Please stop homosexual activists and atheists

[LovetoCamp]

Just stop. Don't go away mad, just go away!

 

 

[Achilleez]

God told me to come here.

[Fuzzy Bear]

 

The Price of Freedom is allowing people to believe in God, s, or 0. Legislating your personal morality is bending your will around other people's necks and leading your people back into slavery.

 

Go to the mountain first and humbly make your request for redemption be known. God is the greater force, has the better equipped army, and has the best government. So consider, redirecting your efforts if your truly desire results.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Proud Eagle]

Are you telling us to stop the activits or are you telling the activists to stop? The title suggest the former while the post content suggests the latter.

[evmori]

Me thinks this thread is aimed at a particular poster!

 

Remember, freedom isn't free.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[PatBB]

My position on the Gay ?? in Scouting:

Get the gay libbers, the courts, AND the homophobic closed clique which is the National BSA Office--all out of it. All (older) Scouts, their parents, & Scouters should have a voice in the Debate/Vote. Personally, I prefer local option on a case-by-case, Troop-by-Troop, Council-by-Council basis.

What I abhor is not the rule, but rather the dictatoriality due to the unelected, appointed-by-the-other-board-memebers status of National Board members. I would have respected Gregg Shields if he had challenged Dave Rice to run against him in a Boy Scout election instead of expelling him from Scouting after 60 years.

 

Moreover, if the BSA has the right to expel the Cradle of Liberty Council of Philadelphia for dissent, then the WOSM has the same right to expel the BSA for dissent. Think about it!

[Fat Old Guy]

"Moreover, if the BSA has the right to expel the Cradle of Liberty Council of Philadelphia for dissent, then the WOSM has the same right to expel the BSA for dissent. Think about it!"

 

Oooooo, that might be a horrible thing. To no longer be a member of WOSM. If that happened, we wouldn't have to wear that purple patch on our shirts.

 

If WOSM got rid of BSA, BSA would simply sign up with another international scouting organization. There are others.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

I'll stop when the BSA stops using government funding to fund its "no atheists" private clubs, and no government agencies charter discriminatory BSA units.

[Hunt]

I can understand why somebody who would like the BSA to change its policies--especially on gays--would want to post here and in similar forums--a gradual change in opinion in the BSA rank and file could eventually have an effect on its leaders. But I don't see how you could ever get current BSA members--surely the dominant group on this board--to join a crusade to get BSA kicked out of schools, parks, etc. It just seems pointless to keep raising that argument here. I haven't seen opinions from very many members that the requirement for a belief in God should be changed--far fewer than those who think gay leadership/membership should be at the option of COs. And frankly, somebody like Merlyn simply harms his supposed cause by the tone of his posts here--he justs solidifies the opposition--as opposed to some other posters who try to make more measured arguments.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Do you think pointing out that the Old Baldy council is being sued for fraud by receiving a Community Development Block Grant for its Scoutreach program (which violates the CDBG nondiscrimination requirements by refusing to admit atheists) might refrain some Scouters here from doing the same thing?

 

Some people here are under the delusion that excluding atheists isn't religious discrimination, so their Scoutreach program that excludes atheists can safely use CDBG funding that prohibits religious discrimination; disabusing people of that delusion may actually reduce the number of BSA councils that get sued.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[Bob White]

PatBB

 

FYI, The National BSA office does not make this decision, the Nation Council does.

 

You cannot have a national program if every sub group can change the rules. Imagine the NFL if every team played the game differently.

 

WOSM has no administrative authority over any national program. It will never expel the BSA because without the financial support of the BSA, WOSM would not exist.

[NJCubScouter]

PatBB,

 

First of all, welcome to the forums!

 

Your solution to the "gay issue" of "local option" is right on target in concept, if not in detail. There is no need for a vote involving parents, individual Scouters and older Scouts (the latter would be inappropriate for other reasons) when the BSA already has a good-old established way of decision-making on the unit level. That is, the CO decides who the leaders are, both individually and in accordance with any "blanket" criteria they may have. (See below.) Unless you meant a nationwide vote on whether to do this, but I'd rather just see the BSA make decisions in the manner that its by-laws already provide -- just make the right one (local option) this time is all I ask.

 

Bob responds to you, Pat, as he has responded to me and the number of other posters here over the last 2 years (and probably before that though I wasn't here) who have favored local option:

 

You cannot have a national program if every sub group can change the rules. Imagine the NFL if every team played the game differently.

 

Bob portrays allowing units to have an option on gay leaders as allowing them to "change the rules." That is not the issue. What the local-option supporters ask is only that NATIONAL change the "rules" regarding gay leaders to what the "rules" ALREADY are regarding most other leadership issues. BSA rules (or more correctly in some cases, the absence of a national rule) allow a CO to restrict unit Scouters leaders to one gender, or not to; to restrict leaders (and youth members) to those who are members of the CO and/or members of a particular religion; to ban leaders who may not present the "right example" in certain ways such as being seriously overweight, an example that my son's troop fortunately does not follow; or to permit, or ban, leaders who have certain minor offenses in their distant past, for example such as drunk driving, possession of a small amount of pot, etc. In other words, the CO's make the rules as to who can be a leader, because National lets them. Those subjects on which National enforces a uniform rule as to who cannot be a leader are the exception, not the "rule." What they have decided to do is to retain the "gay issue" in this "exceptional" category, instead of treating it like most leadership issues and letting the CO decide.

 

In response to Bob's NFL analogy, actually we need not imagine what would happen if every team played the game differently, because that is not the comparable situation. I think a more analogous question would be something like, Imagine if the NFL allowed every team to charge a different price for beer at their concession stands. (And, of course, they do, and the BSA should allow each CO to develop its own solution to the gay issue, as they allow CO's to resolve the vast majority of leadership issues on their own.)

 

And, although I agree with Bob that WOSM is fairly irrelevant as far as the operation of the BSA, I was amused at this:

 

It will never expel the BSA because without the financial support of the BSA, WOSM would not exist.

 

Oh, now might makes right on moral issues, eh Bob? Fascinating.

 

[Hunt]

Merlyn wrote: "Some people here are under the delusion that excluding atheists isn't religious discrimination, so their Scoutreach program that excludes atheists can safely use CDBG funding that prohibits religious discrimination; disabusing people of that delusion may actually reduce the number of BSA councils that get sued."

 

So you're trying to save BSA from getting sued? Pardon my skepticism. Really, your posts here are like going on a Britney Spears fan forum and talking about how ugly and untalented she is--you're not really trying to convince anybody of anything, and your tone ensures you won't. Mainly, you just like to gloat when a court agrees with your point of view. I guess that's a hobby, but don't fool yourself into thinking it's part of fighting the good fight.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

Nope, it's just easier all around if the BSA doesn't dishonestly try to use government money to support its discriminatory private club.

 

And fighting government support of religious discrimination IS fighting the good fight; the BSA is on the wrong side.

[evmori]

Nope, it's just easier all around if the BSA doesn't dishonestly try to use government money to support its discriminatory private club.

And fighting government support of religious discrimination IS fighting the good fight; the BSA is on the wrong side.

 

Are you also actively going after all those students who use their student loans to attend Christian colleges? If not, why not? Aren't these people(according to you) dishonestly using government money?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10