Peregrinator

With what I've seen from Trail Life USA, I can say that as a Catholic I would not want my sons to join. It seems like it is basically a Protestant organization. Good question. Unfortunately I can't give you an answer that you couldn't find yourself by Googling.

With what I've seen from Trail Life USA, I can say that as a Catholic I would not want my sons to join. It seems like it is basically a Protestant organization.

The BSA has an exclusive right to "scout" and "scouting" not because it has those terms trademarked - BadenP is right that they are likely un-trademarkable - but because of their Congressional charter. Google "Wrenn v BSA" for details. The issue with "Hacker Scouts" is that they are a youth organization that has "scouts" in its name, even though they are not a "scouting" organization by any stretch of the imagination.

In truth, no, equal rights for all citizens is not "conservative" -- at least not how that term was understood prior to the 20th century and in countries other than the USA. So yes, equal rights are very much a "liberal" issue. But that's irrelevant to the topic of this thread since no one's rights are being denied.

I highly doubt that Zimmerman shot the Trayvon Martin because he was black. I think folks are forgetting a few things and not thinking analytically. One, as jblake47 and others have tried to point out - jury trials such as these do not have an objective to prove someone innocent. The judges direction to the jury was to determine if George Zimmerman acted in self-defense or in legalese - if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force and that a person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. The jury was also instructed to judge Zimmerman by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used, that the danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. There was conflicting testimony - there was very different testimony by several witnesses stating who was the aggressor. So, for me - concluding that there was reasonable doubt was the correct verdict. That doesn't mean that Zimmerman acted properly. Also, I believe the jury was 100% female, as was the Circuit judge and no one is claiming gender issues? (It was not 100% white as some have claimed. Five where white and one Hispanic.) The fact that Trayvon Martin did not simply go home or that Zimmerman should have stayed in his car or not followed Martin are irrelevant to the case at hand. It did not matter how the confrontation came to be - if Zimmerman was profiling, if Martin was looking for a fight - it only mattered that when Zimmerman fired a bullet through Trayvon's heart, was the appearance of danger so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person believe that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force? I do pretty much agree that Zimmerman acted improperly, but not illegally. It would have been better for all concerned, if he had stayed in his vehicle. That said, it's easy to say that in hindsight, and not living in a neighborhood that has been burglarized several times. packsaddle, the instructions to the jury contained a lot of stuff that simply did not apply to the case. SYG is part of the standard jury instruction where the defendant claims self-defense. See the addendum near the bottom of the following article: http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/14/sorry-the-zimmerman-case-still-has-nothi Hope this helps.

stand your ground Except this case had nothing to do with Florida's "stand your ground" law ... it's hard to retreat from a threat when someone is beating you to a pulp and smashing your head against the pavement.

The judge did rule that the jury could consider the lesser charge of manslaughter.

DWise1, I am having some difficulty with what you wrote. In one section, you write that you are strongly agnostic (I'm not sure one can apply the adjective "strongly" to agnosticism, but that is another matter), but then you write that you are an atheist. Would you mind explaining how that is not a contradiction?

@st0ut717 - yes, I do. I believe the first paragraph in my message above was initially a quote from someone else.

"Even though they have opened up programs to a wider range of members (eg, Tiger Cubs) and even though that segment of the population is still growing, membership is still shrinking." Scouts Canada is also experiencing a membership decline despite being open and inclusive. So I'm not sure that one can conclude that the BSA's membership decline is because of BSA discrimination. (I don't think one can conclude anything in the other direction either, by the way -- Scouts Canada has lost 50% of its membership since 1998, but it had been declining for several years before that.)

" Meanwhile in the UK, they've also allowed gays and their membership is growing so fast they have to limit membership due to a shortage of adult leaders. Post hoc. " Meanwhile, in Canada: http://www.scoutscan.com/issues/membershipstats.html I don't have statistics handy for the UK Scout Association. It would be interesting to see them, especially if they're broken out by section. (Note that I'm not claiming the stats say that allowing homosexuals results in a decline in membership. But it clearly doesn't turn an existing decline around.)

I think some people feel you're shoving it in their face if you make the offer.

I believe the property was always owned by the city but the BSA built the Council HQ there at the city's behest. This was actually a settlement the city reached with the Council a while ago, but the Councilman whose district the building is in kept blocking the deal out of spite.

Here's a question - to what extent do we do what the kids want to do instead of what they should do?

"Why would someone write a "scholarly" article about a particular person's sexual orientation?" How about a biography or something like that. You know, something better than "He had gay friends, wore a mustache, and was well-groomed -- therefore gay." I did not say that the BSA wasn't honoring Watson. I was noting that in honoring him they were not honoring him for his personal opinions (such as melanin affecting sex drive, whites being smarter than Africans, etc.).

"George Takei came out of the closet in 1995" ... actually, it wasn't until 2005. I guess those to whom Takei's sexuality was an open secret were disappointed when he did not speak out against the Dale decision.

Where can one find out more about Langston Hughes' supposed homosexuality? Scholarly articles and the like, I mean. As far as Watson is concerned, do you think that the BSA's naming of a subcamp after him indicates some sort of approval or even tolerance for his views? Because he's said quite a few strange and/or silly things that the BSA would probably not want to be associated with.

Baden-Powell thought that the BSA was too bureaucratic ... in 1912.

It is typical for employees of Catholic schools to have morality clauses in their contracts. How exactly would being open about her relationship have helped? She likely never would have been hired in the first place.

No, it was because they made that disagreement part of the religious award.

"However, in the scenario, at that time, if any choice is made at all there is some kind of value inequality that has been applied" - not necessarily. It could well be a case of "which one can I save?" or "which one is likely to survive?" ... there is not necessarily a judgment about the "value" of the life to be saved at all.

Atheists like myself still obey the scout oath and law. The scout oath says: On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country I do my best. My best is that I do not believe there is a God. I think it is a children's story made up to put priests in power by selling people comforting myths and legends. The best I can do is my duty to my country. I pay my taxes. I vote. And I speak out. I volunteer for things. Etc. Likewise, I also obey the Scout Law: A Scout is reverent. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others. I am faithful in my religious duties. My religious duties are to wait for solid evidence of an afterlife or supreme being before I believe in one. In the meantime, I spend my time respecting the beliefs of others. Our scout unit has a chaplain. As the unit leader, I ask him to give prayers before eating or at the end of the meeting. I bow my head and remove my hat during prayers. In fact, sometimes I am the one leading the prayers when he is not there. I usually do the Great Scouter of all Scouts prayer, or the Philmont prayer. You religious guys seem to like those, and it seems courteous, kind, and friendly to fulfill my expected role in those areas. I never speak about religion to boys in the unit. I assume the parents and the fundamentalist church that hired me to lead this unit without asking my religious background would not appreciate me evangelizing for atheism. So, I don't speak of it, and I tell my son to not speak of it to scouting friends. Should I be kicked out? I don't think so. Should I be allowed to be an atheist openly? Yes. Would I do so openly? No. I would remain secretive about it and continue to lie to people about my religion. I wish I could be trustworthy on the topic, but BSA and the COR's beliefs have placed me in the difficult position of having to lie to maintain my membership. As I teach my sons, "A Scout Is Trustworthy" does not mean that he outs himself as a Jew to Nazis. It just means people can rely on you. So far, this unit has relied on me, and I have delivered. Without me, this unit dies. I am what holds it together. I wish religion would go away from the world. I think it is nonsense. But, that will never happen, so I work within the confines that those who still need it require, and it is a sacrifice on my part that you who despise me will never understand or appreciate. Meanwhile, all around me I listen to people tell me about how atheists cannot be good people, because apparently everyone will murder and steal without religion. I am a black man before MLK came along in a way. I'm OK with it. One day, religion will start to fizzle as we continue to advance technologically. Just like in Europe. For now, this is us, and I am one of us, so I do my job. I'm the best man for it. If you lie, then you are not obedient to the Scout Law, at least not as our Founder understood it. "If a scout were to break his honour by telling a lie, or by not carrying out an order exactly when trusted on his honour to do so, he would cease to be a scout, and must hand over his scout badge and never be allowed to wear it again."

Tschitqui, thank you for your calm and reasoned response!

No sir - I've not heard of him