DWise1_AOL

Sorry, but I don't see where you get that interpretation. You read the next sentence, but have you taken the time to read the entire chapter? Galatians Ch. 5. My electronic copy is from King James. As you read Galatians 5, you will notice that Paul keeps referring to "the law". Do you know what "the law" refers to? Do you even have any idea? Oh, that's right! You're the one who doesn't want anybody to know what words mean. You're the one who wants everyone to operate in ignorance. That talk of circumcision should have been a clue. This letter was written early in Christian history at a time when Christianity had been a Jewish religion and now Gentiles were joining. As a result, there was a controversy over whether the Gentile Christians would also have to be Jews and follow the Law, which is Mosaic Law as given in the Torah, including the practice of circumcision. Obviously, through straightforward reading of Galatians, "law" refers to Mosaic Law which Jews were required to follow and which Paul described as a prison from which Christ had freed them. The dichotomy that we see throughout Galatians is between living in and following the Spirit through faith or following the flesh through observance of Mosaic Law. Straightforward reading also shows that the Fruit of the Spirit can only be gained through faith in Christ and by walking and living in the Spirit. So please tell us who has faith in Christ and walks and lives in the Spirit? Observant Jews? No. Non-observant Jews? No. Muslims? No. Hindus? No. The growing numbers of the unchurched, which includes atheists, agnostics, followers of no religion, and those who are just not interested in religious matters? No. Who else but a Christian could possibly qualify as having faith in Christ. And wouldn't it only be a sub-set of Christian denominations that practice walking and living in the Spirit? I had concluded earlier (*** DISCLAIMER: Since this is a quotation, it has not been altered. Thus it includes the terminology that Eagledad has hypocritically objected to. ***): To me, straightforward reading of Galatians supports my position. I cannot even begin to imagine how one could twist it to agree with your position. Of course, it is entirely possible that there is a denominational theology that would support your position. If there is no other ultimate truth, Christians will interpret that Bible in any possible way that is needed for it to support their theology. And the massive splintering of Protestant Christianity and their myriad doctrines offers a clue how far they will take it. All I know is the interpretation that was given to me by fundamentalists and what I read in a straightforward manner in Galatians. Interestingly, Galatians appears to also be the source of the doctrine that Christians are not subject to the Law and has led to their practice of picking and choosing which laws to follow.

Why not? True, "Fruit of the Spirit" is the proper term, but you have not called it anything but "Fruits". In every single one of your posts in this topic you have repeatedly and persistently called it "Fruits of the Spirit." I cannot find a single instance where you yourself have used the proper term, but instead always called it "Fruits of the Spirit." In fact, in the very same message, to which I'm responding now, in which you chastise me for having followed your lead by called them "Fruits of the Spirit" (which, as I recall, I had even copy-and-pasted from your own message), you just called them "Fruits of the Spirit" yet again! In fact, I did use the proper term, "Fruit of the Spirit", when I first responded to your question, "What did you think of the Fruits of the Spirit?", whereas you never have used the proper term here. That is very hypocritical of you. Have you ever read the Gospels? Did you happen to notice what Jesus thought of hypocrites? You should also review Jesus' teachings instead of dwelling on Paul so much: You quite obviously do not. Please note that I used the word "not" there, which indicates the negative. For some reason, that seems to be an exceptionally difficult concept for you to comprehend. BTW, I responded to your question about what I thought of Fruit of the Spirit. What do you think of James Madison's A Memorial and Remonstrance? Again, I have it posted at http://dwise1.net/rel_lib/memorial.html, but with Googoe you could find many other copies of it on-line. Since Madison wrote it a few years before drafting the First Amendment, it provides us with the insight to the original intent of the Establishment Clause. Important reading for every American.

I came across that in my fundamentalist Christian training as a kind of fellow traveller. And it has come up a number of times in on-line discussions. Yes, they are ideal qualities as are the qualities of the Scout Law, but the comparison seems to end there. The qualities in the Scout Law are ideals to which we are aspire, but in the theology that I was taught and which was the context of the other on-line discussions, the Fruit of the Spirit is not something that we can aspire to but rather is something that we acquire through the Spirit. IOW, the qualities in the Scout Law are standards that we are to work towards acquiring, whereas the qualities of the Fruit of the Spirit are just something that's supposed to happen to Christians. Now, the story may well be different in other of the myriad forms of Christian theology, but that was what I was taught and have always heard. It was the same story with morality, for which I can find no place in Christian theology and which fundamentalists have told me is supposed to just happen when you're saved -- needless to say, I'm not buying that, but that's their story and they're sticking with it. And it turns out that this "it's supposed to just happen" view of the Fruit of the Spirit has played a role in many Christian youth eventually leaving the faith and even religion altogether. Various conservative Christian youth ministries and conservative polls arrive at figures of 65% to 80% of young people raised in the conservative Christian faiths (including fundamentalists and evangelicals) losing their faith by the time they reach young adulthood with many if not most of them leaving religion altogether. In testimonials on ex-Christian forums, I have seen the issue of the Fruit of the Spirit raised a number of times, wherein the individual could not understand why it wasn't working for him/her, leading to uncertainty and insecurity about actually being saved, etc, which then led to other problems. It's like I keep trying to get creationists to understand, that they need to be careful what they teach their kids because their kids will take it seriously and will come back to them when they discover that it doesn't work. But was Paul right about what the Fruit of the Spirit was? After all, he was writing that when Christianity was just starting out and was listing ideals, whereas we have had nearly two millennia of practical real-world observations of Christianity in action. And in that time, what fruits have we found? Bigotry, intolerance, oppression, tyranny, hypocrisy, willful ignorance (especially prevalent in "creation science"), just to name a few. I could ask whether, according to Christian doctrine, a good tree can bring forth evil fruit? But that would just be more pearls cast before swine.

My minister did talk to me about my tendency to cast pearls before swine. Though he was referring to BSA at the time. No, I'm not the one who's confused: Many more than just a few. I was just responding to what you had posted. And, like in responding to a Gish Gallop, I had a lot to explain to you. Again with casting pearls before swine! FYI, the "Gish Gallop" was the name given to a favored debating trick^H^H^H^H^Hactic of creationist Dr. Duane Gish. Within a couple minutes he would rapidly rattle off several utterly false and deceptive claims to which his opponent could not possibly respond to effectively within the debate format (10 to 20 minutes to respond) because a proper response would easily take a few hours. And since a written debate precludes use of the Gish Gallop, most creationists will absolutely refuse a written debate.

Could be some kind of incompatibility between the forum software and your browser. I now have little problem using Chrome under Windows 7. Though that might also depend on what kind of a mood the forum software is in. Chrome is free, BTW.

I agree. Plus it can be temperamental, apparently depending on the health of the forum software itself. I actually had the experience of trying to edit what I had written in the middle of a line and the editor kept throwing me back to the end of the line. Very frustrating and difficult to do anything constructive. It seems to be working better now, FWIW. So instead of using the built-in editor, use your own favorite text editor and then copy-and-paste from it into the forum. Very simple and easy to do. Just start entry of a comment or post and instead of typing the message you paste from your favorite text editor. That's been my SOP for decades. I was just responding to what you had posted. If you hadn't tossed in all that extraneous stuff about big sticks and claims about pre-Civil War US politics, my response would have been much shorter. Well, can you think of even one such god? BTW, I really do recommend reading James Madison's A Memorial and Remonstrance. I posted it at http://dwise1.net/rel_lib/memorial.html or you could Google for other postings. Since Madison wrote it a few years before drafting the First Amendment, it provides us with the original intent of the Establishment Clause. Important reading.

Yes, that is true. A monolithic society always has it easier. But we are not a monolithic society. So what's your solution to that? Have somebody "with the biggest stick" force a single set of rules on all segments of society? Well, yes, throughout history the "biggest stick" approach has been demonstrated to work for a time. Prussia in the German Empire (das Zweite Reich), the British Army in India, Hitler in dem Dritten Reich, a procession of leaders in the Soviet Union, Tito in Yugoslavia, Sadam Hussein in Iraq, countless theocracies with their own versions of inquisitions. Even when done with brute force and ruthless repression, they maintained peace and order within their realms, keeping inter-tribal rivalies and animosity in check, such that it would often erupt violently once that strong "with the biggest stick" was no longer there. What you appear to be proposing is that we need that "biggest stick" to be wielded by your god in order to force everyone's compliance to one set of rules. Is that what you are proposing? A theocratic dictatorship to repress all those who are not among the theologic "chosen"? You appear to want that, but how much will you still want it when it's somebody else's theology that's in charge and you are among the oppressed? Well, as it turns out there is one set of rules in this country which I have solemnly sworn to protect and defend when I enlisted and reenlisted, so about seven times: The Constitution of the United States of America. It is not perfect, but it does provide the framework for this country to exist and to function with a diverse population. Part of the secret of letting it work is for us to remember that we are Americans first and whatever else second. Just as in Scouting we must place Scouting first and our own theology after that. If we do not keep those priorities straight, then we will end up trying to use America and Scouting to serve our own political and religious agendae, to the detriment of all. Placing religion and religious differences above country and society is a proven way to splinter a pluralistic society and generate acrimony, strife, and violence, especially if one group gains political advantage over the rest (eg, Protestants vs Catholics in Ireland, Sunis vs Shites throughout the Middle East).

What does that mean? Even Google doesn't recognize that word. That was 50 years ago. Both I and my religious views have matured since then. I still have a copy of an interesting brochure that was posted at our church. It was about a book, Stupid Ways, Smart Ways, to Think about God, by Rabbi Jack Bemporad and Michael Shevack. They point out that most people have childish ideas about God because those ideas were formed in their childhood; since most people do not think about and challenge their beliefs as they themselves mature, their beliefs about God never mature and thus remain childish. I have found it more common for Christians to keep their beliefs from maturing and less common for atheists. In self-defense against personal attacks from Christians atheists have to think about and present their beliefs, whereas too many Christians just take theirs for granted.

From the Bylaws of the BSA, POLICIES, Section 1 immediately following the DRP: Your position was firmly based on BSA Bylaws. And yet again BSA is in violation. Doesn't help to know that, does it?

Conforming to BSA's officially pubished policies is one thing. Conforming to BSA's flagrant violations of its own rules is another. I'm not sure where the leaders you mention reside. BTW, I was "outed" by a BSA National spy on CompuServe, so you might want to consider COMSEC.

sailingpj, at bsa-discrimination.org's page, http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/lambert.html, they state: They may well have overstated a few things there, but a push to impose a particular sectarian interpretation is clear. In 1985 when the "Supreme Being" wording caused the expulsion of Life Scout Paul Trout, BSA backed down when faced with hundreds of letters of protest and CSE Ben Love explicitly declared that wording a "mistake". Six years while still under Ben Love, that "mistake" was being enforced again to expel non-theists and thousands of letters of protest, as well as objections raised by national churches (OK, by the UUA, which BSA then unilaterally kicked out). I think that site is on-track with what BSA's goal appears to be, to become a Christian organization, even with nominal acceptance of Jews and Muslims. In the meantime, they still have to placate their donors who have nondiscrimination policies, so they parade their officially published rules while in private they violate those rules completely. While not a pagan myself, I do realize that there is a range of beliefs in that faith. OK, so I do appreciate the concerns of old-school Unitarians when pagans were welcomed into our big tent, much the same misgiving they had about merging with the Universalists. I also followed the communications of a UU who was involved with the Crescent and Hart religious award. They presented their application to BSA and BSA started adding on one new requirement after another, none of which had ever been required of any other religious award. And each and every new requirement was not only satisfied but exceeded. After many iterations, the ante finally got upped to having 25 units chartered, which the pagans easily did. At that point, they were flat out informed that their religious award would never be accepted. And the reason given was that the Baptists didn't want the Wiccans in BSA. The BSA's early 1990's PR proclamations were "our values are not for sale!". They even took out a full-page ad in the local newspaper, where the Randall trial was in progress. The hypocrisy of that ad was astounding, because they admitted in court that they had indeed sold their values, to the Mormon Church. And then with respect to pagans, they sold out their values to the Baptists. In the meantime, Buddhists are atheists. The goal in Buddhism is to gain Enlightenment and the Buddha taught against believing in the gods, because that would only hold you back from Enlightenment. Most Buddhists would not self-identify as atheists, but only because that term sounds too materialistic for them. When I asked my minister about Buddhists speaking out on the matter, he told me that the Buddhists he talked with just wanted to keep a low profile to avoid being noticed by BSA. Of course, that was in the 1990's. This thread is seeking to learn what has changed since then. No information has been presented yet.

Well, if you post BS you shouldn't act surprised when you get called on it. Like your kangaroo analogy, which stinks of the BSA BS lie of "we're not excluding anybody, but rather they are excluding themselves." But at least you now appear to be trying to actually discuss.

Khaliela, your story is a new low, even for BSA. I won't even try to guess the reason they gave you, because they never give the reason. All they say is "you do not meet the high standards of Scouting". But being told personally that it was because you're not Christian? Did you seek reinstatement within BSA? Your letter should have told you that you have the right to have your case reviewed. That review would have gone up to Regional and even to National. Yes, it's rather like the old Soviet system of government where the review board just rubber-stamps what National hands them, but you should have at least been able to go above Council. And National supported expelling you for not being Christian? They're like the legendary bad naval officer whose fitrep stated that he had hit rock-bottom and has started to dig.

It wasn't a local ambush, but rather it came straight down from National. No professional in BSA does anything without orders from National. DEs have standing orders to report all contacts up the chain and I'm sure that those orders do not stop there. What happened in my case was that BSA had a spy planted in the Scouting Forum on CompuServe who printed out all "suspicious" postings and passed them up to National. Believe it or not, BSA presented those printouts as evidence in federal court in Chicago for the trial of Welsh v BSA. My very first message posted there was among those printouts marked in big red letters, "Atheist leader!" I was called to testify in that trial, where I testified that I subscribe to the DRP and "Duty to God" in good conscience and cannot find anything in officially published BSA policy that would require the exclusion of an atheist. The details and sequence of events are in my timeline at http://dwise1.net/scouting/timeline.txt ; I've not published it yet, so this is the only link to it. The reason I was on that forum on CompuServe was that the Randall case had hit the local news. When I signed on as an adult leader a couple years prior, I was at first taken aback by the blatantly Judeo-Christian language of a surface reading of the DRP, language which directly conflicted with the "absolutely nonsectarian" statement, so I researched into the matter. What I found in official BSA publications informed me that despite a surface reading a strictly Judeo-Christian interpretation was not required. I found that I, as an atheist (for 50 years now), could indeed sign the DRP and say the Oath and Law in good conscience. From that point on, the matter was settled. But then the Randall story came out, which told me that something was very wrong. So I sought out more information of what was going on. Since the public statements of BSA (including the non-rule, "belief in Supreme Being") were completely contrary to BSA policy, I knew that BSA would not be the source of truthful information. Besides, there was BSA's actions in the Randall case. The boys in Cub Scouts raised questions about "Duty to God", the pack leaders reported it to BSA and the first indication the parents had of any trouble was the letter from BSA expelling the boys from Scouting (OK, a den leader called them before that, but it was a confused conversation that didn't impart any information). After that, BSA blocked all the parents' efforts to resolve the problem and even told the father to file a lawsuit, which he did and he won, though it was overturned by the state supreme court just as the boys had earned their Eagles. That informed me that BSA would strike without warning and would allow no recourse, so I needed to go on the record for the truth. It was at that trial that I learned about Unitarian Universalism and discovered that I had been a UU for most of my life (a common experience among UUs) and met our minister who later certified to BSA in writing that I do perform my "Duty to God" in accordance with UU teachings, which BSA chose to willfully ignore in violation of their own rules. In the Welsh case, he went to recruitment night to sign up with his son for Tiger Cubs, communicated misgivings about the language of the DRP and the professional there barred them from joining. The Tiger Cub leader was shocked at what had just happened, let slip that her beliefs were the same as his, and she was also summarily expelled on the spot. In the Randall case, a Jewish Cubmaster in neighboring Los Angeles County wrote to them praising them for standing up for what they believe. Two uniformed BSA professionals (dare I call them "brown shirts"?) confronted him at his work place in front of his co-workers and started interrogating him about his personal religious beliefs. When he told them that his beliefs were none of their business, in complete accordance with BSA policy, they handed him his letter of expulsion and left. I later heard from Jim Randall (one of our pack's boys invited his sons to join our pack) of an LA pack who lost its Cubmaster because of religious discrimination, so the pack appointed a new Cubmaster who every parent knew was gay and that the whole pack laughed at how idiotic BSA was being; I don't know whether that was the same pack. BSA religious discrimination is a long and sordid story.

Well, what is your interpretation of the DRP? In the absolutely nonsectarian manner that is required by the rest of BSA's officially published policy (see the interpretive statement in the Advancement Guidelines, the Reaffirmation of Duty to God from 1991, and the official statements of the Relationships Division from 1985 and 1994), or in a definitely sectarian manner as is used by supporters of BSA religious discrimination?

Moosetraker: My experience was not as a youth, but rather as an adult leader. The problem with going through the courts is that you need to find a specific law to base your case on. The Welsh case was based on the federal Civil Rights Act, as I recall, which required him to have BSA found as a place of entertainment or something like that. Because of that, a narrow definition would invalidate the case. It appears that in the case of the Randall trial which was based on the Unruh Act, the same problem applied. It appears that there is no law that requires a private organization to actually adhere to its own self-appointed rules and regulations. In all court cases, BSA won the overall case on technicalities. But they were still found to discriminate. I was a leader. I took a pack that was barely surviving and I organized it into a viable unit. Under my leadership, I insisted that each and every adult leader enroll in every training opportunity that was available to us; as a US Navy Chief Petty Officer, I could expect no less of those under my command. We went from barely surviving to being 100% in all aspects. Although we were a public school unit, we instituted a year-round program. When I was expelled, I informed a den leader that according to BSA my mere presence would irreparably disrupt the pack, her immediate reaction was, "But under your leadership we FLOURISHED!". Under my leadership, we repeatedly informed the pack at large of the religious emblem awards programs and actively promoted it, which was completely in accordance with my own personal religious values that calls for everybody to know everything they can possibly know about their own religious traditions. When I took command, our pack did not have any Webelos program and it had merged the Tiger Cubs into the Wolf den, which had devastating effects on that den leader. I established our pack's Webelos program, taking command of it myself directly; that was only natural, since my best memories from my own youth as a Scout was from Boy Scouts. I also established a Tiger Cub program in accordance with BSA standards. At all the district meetings I attended, our pack was singled out as a success story. At a point, the Cubmaster duties had been passed on to a couple. We were able to find a straw leader for Webelos, but he could not perform those duties because of his commitments to the YMCA Indian Guides program, so I performed the duties of a Webelos den leader, but always in accompaniment of at least two parents who were also officially registered as Members of Committee; my own presence was sanctioned by my younger son being in the den. During all this time, I attended the district roundtable each and every month, first representing the pack and then later representing the troop that my sons were in. When I was attending to my duties with the pack, without my knowledge my pack leadership and our CO rep repeatedly petitioned BSA for my reinstatement. Later when I was representing our troop at the monthly roundtable meetings, the entire district volunteer leadership, without my knowledge, staged a "palace coup" demanding a resolution to my situation. As usual, the BSA professionals made promises to them that they then immediately broke; it' called "smiling them out the door", a practice that BSA is very practiced at. For details, refer to my timeline file at http://dwise1.net/scouting/timeline.txt . The lesson to be learned is to keep BSA as far away from your unit as is possible. The presence of this atheist never ever disrupted any unit, but rather the presence of BSA was extremely disruptive.

Bullshit! Officially published BSA policy says that your own religious standards do not apply to others not of the same tradition. What part of that do you not understand? Bullshit! Your very refusal to discuss the various possible definitions indicate your desire to force one particular highly sectarian definition. You very clearly only want to allow a narrowly CHRISTIAN definition to that term. Hardly "absolutely nonsectarian" at all. What part of that do you not understand? Because it is not specific enough. You can just mouth meaningless mumble-jumble that others can misinterpret. Are you at all familiar with Monty Python's Flying Circus? Nudge-nudge, wink-wink? In one skit, Eric Idle approaches another character (Michael Palin?) and intimates whether his wife engages in kinky sex though all entire through inuendo: "Does your wife? Does your wife? You know ... nudge, nudge, wink, wink, know what I mean, know what I mean?" Well, that was BSA attorneys' approach in the Randall trial. I was subpoened for that one, I was. At one point, the BSA attorney asked me about "God". Well, I was about my wits, I was, Gov'ner. I asked him what he meant by that, I did, Gov'ner. I said that I was confused by his question and I needed to know the official BSA definition of "God" that he was applying, I did, Gov'ner. I saw the plaintiff attorneys wake up just then, though sadly too late. I also saw the BSA defendent attorney back-pedel furiously to get himself out of that quagmire, he did, Gov'ner, glorious though it was to witness. BSA's argument there is straight out of Monty Python. "What is 'God'? Well, we don't define nor interpret that, but we all know what that means, ... nudge, nudge, wink, wink, know what I mean, know what I mean? ... etc." Ad infinitum, ad nauseum. To give you a direct answer, a straight "English answer" would need to be given fully. The "usual English understanding of God" is far to nebulous and completely incompatible with officially published BSA religous policy. What part of that do you not understand? ]

I am going against what some UUs themselves believe here. UUs like to harken back to the Arian Heresy from around the Nicean Council, where Trinitarianism was chosen over Unitarianism. IOW, Unitarianism was basically a revolt against Trinitarianism. But that "heresy" (for what can you call a heresy that has been accepted as dogma?) died out at that time along with its supporting Scripture (outside of whatever has survived that purge). Then in the 1400's or 1500's there arose in Transylvania (no, I am not kidding you) a Unitarian movement. Then later in the early 1700's or earlier, an English Unitarian movement arose. While it may have been inspired by the two earlier Unitarian movements, I do not know of any direct connections. That is the tradition that the modern UUA comes from. Joseph Priestly, the scientist who discovered oxygen, was also a Unitarian minister who had to flee the mobs in England and arrived in the American Colonies to found the first two Unitarian churches there; when our church was searching for a name, I suggested naming us after Joseph Priestly, the discoverer of oxygen, "for a breath of fresh air." Though I remember one sermon in which our minister mentioned one region of England that the Church of England calls, "The Black Spot", since the Unitarians there are immune to all efforts of the Church to proselytize them.

Khaliela, what is the official BSA definition of "God"? Theists believe in literal supernatural beings called "gods". Non-theists, AKA "atheists" do not believe in literal supernatural beings. Khaliela, what is the official BSA definition and interpretation of "Duty to God". Does that official BSA definition and interpretation of "Duty to God" require belief in the supernatural? NO IT DOES NOT! Khaliela, you have your own personal definitions and interpretations of "God" and "belief in God" and "Duty to God". Those are yours and you are bound by them. They are not mine and I am not bound by them IN ACCORDANCE WITH OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA RELIGIOUS POLICY. Is that becoming clear to you?

See the lovely circular logic? All that is required is a belief in God - the BSA refuses to define what constitutes belief in God. That is for the scout and his family to decide. As for A Scout is Reverent, I believe this is the current wording: This doesn't define what God is either. So if someone belongs to a religious faith that doesn't have a god (like many forms of Buddhism) or require a belief in a god (like Unitarianism), who believe they can do their "Duty to God" as their faith defines it, the BSA appears to say they can be members. Which is the situation the OP was in. So to tell the OP: "stop whining, it's all their in black and white" is incorrect.

What? You have never played the game of "God is whatever you say it is" with a BSA professional? Oh, you really have no idea what you're in for! Now mind you, BSA acts without warning, expelling you before you ever know that any problem exists. That is how it happened to the Randalls, despite a unit den leader spoiling the surprise with a cryptic phone call. In my case, I suspected that something was up, so I initiated the call, which pulled our council's SE out of a meeting about me. At some point, we arrived at THE GAME. He said, "God is whatever you say it is." So, knowing something about some non-theistic religious traditions, I offered an idea. "No, that's not it. But God is whatever you say it is." So I offered another well-considered idea and he again responded with, "No, that's not it either. But God is whatever you say it is." After a few more iterations of this nonsense, I stated, "Well, obviously my own ideas are 'God' are not the same as yours." at which point he terminated the conversation, obviously satisfied that he had gotten what he had wanted. OK, am I the only one here to see this? I even raised it in subsequent letters asking about my review, which was delayed for over half a decade. Their game was to say, "God is whatever you say it is", but if you ever take the bait, then they just reject anything you have to offer. In the end, in my case, it was Kent Gibbs' own personal definition and interpretation and misunderstand of "God" that took precedence, not in any way my own religious tradition's. I was being judged solely by Kent Gibbs' own personal religious standards, not my own! Who here, even among the most stridently sectarian religionists, cannot see the fault in this BSA interpretation that Kent Gibbs personally imposed upon me? And on that purely arbitrary basis, I was booted out of BSA. ABE: Sorry! Forgot about another game the Kent Gibbs loved to play. The Randall twins had first registered in Los Angeles County before moving down to Orange County. At some point along the way, the unit screwed up with the registration forms. BSA caught wind of this and did its utmost to take advantage of it, claiming that the boys never had been registered. And so Gibbs' twisted abusive game began. "Oh, you never were actually registered! All you have to do is to fill out the registration form." Form is duly filled out. "Oh, this is not acceptable. But all you have to do is to fill out the registration form." Etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. When the case went to trial, Gibbs and Orange County Council tried to continue to play the same sick abusive game, but the judge stopped them short. "Is this all that's the problem? OK! Give us a form and we can fill it out and be done with this!" Immediately, BSA started back-pedelling and making excuses. OBTW, you may condemn Jim Randall for filing a lawsuit on behalf of his sons being discriminated against, but you must consider the facts. Jim Randall tried his best to resolve this matter without having to resort to legal action, but BSA blocked all his efforts at every step. Finally, it was BSA itself who instructed him to sue them, not imagining that he would take them up on it. Our Bear den leader, still a friend, was guardian to a ward. He went to the same school as the Randall twins, though not the same school (for that matter, I'm not sure how she had come to our pack, but she was a stalwart leader). He is the one who, knowing the news (his guardian is Jewish, so perhaps like someone who's UU? *), invited the twins to join our pack. At the time, Council was doing its utmost to spread fear among the units, "The RANDALLS ARE COMING!!!!!!!!!!!!" Well, the Randall twins were model Scouts. They went on to fulfill all their Eagle requirements. Their Scoutmaster told the press that he wished that all his boys were like them. But they were participating by a court order while BSA's appeal to the California Supreme Court was pending. Just as their Eagle Court was looming, the state attorney general pushed the court to make its decision. The California Supreme Court decided that BSA was indeed discriminating, but it was not subject to the Unruh Act, which was the basis of Jim Randall's lawsuit. That same decision was what BSA was waiting for to issue my own final expulsion along with a couple others. The point is that our DE came to speak at our pack meeting after the Randalls had bridged over to Boy Scouts. He spoke about BSA being "under attack" and how they had to spend millions of dollars to defend themselves from the Randalls. Well, this crowd knew the Randalls. I remember parents muttering angrily, "What a waste!" Why is BSA wasting so much money and bad publicity on unnecessary lawsuits that they and they alone create? And then, given that they've been found in court to discriminate, COs who have definite policies against such discrimination have no choice but to stop sponsoring a Scouting unit. The US military has orders to not sponsor units, not even overseas. BSA discrimination not only does not make any sense in light of their officially published policies, but it is directly detrimental to Scouting. Even enrollment has been declining within the past decade: http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/bsa_membership.html * FOOTNOTE: Apparently, a number of Unitarian-Universalists had been born Jewish. For example, there's an old joke about somebody who had passed away and was buried in a UU cemetery. The surprised response was, "But he didn't look Jewish!" In my own experience, when our church moved into new quarters one committee member of Jewish heritage requested a special vacuum cleaner to be able to handle the stairs. So there I was on a painting party and she comes down the stairs with that portable vacuum slung over her shoulder. And without my glasses it looked like the block letters on the side of the vacuum said "DRECK", which, from my knowledge of German from which that Yiddish word came, I thought was a really weird name for a vacuum cleaner, "FILTH". Then when she came closer I could see that it instead said, "ORECK".

King Ding Dong, the answer must depend on what the policy is. If the officially published policy is so meaningless that you have to be subjected on all levels by whatever that particular BSA professional personally believes, then why even have an official policy? For example, on another forum is a member who is a "TRUE CHRISTIAN " who repeatedly spews out virulent anti-Catholic rhetoric. So if you are a Catholic and your BSA professional is a "TRUE CHRISTIAN ", then you have just been expelled from Scouting. Is that what you are arguing for? If not, then why even make that argument? Also, districts and councils never act independently in these matters. Control is very tightly centralized at National. DEs are required to report every single contact up the line (one of our DEs told me this). I'm sure that CEs are likewise required to report up to Regional who likewise is required to report up to National. In every case that I was familiar with in the 1990's, massive amounts of message traffic flowed up and down the chain repeatedly; nobody at Regional, Council, or District made any more whatsoever until being told by National what to do. Also, your response is a non sequitur. My question has absolutely nothing to do with what individuals at various levels think and feel. Rather, it has everything to do with FACTS! Officially published BSA religious policy is a FACT. We all know what it is, because we can go to the published documentation and read it for ourselves. That the "rule" requiring "belief in a Supreme Being" was not an actual rule from 1985 to 1998 is a FACT. You could not find it anywhere in the published documentation and in court, Randall v BSA, our Orange County Council Exec, Kent Gibbs, after having repeatedly claimed to have this "rule" requiring "belief in a Supreme Being" and that that "rule" absolutely required him to expel Michael and William Randall, the judge directly ordered him to produce that rule, at which point Gibbs had to admit in court that that "rule" simply did not exist. That such a "rule", should it actually exist, would directly contradict officially published BSA policy is a matter for discussion, though I think that the case of direct contradiction should be self-evident to all but the most self-deluded religionists. The question that is open and which I have repeatedly asked is this: What has changed in officially published BSA policy since 1998? That is a question about FACT, not about personal opinion.

No, that is not true. OK, that is indeed what officially published BSA policy says. But that is not what BSA practices. Which is the source of all the problems. If BSA is being so Christian, I wonder why they haven't bothered to read the Gospels to see what Jesus was supposed to have thought about hypocrites.