Loss of Charter

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I'd say some of the responses to me in this forum illustrate how it's completely inappropriate for government entities to charter BSA units.

[Bob White]

"I'd say some of the responses to me in this forum illustrate how it's completely inappropriate for government entities to charter BSA units

 

finally we get to the crux. This is neither a leagal or philosophical disagreement. This is about your personal feelings and how you see BSA or its members as treating you.

 

 

Hoe can your logic be so shallow as to consider any person on this forum as a spokesperson for the BSA? as you have seen for yourself we are all just local volunteers who do not even agree amongst themselves and have varying knowledge, experiences, and responsibility in the program. To assume anyone is representative of the BSA, let alone everyone, simply by the limited exposure to some posts is poor methodology to say the least.

 

This is a personal gripe you have with a program that would not have you as a member, and nothing more.

 

Nothing the BSA will ever do will heal your self-inflicted wound.

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

That's not the issue at all, Bob. The Boy Scouts, as an organization, denegrate atheists. Public schools have no business sponsoring such a group, yet the BSA is dishonest enough to charter units to public schools for decades, while expecting those same schools to violate the civil rights of its students by practicing unlawful religious discrimination. The attitudes against atheists of BSA members like yourself illustrate why the law prohibits public schools from promoting such an organization.

 

Plus, of course, you've never explained your statement that "I am all for the local school boards being able to decide what values they choose to have shared" earlier in this thread. You insist that you are for "EQUAL rights, not special rights", yet you would apparently find it OK for public schools to own & operate youth groups that exclude atheists for their religious views.

 

Well, this thread is a good illustration of "EQUAL rights, not special rights". The Boy Scouts will no longer get the special right of having public schools run their supposedly private, discriminatory religious groups. I actually did quite a lot of work to help make that happen, because the dishonest Boy Scouts sure weren't going to do that on their own. Yet hypocrites like yourself will wail about the Boy Scouts being treated badly - simply because they are now being treated the same as any other organization that practices religious discrimination.

[evmori]

We as Americans are guaranteed the freedom of religion. That includes atheists! We all have the same rights! Nice, huh?

 

But it seems there are some who want "their" rights which are not the same as everyone else's rights. They are over and above the rights we are guaranteed as Americans. They want the right not to hear someone pray. They don't care if the person praying is exercising their right of free speech guaranteed to all Americans. They also don't want the government or anyone else who uses our tax dollars to charter a BSA unit. Why? Because the BSA requires a belief in God. A requirement the SCOTUS ruled was legal! I'll bet if SCOTUS ruled that atheists didn't have to pay taxes there would be no complaint!

 

As Americans, we all have the same rights. And by the government chartering as BSA unit, none of those rights are being violated. The only thing being violated is the "their" rights which don't exist anyway!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Novice_Cubmaster]

Gentlemen,

 

As Ed says, "As Americans, we all have the same rights."

 

One of these rights is that our government exhibits no religious prejudice or preference, at any level. The only way a public (ie governmental entity) can claim to be absolutely free of any religious prejudice or preference is if it remains unattached to any organization with a religious component or position. Which covers both the BSA as well as any atheist groups.

 

Here in the South, it is not impossible for followers of one denomination to make up an overwhelming majority within a scout unit. Not a bad thing if the unit is chartered by a church of that denomination. However, it's not a good thing if the unit is chartered by a public school. Even if the school was completely unaffected by the religious composition and views of the unit it charters, it could raise doubts as to their impartiality. OK, maybe it wouldn't raise doubts for you and I. But how about for recent immigrants, taking citizenship lessons at night while their kids go to public school by day. They're taught that there's a separation between church and state, yet they see contradictions all over the place. I'd just as soon the BSA didn't add one more contradiction to the list.

 

NC

 

 

 

[evmori]

There is nothing in the Constitution that states the church & state are to be separate. That is an interpretation used by those who want all religion removed from anything public. It comes from letters written by Thomas Jefferson. So if immigrants are being taught the separation of church & state, they are being taught wrong.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt]

"The statement about a boy not being able to grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God pretty clearly is implying that atheists can't be the best kind of citizens. That sounds denigrating to me."

 

If this is "denigration," then it is simply impossible to say that it is better to believe in God without denigrating those who don't. Somebody who feels disparaged or defamed by this kind of statement doesn't know too much about about denigration.

In truth, BSA has been exceedingly mild and measured in its statements about atheists--it hasn't insulted them as morally bankrupt, or denied their right to believe what they want, or called them stupid, or anything like that (although not all individuals involved in Scouting have met this standard). It simply says that you can't be your best without believing in God--and what's so strange about religious people thinking that?

 

Interestly, atheist organizations make similar statements about atheism. For example, here's an excerpt from the petition in the Murray case, taken from www.atheists.org:

 

"Your petitioners are Atheists, and they define their lifestyle as follows. An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now here on earth for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it. An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment."

 

There's plenty more on that site and similar ones that explains why atheism is right, and that religious people are bound by supernaturalism, etc. These statements "denigrate" religious believers in exactly the same way BSA--and other religious groups--"denigrate" non-believers. It's sort of the way a vegetarian "denigrates" somebody who eats meat, I guess.

[stlscouter]

I suppose that feeling denigrated because one can not be the best citizen without believing in GOD, an Atheist is further denigrated when they find out that they can only "be all you can be" if they are in the Army which keeps them from being the "few and the proud" because you can only be that in the Marines. And certainly an Atheist would not allow themselves to be buried in a National Cemetary where they would be surrounded by row, upon row, upon row of white headstones with a cross or Star of David or other religious symbol paid for by the US Government.

[packsaddle]

There ARE atheists buried in Arlington National Cemetary.

[OldGreyEagle]

I am a life long Chicago Bear fan and all that it implies. I have been known to not always be scoutlike to those natives in a state to the north of Illinois. The term "cheesehead" may have escaped from my lips a time or two.

 

I may have proclaimed the superiority of the Bears over rivals (ok, I live in lala land) at times and have had rivals proclaim (sometimes with evidence) superiority over my Bears. Now, do I think Packer fans "denigrate" Bear fans? No, I just think they are misguided. At various times you will hear sports announcers say something like "people in Baltimore sure know their football" or people in Detroit sure know their hockey" (remember hockey? its played on ice with sticks). Does this denigrate all residents of all communities elsewhere? No, I don't think so.

 

I don't see Notre Dame fans as denigrating Pitt fans when they say we are better than you. I see it as people with the same belief (Raiders Rule MAN!)as supporting each other. They may "trash talk" Patriot fans and the Pats Backers trash talk right back and I would have a hard time understanding how any one is denigrated.

 

The Chicago Bears fan club takes a dim view of Viking fans, but I am not sure they "denigrate" them(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[packsaddle]

OGE, Just to clarify,...you're....talking about football, right?

[NJCubScouter]

OGE, are you really comparing insults against fans of an opposing sports team with a statement that someone is necessarily inferior in their citizenship because of what they believe or don't believe about the existence of God? Or are you kidding?

 

I have been known to make the occasional comment or two about fans of the Red Sox or, further back the Orioles or other teams. But I think everyone understands that those kinds of insults are meaningless, it's just part of being a fan. Sports (the spectator variety) and ALL entertainment is equally meaningless (I know I have just committed heresy), which is part of their appeal. When the Boy Scouts says someone is not a good a citizen as someone else, that's a whole different ballgame (so to speak.)

[stlscouter]

Of course there are-just as there are Atheists in every other group-including, undoubtedly in the BSA. And play the denigration card only when it suits their own purpose.

[Hunt]

To me, saying that theists make better citizens than atheists is like saying liberals make better citizens than conservatives (or the other way around). It's saying they make better citizens because their views are correct (in the eyes of the person making the comparison). This is entirely different from a comparison made on innate status (i.e., if somebody said men make better citizens than women, or that Asians make better citizens than Hispanics).

Now you may disagree--you may even think that atheists make better citizens because they're not shackled by obsolete superstitions--but this simply isn't a matter of denigrating people because of their status. It is a rejection of their views, certainly, and they may find that insulting if they want to.

 

Maybe the problem is the use of the term "citizen," which maybe suggests to some that atheists are disloyal or something. If BSA said, rather, that "we believe that no boy can reach his full potential as a human being without accepting and doing his duty to God" wouldn't this be a clearer statement that this is a religious view that you could take or leave?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Hunt writes:

If this is "denigration," then it is simply impossible to say that it is better to believe in God without denigrating those who don't.

 

Just as it's kind of hard to say it's better to be Christian than Jewish without denegrating Jews. Or better to be white than black without denegrating blacks.