Lythops

Rooster7, given that I am a STRONG supporter of the BSA's current policies regarding girls and gays, my responses to your post may seem strange to you. Point #1: Most of the world has coed Scouting. Not having been associated with any of them directly I can not comment of the level of "teepee creaping" that goes on there, but I am confident they have ways of addressing it. Maybe not, but I personally feel that even with protective policies in place the risk remains far higher than the benefit. That is not the only reason I have for opposing a coed Scouting program for Boy Scouting. I'm pretty pragmatic. Young men just get silly around girls. They lose their brains. I expect them to focus on what we are doing. Girls just seem to be too great a distraction for them to handle. As Scout leaders, we have enough to do just helping the young men in this world. We don't need the added complexity. Point#2: You asked, "If homosexuals are brought in the BSA, do you really believe that young boys are not going to be exposed to their advances?" I assume you are talking about homosexual, adult leaders. In that case, we should all recognize that pedophilia and homosexuality are two different issues. There is no higher incidence of pedophilia among gays than heterosexuals. My morality opposes either, but I understand that linking the two both promotes a bad stereotype and obscures the solution. I oppose their membership based on a desire to promote a different ideal to the boys, not because I am afraid they will improperly approach a young man in the troop. If you are posing the question with a gay young man in mind rather a leader, I would definitely agree with your inference. Other boys would almost certainly be "hit on". I have had some experience trying to manage that situation within the troop and it offers no simple solution. The best interests of the young man and the others in the troop become very difficult to weigh out. In the end, it comes down to this: the young man must recognize the conflicting ideals and be committed to supporting the BSA in order to remain. A clear line must be drawn. Ultimately he has to want to become what the BSA is promoting or it is nothing more than a charade. This has to be explained carefully, compassionately and in detail. I haven't ever booted a boy out, but I have made it clear what the requirements are and presneted a choice. The only option given is to support the BSA demonstrating the loyalty and obedience we profess to teach or make a withdrawal. I have a tremendous amount of respect for a boy that understands his personal ideals conflict with the organization's and values his personal integrity enough to leave the troop. I have no respect for those who use Scouting as a stage to advance their own personal agenda.

let me see if I have all this straight. we all know what Establishment means, and we all know where Separation/etc. comes from. (We do, ya know.) Balogna. The vast majority of Americans today think the concept, even the phrase a wall of separation between Church and State is taken either from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It is a very common misconception. My apologies if I underestimated your understanding, but your comments support my assertion that the argument has shifted center. Original intent is no longer debated, not because the point has been conceded, but largely because of ignorance. Like I said before, the center of the fight has shifted. So I'm not sure if we've been restricted to the Constitution, or to Jefferson. Neither. You will not find that suggestion or a basis for that logic in my post. Ive not restricted the debate to either Jefferson or the Constitution. Im asserting exactly the opposite. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (mentioned by Merlyn, and who was not so coincidentally himself a protg of Jeffersons) were great men, but their views were not always representative of those of their peers. Their greatness is no assurance that all of their opinions will be great. I didn't quote Jefferson because he is a great man (Neither is that likely why Merlyn referenced Madison. Is Merlyn limiting the scope of the argument to Madison? Of course not.). The quotation I offered is the justification and a legal basis for our present government because it was adopted into law, not because Jefferson said it. BTW, the quotation lead to a question and it still stands. It is also erroneous to infer as Merlyn did that since James Madison authored the original bill that his views were reflected in the final law or even the intent of the final legislation. In the case of the first amendment, his draft of the amendment was not the version passed into law. The ensuing revisions and the opinions of those who made them are equally significant. Let's not view one aspect of one of the views of one founding father and ascribe to all the others. They were a complicated lot with both great ability and occasional faults. It was the aggregate of all their strengths and weaknesses that gave birth to the grand, new ideas set down in these stunning documents. It is at the same time important to understand that the great majority of the founding fathers were religious by nature and demonstrated their beliefs in daily life. They held as a common value that the character development religion provides was an essential element that would contribute to the success of the democracy being formed. In the course of that development it was recognized that one religion must not come to dominate others due to state sponsorship and the practice of religion was not to be hindered by government. Those were the relevant big ideas discussed in the matter of government and religion. Religion was not considered a "thing" to be purged from government. AND if anyone decries the lawyers and judges who have made this so - which of course must include SCOTUS - then I will assume that they disagree with the BSA decisions in the Supreme Court and will end up joining Merlyn anyway, who is in fact playing by the rules we have instead of saying that the rules were writ by idiots so we can ignore them. Which borders on anarchy. What? Let me get this straight, are you saying you either have to agree with everything that proceeds from SCOTUS or none at all? Nonsense. I agree Merlyn is playing by the rules. I've expressed no problem with that. My issue is with the corruption of history used to justify the decision. Mr. Black was a bit too active in his judicial review for my taste. No one suggested the law be ignored. That doesnt just border on anarchy, that IS anarchy. I dont think anyone is giving up on appeal for the Balboa Park silliness. The smug tone of Merlyns comment could end up being very short-lived. Public opinion seems to be growing against the more radical decisions generated by the lower courts. That will is a seemingly unstoppable force. Law is currently favoring Merlyns viewpoint, but one of the beautiful elements of democratic rule is the manner in which the will of the people expresses itself. It will be an interesting thing to watch develop.

littlebillie wrote: "You know, all Merlyn is doing is trying to make sure that everybody plays by the rules of the game - i.e., the Constitution. And even some of his loudest detractors have, over time, gudgingly granted that he is on firm legal ground - even though they resent it, and question his real motives." The Constitution? NOT! The arguments collectively championed under the "wall of separation between Church and State" rallying cry is certainly not rooted in the Constitution. In fact, that phrase is not found in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence or the even Bill of Rights. Neither is the modern interpretation of the concept found in writings of that era. Those documents establish a very different principle. The idea that government must be blinded and mute with respect to religion is ridiculous. That was never the intention of the founding fathers. Want an example? Many of these same men engeged in long and hard debate in order to determine whether or not to use public funds for a University that was NOT including the Bible in its requirted reading! At the time, all the other schools did and the failure to do so was greatly troubling to them. My how times have changed. The simple fact of the matter is that President Bushs intentions to build closer ties between religious organizations and government to deliver services is much, much closer to the initial concepts than the wall. While not the first to use the term, soon after he was elected President in the early 1800's Thomas Jefferson was the first to employ the phrase wall of separation in the context of religion and government. He was responding to concerns expressed to him about his religious views by leaders of the Baptist Church. He was defending himself, not asserting a doctrine. His actions as President re-inforce this. While footnoted frequently as the foundation for the concept, an appreciation of the situation and reading the actual text of the letters will reveal anything but the ideal it has been painted to represent. He did not promote the ideas now embedded in the law. The modern concept of a wall between Church and State is a very modern invention (1947, Thank you Mr. Black). It snuck in through the back door by means of the judicial system, not legislative. Terribly ironically, The words written to protect religious freedom and independence are now used to suppress it. The principle of religious freedom listed in the first amendment is a worthy one. Its original intention was to bar the Federal government from developing a state sponsored religion. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, This isnt too hard to understand. Given reason many of the Europeans that immigrated to this country came in the first place, the founding fathers would have been very sensitive to that issue. Through the process of debate, a second idea was added. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Why a stronger challenge can't be given on the basis of this phrase I don't uinderstand. Constitutionally speaking, the laws banning prayer in school, the public display of the Ten Commandments and nativity scenes amaze me. The Balboa Park silliness is yet another. The In God We Trust motto, One nation under God phrase and prayer in legislative bodies will continue to be challenged on Constitutional grounds. It's (I'll use a polite term) poppycock. I know, I know, Ive now attacked Merlyns favorite hobbyhorse. I maintain that despite what was written in plain English, the original meaning has been corrupted and lost. They now have now a different one. Littlebillies comments stand in support of the assertion. The center of the fight has shifted. Special interests groups have hijacked the original intent, adding ideas and taking a phrase out of context. They neither reflect the will of the majority nor the nature of the society that existed when this country was founded. I'm not asserting that the laws of the land should never be changed as society demands. They have been. For good or ill, one of the beauties of the system is that they do. However, I find it to be offensive when someone distorts history to strengthen their argument suggesting that the ideals were something opposite of what they truly were. Don't be snookered by a belief that the only thing desired is that "everybody plays by the rules of the game". While I do not dispute the legal standing of Merlyn's position, I question the position itself. I could not presume to guess his motives, but I can certainly discern the intents of others and see the undesirable resultant affects. One nation under God" is not offensive, not unconstitutional, and not unnecessary, but essential for believers and unbelievers alike. Numerous principles of Constitutional law rest on the foundation belief that in America, God presides - here are three: 1. Our rejection of kings. 2. Our belief in the preeminence of Higher Law, and thus, inalienable rights and a republican form of government to protect those rights. 3. Our belief in equality before the law. Jefferson declared: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty [especially Religious Liberty], and the Pursuit of Happiness [Private Property]." I ask you, what basis under the law do we have for proclaiming our rights if we do not believe in the Creator who endows us with them? Washingtons Farewell Address was required reading to any schoolboy for over a century. It has fallen from notice in recent years. Is it any wonder why? The majority of his warnings are not being heeded. If you haven't read it earnestly, you should. In part, he said this: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect & to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private & public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the Oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure--reason & experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

For the record, I said "unsubstantiated", not "untrue". The world isn't black and white. As effectively as the BSA's detractors are at asserting the contrary, holding a pro-heterosexual viewpoint does not make you anti-homosexual. I'll give the ACLU an equal allowance. Though they may not be pro-religion, I can be open-minded enough to allow them another option other than anti-religion. If they truly are anti-religion, facts should be brought forward to substantiate that position. Fair is fair. The article doesn't really allow for more than two diametrically opposed positions. I don't fully invision the degree of entropy the author suggests, but I see the potential. I agree that an opposition exists working for change, but sense it is more a natural result of the will of a growing segment of the population rather than an organized conspiracy. The assertion that an individual basically relies on their own intellect or tries to understand God's will rings true. People I know do both, but to varying degrees of each. Some really impressive folks have a srongly developed ability to do both at the same time. The steps outlined to create social change are evidenced in history and worthy of note.

Well, other than an unsubstantiated character slur against the ACLU and the misquote I read of the Declaration of Independence, no one has lodged any other specific complaint. Rooster7, turn about is fair play. Why do hold the opinion you do supporting the viewpoints of the article?

Agreed. I'm not a big fan of most of what the ACLU does, but they were misrepresented. If we can agree that the ACLU is not anti-religious we should also be able to agree that the BSA is not anti-homosexual.

"Obviously not all will agree with the thesis statement of this article,..." OK acco40, so you find it to be mostly "rubbish". Care to point out what you consider to be erroneous?

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ideas/030630freedom.html Obviously not all will agree with the thesis statement of this article, but so be it. As Scouters, we have a responsibility to understand what is going on beyond the campfires. Whether we agree with the article or not, we should understand it. The article helps to frame the argument of homosexual membership in Scouting in a clearer light. Other examples of similar issues facing our world are given. Additionally, the same logic and arguments are applicable to the other, now longstanding issues (although, at least for the time being, more settled) confronting Scouting; girls and God.