... out of the 60's, into the night.

OGE - apology noted, and appreciated. And in turn, let me make my own. Since we're talking California judges, and the BSA, I was pretty offput by citations of Idi Amin, Hitler, etc. By no means was i trying to offend anyone in Australia, which great country is home my mother's ashes, to my father, to my brothers, and my inlaws and my nephew... any suggestion otherwise is of course misdirected. Rooster7 - "...then please provide a specific verse." I refer to Exodus 22:18 (interesting that elsewhere in this thread Leviticus 18:22 was cited!) But please don't think that I find in this justification for murder. Others, perhaps, but not I. Since it's in the Bible, I know some may believe both in witches and the need to kill them, but I am NOT a literalist... as y'all know! "What are we supposed to derive from these statements? Are you suggesting, because the Bible tells some stories concerning people who did some bad things that anything Caesar asks us to do cannot be outside of God's will or desires? " no - but I AM suggesting that discussions of rape and pillage and Amin and Hitler take this discussion beyond the realm of reason. once we start doing that, then it opens the door the ridiculous. from the civil rights of gays to the Holocaust? I turn me away from that path. This opens the door to serially citing ALL the wrong done in the name of the Bible - misunderstood tho' it may have been - as argument against the Bible. I seen no need to go there, and have no desire to go there. So - in brief answer to your question, what are you to make of this? Let's not cite ridiculous extremes without being aware that they are ridiculous. Rooster, if you truly believe that Hitler could happen in this country, under our Constitution, I apologize for characterizing your belief as ridiculous. I do NOT believe a Hitler could arise, however. And THAT'S my point! packsaddle " When BSA refuses recognition of significant legitimate achievement by a boy (God and Country), simply because his church publicly disagrees with BSA policy, it goes against the 1st Amendment. And for doing this to a child, I consider them cowardly. Just a personal opinion. " absolutely right - it means the BSA DOES pick and choose among religions. It's always been my understanding it was a Mormon/BSA disagreement about race that led to racial changes in the LDS - I guess they're hoping lightning will strike twice...? everyone else - sorry if my tirade about extremes was itself extreme - the comparison of the US to Hitler was a little too much for me. I'm alright now, tho'! PS Just what IS Laraine Newman up to these days?

"What if Caesar demanded Christians to murder and rape? " Well, "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" certainly had some impact in Salem, and it wasn't from Caesar... Packsaddle, exactly right. If the government recognizes CIVIL rights and liberties of individuals regardless of lifestyle issues and all other things equal... THERE lies Caesar. And of course I'm talking our good ol' AMERICAN Caesars. Hitler, for crying out loud? What did HE have to do with the Boy Scouts of AMERICA? Keep it in context, please!!! I - at least - have greater faith in our government than that. And of course when we start to say well, what if, murder, rape, pillage - this is no real argument. The Bible is full of smiting and sacrifices, frankly, and there are limits to ordinary discussion and example. I think we all know that we all mean mature law-abiding tax-paying folk in any discussion. The issue is about where the lines are drawn. If it helps, I'll go on record as being against bestiality - oh, and and pederasty, either side of the fence. What else should we get out of the way in order to have meaningful dialog?

evmori - please refer issues involving your objections to Caesar to me - please take them up with your pastor, priest, minister or other spiritual advisor. It's not MY quote after all. :-) Rooster7 - I note that you didn't answer the apple query? was it literally an apple? I mean, that's what some texts say...? it's important because some authorities say the "man with man" passages in Lev should actually have been translated as "male temple prostitute", which takes things in a different direction, I'd say. packsaddle - homophobic, see, I know it's a preferred term generally, but here I'm not sure. when it's based on one's interpretation of a religion, is it truly phobic? it's certainly anti-gay...? is hp still the proper usage is such a case? Ok - for those who wonder about the adaptiveness of homosexual behavior. We refer to a sex drive; and indeed, it is a DRIVE. Without it, a species dies out. So into each individual is placed an urge, a desire - a NEED to perform certain behaviors, that culminates in reproduction and the survival of the species. Now, when certain local populations get TOO large, or if a social structure is such that only a few top creatures can reproduce - then we see homosexual activity and this helps to "relieve" the individual animal WITHOUT overburdening an already stressed environment with further increases to "headcount." It's one of Nature's birth controls, one that nevertheless allows the individual to perform some physical bonding. Stressed populations - OVERpopulations - can show a marked increase in homosexual activity... food for thought, y'all. As far as an important social function, I've NEVER heard anyone argue that so-called "unadoptable" kids are better off being institutionalized than being placed in a loving gay family.

well, I suppose environment MIGHT have an impact on my eye color - say, if eagles plucked them out, or if their environment included colored contact lenses... and i might have been taller if I exercised more and drank more milk - but not much. to infer that for EVERY genetic influence there is a corresponding environmental factor would be misguided. that aside, however - there are certainly genetically determined gays, just as there are gays by nurture, gays by choice, and gays by various combos of the foregoing. so what? would the anti-gay faction here make any distinction between or among ANY possible cause? in nature, homosexuality can be seen in increasing incidence as population pressures increase or available mates decrease and plays an important role. and indeed, in human socity, it could as well. altogether too many kids needing families are passed over by childless mainstream couples - too old, too challenged, to sick - but these same kids can and do find homes with gay couples. We had two such boys in our Cub den. There is a social need and a biological function to be served by gay Americans, and I think it's time for us all to realize that. Regardless of what ONE or 2 or 20 religions say about gays, others are accepting of gays. and if Caesar (as civil authority) says no big deal, then render let those others render unto Caesar... prejudice that finds its root in a supposed Word of God had better be darn sure of what God actually said. (Say, was it REALLY an apple in Eden?) ow, wait - that's not the thread, is it? Well, I think that the judges should be able to maintain their Scouting affiliations - without prejudice.

Is that hiring requirement extended to file clerks and janitors at HQ? Just curious - seems like the local Scouting units there could be pretty top heavy!?

if it ain't natural, why are there animals that exhibit the behavior?

I've had mixed results with a performance contract. You set out guidelines and consequences for not following those guidelines - I try to state the 'rules' postively - more "I will" and less "I won't". then the kids and parents review, sign and return the contracts. consequences are incremental - short time out, long time out, out of the meeting, meeting with parents, etc. This has worked well when you follow thru with the consequences. If the group is TOO big, you've already thrown yourself a monkey wrench. I don't like more than 8 boys for myself, but I like 6 best of all. That's just personal preference. I've seen this approach fall flat on its face though - when the DL doesn't apply the consequences, or can't get some parental help in doings so - then, forget about it. Even with an ACTIVE Assistant DL, it can be a challenge keeping up with the group activity. And if you have to be enforce and creat fun at the same time, it can get confusing - for you AND the boys. SO THE MORE THE PARENTS GET INVOLVED, the better. I like 2 deep with parent involvement, too - it lessens the chance of a parent having to deal with their own child (some tend to over-react, and some under react). 14 boys? ARRGGHHHH. Only reason i can think of for a situation like that is that no one's stepping up to the Den Leader plate..? I've also seen a variant where the 'best behaved' or 'most helpful' or 'best Cub' of the meeting was awarded a floating pin (cobbed from a derby). Haven't tried this myself, but I've seen it help.

"If we allow a group of judges to decide which clubs and organization are acceptable (for judges to have membership), and which ones are not, they will create a judiciary with a very particular mindset." Rooster - very interesting point. you have to wonder what the Supreme Court would look like today if all candidates had been through the homogenizating disassociation as described at seems to be the goal here. Indeed, I wonder if anyone without memberships, associations, alignments and sympathies would be suffciently human to sit in judgement in the first place...? I've sat on many a jury - and an oft-heard question is, "Would you be able and willing to set aside your personal beliefs and render a verdict according to the facts of the case and the instructions given you by the judge?" Of course, the answer's always yes - and usually the folks are empaneled. Well, jurors are the necessary amateur in our court system - I have to think the professionals can do it too...

OGE - actually, I used the word "analogy" - not "comparison". And the analogy had to do with an individual's membership in a constitutionally protected group, and that group's membership 'criteria'. Like it or not, they have each claimed the same protections; likewise, each has identified undesireables... So to that extent, it's a fair analogy. And I think the analogy itself was stopped AT that extent...

pfann 'Allow both sides in court to request the judges recusal and it is grounds for appeal if he does not. Common sense can prevail instead of grinding the system to a halt with all of these "regulations"' wanna bet that the defense would then start automatically requesting recusal - if only because the judge (just for example), having seen too many of the same kinds of case before, may not be an argumental or evidential tabula rasa - as a means preparing for an automatic appeal? On the face of it, that suggestion might actually grind the system to a halt itself with additional motions and more appeals - and the common sense part is that every lawyer would avail themselves of such a tool. And of course in smaller areas where ya got only a judge or too to begin with, what happens when you recuse them ALL off a case?

and as a country, we boycott and embargo as well. probably not the best example - our record is NOT as a laissez faire power, not even in international sports.

The BSA stands under the same expressive association umbrella as the KKK in certain matters of membership. Regardless of the way those policies are demonstrated or put into practice, they exist. Regardless of whether or not one person sees similarities, others do - and this can be enough to affect the appearance of impartiality. Though the example is undeniably extreme, it makes a valid point, because there ARE certain consitutionally protected parallels. For myself, tho', I'm pretty certain that after membership and highway beautification projects, the similarities end...

kwc57 - absolutely! If you choose to enter certain professions in the private sector, you accept certain restraints. If you choose to enter that same profession in the public sector, there are other or additional restraints. You either accept these, or you don't. When it comes to being a judge, the need for impartiality (or at least its appearance) is a fairly obvious necessity. Those who say that no one is forced to join Scouts ("if you don't like some of their policies, don't join at all") must also recognize that no one is forced to become a judge. If anyone says that changing the rules mid-tenure is unfair for those already on the bench, well - it was unfair for gay Scouts and Scouters in the 70's. No one gave them a sunset clause, either. kwc57's KKK analogy is stark and ugly - but accurate and understandable. Still, I want to - HAVE to - believe that anyone involved in Scouting can be respectful and fair elsewhere, whichever side of the gay-membership issue they stand on. And after all - the KKK doesn't have a Federal Charter. FLIP SIDE OF THE COIN IS that it's quite possible that at least some of these judges SUPPORT gays in Scouts, and by making them leave, then the PC force that required them to do so is slowing down the very change that they seek. It's complicated looking forward, too - should any judge who belongs to AA be kept off of, say, a traffic court bench? Should gay judges also be dropped? What about NRA membership? Don't know if there's an orthodox Jewish judge out there, but there are certain medical cases they ought not sit on. Or should judges have some kind of automatic recusal matrix - reasons that they cannot or should not sit on certain kinds of cases or over certain kinds of litigants? I am currently not convinced either way. At it's simplest, maybe it makes sense - but things get way murky one single step away from that starting point....

kwc57 - it wasn't in the FAQ's, but there's a link to email the parents, AND some links to various newspaper articles. regardless of how she does it - good for her! AND all her enablers.

from http://www.diversityingirlscouts.org "The Girl Scout organization has decided to punish the Steir family for filing its discrimination complaint by suing the Steirs in a separate lawsuit which was filed in New York City in June of 2002. The lawsuit falsely alleges that the Steirs infringe the 'Girl Scout' trademark by the use of this term on its web site. GSUSA allege that our web site is diverting its audience away from the Girl Scout's web site and is competing with the Girl Scouts!! We sincerely believe that this new lawsuit by the GSUSA is intended to harass the Steir family and to drive the costs of litigation up in order to force us to end our discrimination lawsuit against the GSUSA. While this will cost us dearly, we will persevere in our attempt to improve the GSUSA's policy on diversity by bringing our message to the public...." IF there is truth in the above excerpt, what is the impact on any site or kid's home page that uses the phrase Girl Scouts but doesn't link to an official web site?

Rooster -- what does it take for a homsexual to be "avowed" to your thinking? just curious, lb