Calif. Judges Possibly Banned from Scouting Activity

[Rooster7]

Additionally, I submit, because the GSUSA is so luke warm to traditional values (not unlike the Unitarian Universalists), hundreds of thousands if not millions, do not waste the time to investigate further.

[SR540Beaver]

evmori,

 

Wishy, washy? Wasn't it stated that Lambert only needed to profess a belief in something superior to himself (even Mother Nature would do) to be able to stay in scouting? BSA's stance has been that as long as you believe in "something" (God, gods, rocks, trees, the wind) and not "nothing" (atheism), you were OK. How does that differ from GSUSA's "wishy, washy" view of leaving the determination of spirituality to the girl and her family?

[evmori]

Would the GSUSA revoke a membership because a person was an atheist?

[littlebillie]

evmori,

 

until SOMEONE - girl or adult - announces publically and with media attention that she's an atheist and specifically adds that she recognizes absolutely no spiritual side to her or anyone's life, that's gonna be untested.

 

THEN we'll see what the official GSUSA response is, and where it might end up, courts-wise.

 

as mentioned, since it's never really been tested, (tho' challenged, briefly, with some quick deflection in terms of optional 'God') we don't know...

 

the site doesn't come out and say "welcome to the godless" either. hard to tell...

[Rooster7]

packsaddle,

 

Except for their position, what makes them correct and others incorrect in the interpretation?

 

Analogy: Except for their position as the parents, what give them the right to decide what is proper or improper for their children?

 

The BSA is the parent organization. Troops are merely their childrenand as such, reflect the values of the national organization. It's that simple.

 

I realize that you and others want to ignore BSA's rights as a private organization. I understand that you and others feel that the BSA is acting immorally by imposing their moral view on their membership criteria and/or awards associated with the BSA. Furthermore, I am aware that you and others believe that their stance is rooted in a specific religious faith or a set of faiths. Lastly, I recognize that you and others have the misconception that local charters of the BSA are somehow separate organizations. However...

 

1) BSA does have a legal right to maintain its stance. Despite your assertions that they are violating the Constitution...to the contrary, they are Constitutionally protected to take such a position.

 

2) Many members, if not most, feel that BSA's moral view is correct and proper - They don't want the policy changed. This is a matter of one's opinion. In and out of the BSA, Millions agree with their position. And I suppose, Millions don't. Regardless, BSA as a national organization has never released its right to be a self-governing entity, even to its members. Membership is not ownership.

 

3) If morality is always a function of faith, then why do folks on this board vehemently defend atheists as being moral? Millions of folks recognize the perversity of homosexuality as being self-evident. The BSA can come to the same conclusion without the "hidden force" of a religious faith (i.e., the vast right wing conspiracy, the Church of the LDS, the Pope, or some other "sinister" anti-American force). The fact that millions of others disagree does not make this a religious argument. It's merely a disagreement - free thought in a free society. That's the beauty of a free country with private organizations. If you don't like someone else's viewpoint, you can simply find another group of people, with their own organization, that you do agree with.

 

4) While the BSA is always looking for good charter organizations, they never relinquished their right to hold their own values and/or to impose membership criteria based on those values. If a charter organization cannot share these values, then they should step aside as a charter organization or risk expulsion by the BSA. Regardless, the fault lies within the charter organization, not the BSA.

 

The American Heritage Girls is a perfect example of how Americans should resolve an issue such as this. These folks felt that the GSUSA was not valued based, at least not enough so to make themselves happy about it. While I have no first hand knowledge, I'm confident that they tried to influence the GSUSA to see it their way. Unfortunately (from my viewpoint), they found that there was a certain feminist element entrenched in the GSUSA, which was unwilling to change their position on certain policies. Furthermore, it seems that there was no base within the GSUSA to inspire a serious grassroots effort to effect change. These folks saw the writing on the wall and left the organization. They saw no noble purpose in being disruptive and/or rebellious. Those folks who wish to defend the morality of homosexuality and atheism should recognize the writing on the wall within the BSA. If you don't hold a majority opinion within a private organization and/or you don't have the political clout to effect change, then quit whining and seek or create a new organization that does reflect your opinion. And while I totally disagree with the "faith" of Wiccans, they too, at least understand the principles of a democracy and created an organization that served their purposes. In a free society such as ours, if the majority of a private organization is happy with its vision and purpose, and agrees with its policy makers, what's the point of playing the role of a disrupter? Simply find a group of like-minded folks and live your life, as you would like to live it. On the other hand, if you this was a communist nation or a dictatorship, and you only had the one choice - then, while I disagree with your viewpoint, I could at least understand why you'd insist on trying to change the organization. Having said all of the above, I think your incessant complaints concerning the BSA are ridiculous and unfounded.

 

Before you start comparing your stance to the struggle of the 1960's for civil rights, try to remember these two points. First, there's a huge difference between discrimination based on a physical trait (such as skin color) and that of behavior or attitude (such as promoting sexual attraction and/or contact between men as being acceptable and natural). Second, and perhaps just as important, remember that we're NOT talking about changing the laws and attitudes of a free nation. We are talking about a private organization within a free nation. If you force your opinions and will on a private organization, the said organization would no longer reside in a free nation. Private organizations, whether or not you or I believe them to be "misguided" or not, must be free to define themselves. Beyond basic protections, the federal government should sit on their collective hands. The day we allow our national government to become our conscience, we will no longer be free men. Most Americans understand this fact.

 

I believe this argument even applies to the story about California judges which started this thread. They should be free to join ANY organization they want. If they are not qualified to be judges, they should not have been appointed and the electorate should hold the appropriate elected official(s) responsible. If the said organization legitimately taints the judge as being bias in a particular trial, then that judge should be disqualified via the appropriate channels (recusal). There are safe guards already in place.

 

Kwc57,

 

I agree that BSA's religious standard is somewhat wishy-washy. I think they need to re-examine it, but that's just my personal opinion and I doubt that it will changeat least not anytime soon.

 

[packsaddle]

If not exactly for the same reasons, I agree about the judges. Perhaps I don't fully understand why they should not be permitted in but until then I feel they should be allowed in. I don't buy the contention that morality can only be derived from a religious source. Some like to have morals dictated to them but they should not conclude that that is how it should be for everyone. I suppose that if a moral code is derived, say, from physical laws (it's easy to do, by the way), someone would then just argue that the physical laws amount to a religion. Oh well. Rooster will contradict anything I say.

 

I agree that BSA is a private organization just like August National or a "white-flight" private school. As a member I still have the right to express my views if I disagree (and I do). And BSA should stop whining and bellyaching about losing public funding, etc. as a result.

As a matter of fact it would be more seemly for us to be more open about our exclusive policies. We should be proud enough to take these to the public in a prominent manner, and the parents in particular. Don't wait for 'Dale' to make the point, stop the whispering and make the policy clear during recruitment. Make it clear at all public forums. It should cause families to flock in! I doubt we'll see such an honest forthcoming, though. Until then, I argue my points and continue to work with the youth, and if necessary, provide a living example of someone who is willing to speak up with an unpopular view.

[littlebillie]

"I realize that you and others want to ignore BSA's rights as a private organization."

 

ok, see, here's a problem - bad bad phrasing. here's the side of the fence I'm on - I want to see the BSA change its mind willingly. To that end, I'll keep yammering, supporting S4A, writing letters, etc. And anyone who disagrees with that is ignoring MY right as a member and an American.

 

I want dialog, and open-mindedness, and a recognition of worth for ALL humankind.

 

I have NEVER advocated retaliatory legislation against the BSA, and I'm working HARD to get my kid's school to re-sponsor the Pack, too.

 

I'm speaking up, and working, for what I feel is right.

 

Who's got a problem with THAT?!?

[evmori]

littlebillie,

No problem here! It's your right to voice your opinion.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Rooster7]

Packsaddle: As a member I still have the right to express my views if I disagree (and I do).

 

Littlebillie: I'm speaking up, and working, for what I feel is right. Who's got a problem with THAT?!?

 

No one. I don't disagree. Every American has the right to "speak up". You should exercise that right, not only in defending yourself, but in defense of what you believe to be right. However, in this case, I think there's a fine line between, defending one's position on a moral issue to ensure justice (although I disagree with your definition of justice in this particular instance), and just being a pain to those around you.

 

For example, I'm a true believer in conservative politics (duh, bet you'd never guess that one). I'm also very interested in teaching. However, I don't envision myself joining the NEA and debating its officers on their educational policies, or going to the University of Berkley to teach. It's a futile exercise. Or, I can't imagine joining a church founded by the Unitarian Universalists and debating them over their lack of theology. What would be the point? In each circumstance, I would be a member of a very small minority, and thus my words would serve only to inflame those around me.

 

Also, since the BSA's policies are fairly well known (their stances on atheism and homosexuality has occupied a fair amount of newsprint for several years now), I think it is disingenuous to join their organization (by doing so - you have tacitly, if not explicitly, agreed to support it's values) and then trying to inspire a revolt to change their values. It's like joining a Christian church and then trying to convince its members that Jesus was not the Messiah. If your heart brings you to a different conclusion, then join an organization that believes as you do. If you want to play chess, then join a chess club; don't try to convert a bridge club into a chess club. In short, you're free to be a pain in the neck, if that's what you aspire to be. I just don't see the point.

[SR540Beaver]

Rooster,

 

Actually, the BSA has not been wishy washy. Duty to God has always been a basic tenet of Scouting. The BSA has always held the position of "God or religion" to be defined by the boy, his family and his "church". BSA believes a boy should develop his spiritual side as just one facet of his whole person. Your God can be Buddha, Jesus, Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Apollo, Mercury, nature, etc. You must believe that there is a supernatural force greater than yourself. I believe that BSA has always been fairly liberal in this approach because they knew there was a wide variety of backgrounds out there that boys would be coming from. Their job was to build men of character out of boys and religion or duty to God was only one of the facets. Beyond a belief in a supernatural being, they didn't want to dictate what the scout was to believe. I'd bet that if you are honest about it, you know many a boy who has been in scouts and never darkened the door of a church. They believed in a "god" in general, but never practiced a faith. I've known many, some of who became Eagles. The only exclusion is for those who deny the existence of a "god". I believe that the BSA purposely took a broad approach and what is wishy washy is those who now attempt to more narrowly define the policy than it was first intended.

[packsaddle]

Yes, KWC57, I agree but my eyes deceived me. At my initial look I thought your first god was listed as 'Bubba'! Lots of those around here. I'm with you littlebillie.

 

I always thought that scouting was a place where boys from diverse backgrounds, any background, could join to learn teamwork and leadership and to have fun...without debating whose morality is superior. At age 11, few boys have a solid idea of what their beliefs are and those who do are likely to change as they age. I still think that's the way it should be (capturing the flag, not searching for the Holy Grail). Reverent is not the ONLY point in the law.

Only one boy in our troop is actually from the chartering church. This has been the case for at least 8 years. Why do you suppose that is? (Hint, many of the church members forget to turn off their left turn signal) This troop would not survive without that diversity. And which boy would that be good for? I'm conservative too, in the true sense, always striving for personal freedom and paying my debts (like a good Presbyterian), and striving to leave my children with liberties intact without huge debt burdens. Thrifty, yes, that's the one I'm thinking of.

 

There also now seems to be a preoccupation with Wiccans. If they are not atheistic (they're not) and had not already chosen to form their own youth group, they would have been OK with BSA, right? Philosophically they're not very different from native Americans. But I suppose after the rough treatment they received from Christianity, Native Americans might well have their own youth organization as well.

[packsaddle]

Wow, my eyes deceived me again. Rooster, I think I read that you thought joining BSA was like joining a Christian church. Let's see, "Also, since the BSA's policies are fairly well known (blah, blah, blah), I think it is disingenuous to join their organization (blah, blah, blah) and then trying to inspire a revolt to change their values. It's like joining a Christian church and then trying to convince its members that Jesus was not the Messiah." Yes, you did! You said that today, joining BSA is like joining a Christian church. Anyone else catch this? By the way, I mentioned to my kids that someone with whom I correspond thinks I am a pain in the behind. They said, "so what else is new?" My own children, tsk, tsk! From the mouths of babes... Don't worry, I get your point.

[acco40]

Rooster,

 

You've made statements about homosexuality not being "natural." The food industry uses the term, i.e. Natrual Lite Beer, naturally grown, etc. The FDA has not given the term any meaning. In the FDAs eyes, it is a meaningless term. My question is what do you mean by the term? Does homosexuality occur in nature? While we have trouble figuring out the longings of animals, yes same sex copulation does occur in nature. To me this makes it "natural." However, in my view, it has no bearing on if it is right or wrong.

[Rooster7]

acco40,

 

I've always correlated natural with normal. Regardless, by your definition of natural, murder and rape is natural (because they can be found in nature as well).

 

 

 

[pfann]

Wow! I go to work and come back and see the posts flying fast and furious!

 

I tend to agree with Rooster, especially point 3 and 4 in his longer post.

 

The Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights,was established to define and limit the authority and behavior of the federal government so that the government's actions would not supress the liberty and freedom of individual citizens and private groups.

 

I agree with civil disagreemnts (repeat that a couple of times, I promise it makes some sense). I also agree with healthy dissent and debate. But at the end of the day, an organization will make a decision, take it or leave it.

 

I do not mean that in a disrespectful way. On the contrary, I feel this can be said in the most respectful manner. The BSA says here are our standards. If you agree with them we would love to have you as a member, charter organization, etc. If you find you don't agree with our standards, we will bid you good day and good luck, no hard feelings.

 

While I am not a Wiccan (and don't agree with them) and I do not have daughters (thus no Girls Scouts or American Heritage Girls) I fully agree with and in some ways admire their gumption to go out and start an organization that is more in tune with their individual beliefs. That is why I posted links to those groups. They are examples of people with similar beliefs who started organizations that promote those beliefs. They did not try to bend any existing group to their will.

 

The BSA to the best of my knowledge has not tried to stop any group from starting their own scout type organization. They have only resisted efforts from others to forces the BSA to change its stance on certain issues.