Group Protests Boy Scouts Exclusionary Policies

[evmori]

Ed, I agree with your statement about the BSA but respectfully disagree with your conclusion

 

Fuzzy,

 

Why do you disagree?

 

 

The BSA denigrates because of the DRP? Where does it say atheists are the scum of the earth in the DRP? I can't find it! Someone get me a magnifying glass! It must be in the really small print!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt]

"Hunt, I disagree completely. The DRP says that atheists cannot be the best kinds of citizens; at best, they can be second-class citizens. I call that denegrating."

 

I didn't see the reference to second-class citizens in the DRP. Good luck convincing anybody that this statement is some kind of terrible insult. As I've pointed out, it's very similar to what the American Atheists say about people who don't put humanism first.

 

"Hunt I am confused by your: "Merlyn, do you think the Roman Catholic Church denigrates atheists by refusing to allow them to receive Mass?" Why would an atheist be upset for not being allowed to receive Mass?"

 

I don't know--maybe their local Catholic Church organizes a lot of fun camping trips restricted to members of the church. After all, although people know that BSA is a club for people who believe in God, there seem to be people who don't believe in God who would like to join because of all the other cool things scouts do. The point is that it's simply an absurd stretch to claim that a group is "denigrating" others with it claims that following its own beliefs makes you a better person. As I pointed out, I don't feel "denigrated" because Catholics think my brand of Christianity is inferior to theirs--although I don't agree with them.

 

[Eagledad]

>>On the issue of belief in God. Perhaps it would be more of a universal and acceptable for those other than Christians for the BSA to "have a belief in Deity" for admittance.

[Hunt]

I think Barry makes a good point. I was going to suggest that maybe the DRP should just say that all members must be willing to subscribe to the Oath and Law, but rereading the DRP, I think its main purpose is to emphasize the non-sectarian nature of the religious requirement, so that duty to God in the oath can't be used against somebody worshipping the wrong God. I'm not aware of any cases involving people who were close to the line drawn in the DRP, who were relieved of membership in BSA. (The closest case is the Wiccan boy, but that was a unit error.)

[Bobanon]

I ran across this on another forum and c&ped it here. Here too is the link: http://www.waynebesen.com/2006/06/double-standard-in-parenting.html

 

Double Standard In Parenting

 

 

Next time self-righteous religious groups attack gay parents or adoption by same-sex families consider this:

 

** In San Francisco, Lashaun Harris is on trial in the murder of her three kids, whom she allegedly threw into the frigid waters of San Francisco Bay in October. Harris believed that God wanted her children as a sacrifice, police said.

 

** In Houston, a new trial has been ordered for Andrea Yates, a suburban housewife who has admitted to drowning her five children -- ages 7 years to six months -- to save them from Satan.

 

** In McKinney, Texas, Dena Schlosser was tried for a second time and found not guilty by reason of insanity (after a first jury deadlocked) in the killing of her 10-month-old daughter, Maggie, on orders from God.

 

** In Tyler, Texas, Deanna Laney was found insane after she crushed the skulls of her three children; she believed she was given instructions, like Abraham, from God.

 

Obviously, these crazy people do not reflect the vast majority of loving parents of faith. I only point this out to pose two questions: 1) Why are right ring religious fanatics singling out loving same-sex families for scorn and ridicule?

 

2) Can you imagine the uproar Neo-Puritan groups would have made if a lesbian couple had crushed the skulls of their three children? They would surely have blamed it on their sexual orientation, not the fact the women were insane. There would have been calls to ban same-sex adoption in all 50 states.

 

There is clearly a double standard that has to end. Why must gay people defend their basic fitness for parenting when it is clear that sexual orientation has nothing to do with, say, whether or not a parent throws a child into San Francisco Bay?

 

[fgoodwin]

Hunt, the Wicca episode was unfortunate, but to those who continually hold it up as an example of BSA anti-Christian discrimination, I would remind them (as you did), it was unit level decision that was reversed by the CO and IH. The expulsion was not in accordance with BSA policy.

 

But like the retraction on the back page after an erroneous front-page article, people want to ignore that and focus on the expulsion.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Hunt writes:

I didn't see the reference to second-class citizens in the DRP.

 

The DRP states what is needed to be the "best kind of citizen", and if you're an atheist, you can't be the "best kind of citizen".

 

Good luck convincing anybody that this statement is some kind of terrible insult.

 

There are plenty of atheists who find it insulting.

[Eagledad]

>> I only point this out to pose two questions: 1) Why are right ring religious fanatics singling out loving same-sex families for scorn and ridicule?

[evmori]

Hunt writes:

I didn't see the reference to second-class citizens in the DRP.

 

The DRP states what is needed to be the "best kind of citizen", and if you're an atheist, you can't be the "best kind of citizen".

 

Good luck convincing anybody that this statement is some kind of terrible insult.

 

There are plenty of atheists who find it insulting.

 

Other than atheists with an agenda, no one else cares!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bobanon]

EagleDad I neither agree nor disagree with Wayne Bensen's article. I thought it might give a different persepctive to the discussion.

 

I do know that Mrs. Yates, the lady in Houston convicted of drowning her 5 children was severly mentally ill. How could she not have been. I didn't follow her trial very closely on a day to day basis, however I did follow it close enough to see that her husband, and pastor should both have been implicated for pushing her over the edge.

 

As far as gay parents I know so few as to be able to form a real opinion. But the ones I do know that have children from former marriages seem to be fairing well. And the children don't seem to be any worse for either. I would suppose that the children of gay couples suffer the same stigmatism as interracial children twenty or thirty years ago, (especially in the South). I do not believe that just because a couple is gay that it means they are doing anything deviant, espcically in reguards to their children.

 

I am a Unitarian and the particular church I attend every Sunday has several gay couples. There is nothing outwardly different between them and anyone else. All are very open and friendly. They just have a different sexual orientation. And I for one don't think they're bad, or sub-human in any way. Love cannot fit into a tight construct and it is wrong to try to make it so.

 

 

 

[Eagledad]

>>I am a Unitarian and the particular church I attend every Sunday has several gay couples.

[Bobanon]

EagleDad you make quite a few assumptions and you know what they say about assuming don't you?

 

Just because I don't have a very high opinion of conservative Christians as a whole, doesn't I can't work with them. I do and have for years. And I have many many friends that are Christians. How could you not in the US? I don't really care what people believe or don't believe as long as they don't force it upon me, or others unwarranted. Don't patronize.

 

How old are you? And how long have you been involved in Scouting? Myself, I have been around Scouting for a long time.

 

It seems to me you are the one with the problem with those who have differing ideas. If what I say upsets your world view then don't read my post. Its that simple.

[ohadam]

"Because all things being equal, a mother and father provide a healthier environment for raising kids than any of the other parental options, which is supported by plenty of experts and studies."

 

I have heard multiple times, including from a couple of sociologists on Penn & Teller's episode examining the concept of the "traditional family", that there is no evidence of this at all.

 

"The DRP states what is needed to be the "best kind of citizen", and if you're an atheist, you can't be the "best kind of citizen".

 

* * *

 

Other than atheists with an agenda, no one else cares!"

 

Ed., I'm not an athiest and I don't have an agenda, and I find this "best kind of citizen" language to be very disturbing. I'm actually pretty dismayed that this sort of language still exists in our society at all, and stunned that it exists in the BSA.

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Ed, (You asked me about my reasons for supporting the BSA in leaving the public schools and returning to churches.)

 

The BSA is not a religious organization but its' policy declares that people that do not believe in a God cannot join. The BSA also uses the word reverent in its Law and duty to God in the Oath. This appears to be a policy that is religious in nature and it creates confusion for those trying to figure it out.

 

The BSA is also charted by the United States government but the BSA declares that it is a private organization and can make its' own policies. The policies that appear to be religious and the one that is openly discriminatory appear like the government supports an organization with those policies. This makes the government look like it is violating its' own policies of separation of Church and State and non-discrimination, which is again confusing.

 

Public schools over the years have routinely closed their doors to groups that do not fit their mission. Public schools generally do not allow atheists or homosexual groups to meet on their premises. This has been viewed as a way to protect and serve. The BSA has been allowed to use the public schools but it now appears that public schools support policies that are openly discriminatory even if that is what they have done in the past. This appearance of wrong today does not serve the public schools nor the BSA in either of its' missions.

 

The BSA is probably technically correct in the way it makes its policies. The government is probably technically correct in the manner it has charted a private organization. The public schools may be able to make a technically correct argument in allowing the BSA to use their facilities. Few that try to understand the technical part of any of it will understand. James West understood both the law and about appearances. If Mr. West were alive and young enough today and in charge of the BSA, I know what his decision would be.

 

FB

 

 

 

 

 

[SaintCad]

I understand the ban on atheists. Can a person truly develop a moral code without a spiritual guide? I don't think so. However, I still can't wrap my head around this homosexuality issue. I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I'm thinking someone may have a viewpoint I'm just not seeing.

 

My question is: why do homosexuals exclusively not represent "family values"?

 

First, note that the answer cannot include Judeo-Christian ideals since BSA policy does not prefer one religion's views over another's. So no running to Leviticus 18:22 or the Epistles of St. Paul.

 

Second, the answer must not apply to any other non-traditional group. For example, if you claim that families must include a father and mother married to each other, that is invalid because that would mean that BSA must exclude divorced parents and those with children out of wedlock.

 

Third, the claim that a family consists of a mother and a father (the biology argument) must be elaborated on to account for people who choose to be celebate AND account for homosexuals that are married and have children.

 

Are there any justifications that meet all three criteria?