Merlyn_LeRoy

Illegal covenants aren't binding, like racial and religious restrictions on reselling the property.

I can't help noticing that whenever I bring up the hypothetical case of a youth member stating quite clearly that he's an atheist, people fall all over themselves coming up with "reasons" why he shouldn't be kicked out immediately, as if he's suddenly become mentally incompetent and is no longer able to express his religious views accurately (though apparently his ability was just fine prior to his being an atheist), or there's some sort of vague, invisible "grace period" of a day or a week or forever where he can be an atheist and remain a member until he changes his mind again. THESE are the kinds of rules that tend to get ignored or stretched beyond recognition; arbitrary rules, like 18 vs. 21 merit badges are easy to follow and difficult to justify bending *because* they're arbitrary -- there's no "moral" issue between 18 vs. 21 MBs. But when it comes down to kicking out a kid who's been in the program a few years who suddenly has the "wrong" religious views, the excuses come tumbling out.

Bob, when you said "MLK and Ghandi both followed "civil disobedience"... ... They did not break laws, they chose ways to protest and stay within the laws," you're contradicting yourself. "Civil disobedience" involves very publically breaking laws that are seen as unfair, in order to be arrested and demonstrate how unfair those laws are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government, or of an occupying power, without resorting to physical violence. MLK quite clearly knew he was breaking the law as he wrote in his "letter from Birmingham jail": http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/popular_requests/frequentdocs/birmingham.pdf ... You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: 'How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?' The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.' ...

It's from the bsalegal.org blawg, reprinting an editorial from Investor's Business Daily: http://www.bsalegal.org/bsa-legal-blawg-200.asp?i=103 Line #2 is the author of the (unsigned) editorial speaking, though the BSA legal blawg consistently only puts up stories that paint them in a good light, so they appear to approve of that editorial to some extent. In my opinion, the BSA tacitly approves of other people making the "gays = predators" argument on their behalf; they didn't use it in court because it's a bad legal argument. But soon after Bob Mazzuca was announced as CEO, he was asked about the gay issue and his answer was about gays as predators. I think that interview with Mazzuca is here, but I can't hear the sound so I'm not sure if it's the one I saw before: http://cbs11tv.com/video/?id=21240@ktvt.dayport.com

NJCubScouter writes: But at least that book [Go Dog Go] has no religious (or irreligious) overtones that I ever discovered in years of reading and listening to it. Like many hidden satanic messages, you have to read it backwards.

So Ed, when BSA officials say that the BSA *is* a religious organization, they're wrong?

skeptic writes: It seems to me that you have, as part of your agenda, the idea that everybody in the BSA should abide by your understanding of how membership requirements should be administered. Not my idea. The BSA's idea. What they have testified under oath in court. What they write on their official legal website. Why belong to an organization that has "standards" if those standards aren't being followed? Your constant harping on the idea that a youth's statement made from a still maturing mind set should immediately be a reason to "kick them out" simply proves to me how narrow your mind is. Again, not my mind. The BSA's mind. They've said six-year-olds can't join if they're atheists. Your argument is with the BSA, not me. I'm just asking why so many BSA supporters refuse to enforce their own organization's requirements. Of course I realize that you will have your usual flippant comeback that our allowing gray areas in our interpretations is being hypocritical. I'm not the one who created the BSA black & white membership requirements. Nike, if there's some question whether a member meets the membership requirements, whether it's belief in a god or being under 18, why not ask them "do you believe in a god" or "are you under 18"?

The Jehovah's Witness remark sounds like some scoutleaders think that scouts need to pledge allegiance to the flag in order to be members, and any JW who refuses on religious grounds to pledge should be kicked out. It also wouldn't surprise me if JW children wouldn't distinguish between pledging allegiance vs. merely reciting it to show you know the words, and refuse to recite it. This didn't read like he was putting random kids on the spot; he'd heard that one of his scouts didn't meet the membership requirements. I don't think it's unreasonable to simply ask if he really meets the requirements or not.

Like I said, public money for a supposedly "private" club.

Lisabob writes: And if I did I would personally do my best to keep my kid and all those whom I counsel, away from such an individual. Religious witch hunts aren't going to help anybody and they can certainly hurt plenty of people. How is checking if someone meets membership requirements a "witch hunt"? Is it also a chronological witch hunt to ask when they turn 18? By the way, asking someone's age is not nearly equivalent to asking their religious beliefs. While both might be considered in poor taste in many circles, the first is fairly innocuous; the second is a deeply personal matter. But if you join an organization that has both age and religious requirements, how is asking if a person meets the requirements poor taste? I can see it as poor taste if these requirements didn't exist, but they do. Is it in poor taste to make sure the presidential candidates meet the constitutional requirements for office? Both McCain and Obama have had people speculating about whether they actually meet the natural-born US citizen requirement, and in 2000 there were lawsuits over whether Cheney was a resident of Wyoming or Texas, because if he was legally considered to reside in Texas, both he and Bush could not get Texas' electoral votes, and Lieberman could be the legal vice-president. Now, certainly questions like these can be handled well or handled badly, but it doesn't even make sense to forbid people from even inquiring if someone meets them or not. Is it somehow better to throw someone out at their BOR after they've put in hours of work finishing their Eagle project?

OK J-in-KC, you wouldn't ask "because he's a kid." That doesn't really answer anything (I don't see anything wrong with asking someone, even a kid, whether they believe in a god or not, particularly if it's pertinent to whether they meet membership requirements). This is exactly why I describe such nonsense as dancing around the issue. And Beavah, I understand what happens because people do the same thing in this forum. They insist that atheists be kicked out, yet most of them are too spineless to enforce the BSA's membership requirements when faced with a real kid actually being rejected "because he's a kid." And the BSA pretends to teach ethics and honesty? Ha!

Those first two statements don't answer whether the youth believes in a god at the moment or not; as with my "how old are you" example, why don't you just ask? Why shy away from a direct question about a membership requirement?

Are you saying the standard for adults is different from the standard for youth? The BSA's legal website doesn't appear to make such fine distinctions. I'd say the standard for youth is also pretty clear, and it's also pretty clear that a lot of people aren't willing to enforce it. As for your other rather opaque remarks, if your point is that young people's opinions are in flux, I agree, which isn't an argument in favor of rigid religious requirements. I've raised a son who is now 24, and I've never been a "direct contact youth-serving leader". (moved apostrophe)(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

But I do understand it, Beavah. The BSA insists that atheists be kicked out, but many of the membership don't want to actually do that. They also like telling themselves that scouting is for all boys, and that the ones being kicked out are really rejecting the BSA, not the reverse (just as Jews kicked themselves out of Restricted clubs, instead of being excluded for being Jews). All the bizarre rationalizations for not asking straightforward questions related directly to membership requirements only shows how stupid, arbitrary, and spottily enforced they are.

John-in-KC, what is so "Spanish Inquisition"-ish about asking a simple question that's a membership requirement? Unless you're comparing the BSA to the inquisition (or only if they actually enforce their membership standards). Also John, suppose the scout tells you he doesn't believe in a god, but doesn't leave quietly, as you seem to be suggesting he do. Do you kick him out?

Just compare all the back & forth about someone rumored to be "agnostic", versus someone rumored to be 18 or older. Do you ask him "how old are you?" or do you dance around it and try to get to know him and hope he mentions how old he is at some random time? It'd be more like: Andy, I've heard that one of our Boy Scouts is already 18. What should I do? Andy: Ask him how old he is! But when it comes to a straightforward question like "do you believe in a god?", people run away from the question while repeating the mantra "scouting is FOR ALL BOYS!"

Oh sure there's dancing, SSScout. They're trying hard not to enforce the BSA's religious requirements by not looking too hard.

Oh, I have dictionaries GW, and those are fairly good definitions; but if you'll read Ask Andy (and bsalegal.org), you'll see they aren't using those definitions. There's nothing in the BSA's actual requirements that would exclude an agnostic theist, but they're assuming that all agnostics don't believe in any gods, which is not something that can be assumed. Maybe the BSA could use your dictionary.

Hey, more dancing around the atheist issue. It's official policy, except when ignored. Gold Winger, you might want to look up definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic".

http://netcommish.com/AskAndy144.asp A lot of dancing around the atheist issue, plus as a bonus, after talking about how the BSA excludes atheists (and more dancing around the issue of Jehovah's Witnesses not taking the pledge of allegiance), comes the usual false refrain that "Scouting is FOR ALL BOYS". Maybe the ALL CAPS is supposed to make people forget the BSA's policy of which boys to keep out.

Well Chug, the SA in the UK is similar to the BSA in that it claims to be a private organization while gladly taking public money (such as 1.5 million pounds for their jamboree), but at the same time excluding people who don't have the "right" opinions, either political or religious.

Ah, say I'm incorrect and I backtracked, and then refuse to discuss it when I call you on it. Gotcha.

Acco40, Sammy Davis Jr. converted to Judaism, so I don't know what your point was with him. I view being Jewish (or Catholic) as generally looking at what criteria those religions use to determine membership. Merlyn, I disagree with your last statement. One born to a Catholic mother (or Jewish mother) could be Islamic, Protestant or many other religions. Of course -- but when they are born, children of a Jewish mother are considered Jews, and infants baptised in a Catholic church are considered Catholics, even though infants are clearly too young to have opinions of the creeds of these religions.

I still don't see what you're getting at, NJ. Someone born of a Jewish mother is considered a member of the Jewish religion, just as a baby baptised in a Catholic church is considered Catholic. Belief in a god isn't a requirement in either case.

NJCubScouter writes: In the other thread, Merlyn made a statement, it was incorrect, I pointed out how it was incorrect, he then backtracked and said that he had made a different statement. What statement did I make that was incorrect? And what statement of mine backtracked?