Is God Dead?

[Fat Old Guy]

New Jersey Dude, that's what you lawyers believe but in Civics class they taught me that the legislative branch made the laws. When you can show me that the Courts are part of the Congress, I'll buy your explanation.

[evmori]

"But no, BSA decided to exclude certain groups."

 

The BSA has membership requirements. People not willing to live up to these membership requirements may not be members. Therefore these people who belomg to these groups chose, which is their right, to exclude themselves.

 

The connection I was trying to make was that in Farenheit 451 society had gotten to a point that anything considered offensive to anyone was not permitted.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Fat Old Guy]

"The connection I was trying to make was that in Farenheit 451 society had gotten to a point that anything considered offensive to anyone was not permitted.?"

 

Sounds like Canada.

[packsaddle]

Ed, I'm laughing at a memory I have. It is one in which a friend, sympathetic to the voting laws of the time, tried to explain to me that my unwillingness to discuss my religious beliefs were in violation of the registration laws. Therefore I had excluded myself from the right to vote. They were not excluding me, I merely brought it on myself. (FYI, I ultimately prevailed)

[evmori]

I'm glad you're laughing, pack, while my (and your) rights are getting stomped on!

[packsaddle]

Adrianvs, going back to something you wrote earlier, "No, Ed was talking about being excluded from the entire public sector. The groups that you refer to are being excluded from one private organization. The difference is quite significant.":

BSA sought to be categorized as a private 'club' and won. As such BSA still has as much access to public parks, etc. as I do as a private citizen. This troop camps in parks at all levels of government and the district frequently uses public property for camporees, etc. However, the exclusive access and sweetheart deals that BSA enjoyed in the past were at risk and BSA knew it. To use Ed's mode of thought, by taking the road that BSA chose, BSA excluded itself.

[Adrianvs]

'Saddle,

 

I understand your point. While I certainly don't mind if the BSA gets governmental support, it doesn't bother me if it is considered a private organization and is treated as fairly (and impartially) as that requires. I don't think that the BSA should be considered a government program or expect to be treated as such. It should be able to stand on it's own two feet.

[NJCubScouter]

Adrian says:

To those who believe that atheists and homosexuals should be accepted members of the BSA:

I'll answer on the "homosexuals" (gay) part. The "atheist" part I can't answer for, as I have explained several times why I think that the BSA policy and practice on committed, outspoken atheists is reasonable in light of the Scout Oath and Law and Declaration of Religious Principles. That practice, as I understand it, gives members who have expressed an affirmative belief in the non-existence of God, or who refuse to subscribe to the Scout Oath and Law, an opportunity to recognize some higher power even if it is not associated with an established religion. (On the other hand I do reluctantly agree with Merlyn that if it excludes atheists, under the Establishment Clause the BSA can probably not continue to get special favors or charters from government entities.) By the same token, I have explained many times why I don't believe that the uniform nationwide automatic exclusion of all avowed gays is reasonable or right.

What other "groups" do you feel should be granted membership?

First of all, I don't look at it in terms of "groups." I look at it in terms of individuals. If we are talking about leaders, the question is whether there is something inherent in the individual or his/her past conduct that makes it impossible for him/her to be a good role model for the principles of Scouting. The BSA looks at avowed gays as a "group" and says that all members of that group cannot be good role models for the principles of Scouting. I don't see any basis for that.

Second of all, I am not aware of any other "categories of individuals" (or "groups" if you will) who are excluded as a "group" and who I believe should be included. In fact, other than gays and atheists, I am aware of only one "group" that is subject to a blanket nationwide exclusion: Those who have been convicted of serious crimes or who otherwise have demonstrated that they, as individuals, are dangerous or potentially dangerous. (That would obviously include those convicted of sexual abuse and I suspect, those who have pending charges as well. How the BSA handles those who have been acquitted but for whom "reasonable suspicion" exists, I am not sure. But even if they are excluded, it is based on a determination of their past conduct (or probable past conduct) as an individual.)

Are there any other actions or dispositions toward actions currently deemed unacceptable by the BSA that you consider acceptable?

Not that I'm aware of (see above.)

Where do you draw the lines and how do you draw them?

I think a more relevant question is how and where the BSA draws the line. The BSA excludes only a very small proportion of people, and therefore when it does, I think the BSA has to explain itself to its members, rather than that burden falling on those who wish to "accept" people. And obviously I don't think it has drawn the line in the right way or in the right place on the issue of gays.

But nevertheless, I will answer how and where I draw the line, the best I can. My focus would not be on who I accept, but on who I would reject, since I would accept anyone except where there is a reason not to. (And despite what I know some people will say, I believe the BSA follows the same approach.)

My line-drawing criteria would probably require only two questions: One, does the person represent a significant threat of harm to the youth (or others) in the program, and two, is the person's avowed or known conduct seriously inconsistent with the Scout Oath and Law and related values. Criminals (including sexual abusers) fall outside the line on question one (and two), atheists fall outside the line on question two (but not one in my opinion) for the reasons I have alluded to. Gays, as a "group", fall inside the line for the reasons I have been discussing in this forum for very close to 2 years, and I don't really need to repeat myself. But to fit them into my criteria, they represent neither an inherent risk of harm, nor are they (contrary to what the BSA's current leadership says) poor role models for the values of Scouting. Or to put the second part another way, heterosexuality is not a "value" of Scouting. Both straight and gay people can be moral or immoral.

All this is not to say that a unit (or in some cases I suppose, a council) may not exclude youths or leaders based on other criteria. Reasons for excluding a youth would have to at least come close to one of my two criteria, such as a boy disrupting every meeting and no corrective action will work, warnings and parental intervention go unheeded, finally the boy may have to be separated from the troop. The "local option" is even clearer for leaders, whom the CO may appoint or remove for any reason it chooses. If Billy's father wants to be Scoutmaster and is otherwise qualified, but he weighs 500 pounds (not due to a medical condition but due to lack of self-discipline) the CO may very well decide that he should not be the one at the front of the room. This is the kind of thing we have discussed in this forum a number of times; obesity, drivings-while-intoxicated in the past, some rumors of illicit (but of course straight!) conduct... one unit may decide the person should be a leader, another unit may not. The relation to the "gay issue" is that under the current rule, the unit does not get to make this decision. That is what I would change.

[Achilleez]

Twice FOG, thats twice you've bashed Canada! Before you invoke upon another opportunity to insult us, I invite you come up for a stay in the autumn. It's really quite lovely. The rocky sheild with crystal clear water springs, golden maple leafs fluttering on the trees, and perhaps you will be fortunate enough to hear the call of the loon across the lake. It's quite tranquil.

 

BTW FOG, have you ever been to Canada? Let alone experienced it's judicial or criminal incarceration system? Or are you doing as so many politicians have done (and on occasion, Ace Ventura, pet detective) and talking out of your ***

 

(This message has been edited by Achilleez)

[Fat Old Guy]

" I invite you come up for a stay in the autumn. It's really quite lovely."

 

So was Berchtesgarten but that has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

As for you judicial and penal system, I have no desire to experience it as I have no desire to experience the American systems.

 

BTW, I have been to Canada. I'd rather be in Indianapolis.

 

I read something interesting in the paper about the Canadian military and how it is in danger of vanishing because of bad planning. The most striking thing in the article was that your defense budget is only $10 billion a year. They didn't say if that was in Canadian money but if it was that's what, $2.95 US?

[NJCubScouter]

For whatever it's "worth" (ho ho), as of the close of business today, $10 billion in Canadian dollars were worth approximately $7.5 billion in U.S. dollars (at an exchange rate of $1.3253 Canadian/$1 U.S.)

 

http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/exchange.htm

 

[Big_Dog]

Achilleez:

I have been to the great white north. Left Dallas, Tx in July, it was 107 degrees. Got to Calgary, it was 58 degrees. Like to froze my you-know-what off!!! It was BEAUTIFUL country.

 

God did a great job building Canada!

 

bd

[LovetoCamp]

 

I read something interesting in the paper about the Canadian military and how it is in danger of vanishing because of bad planning.

Bad Planning and a little help from the Illinois Air National Guard. 

[scoutingagain]

Any country of 30,000,000 people and 10,000,000 square kilometers that can defend it's citizens for $7.5 billion(US) and produces better beer than Budweiser or Miller is OK with me.

 

Of course they don't have the luxury of being able to unilaterally fight a war against other countries thousands of miles away that do not pose an immiediate threat to their citizenry.

 

But don't eat the meat.... it's spoiled.

 

SA

 

 

[Fat Old Guy]

" produces better beer than Budweiser or Miller "

 

Heck, Pittsburgh produces better beer than Bud.

 

"Of course they don't have the luxury of being able to unilaterally fight a war against other countries thousands of miles away that do not pose an immiediate threat to their citizenry."

 

So? We've never attacked Taiwan or have we?