Scouting aims to connect with Muslims

[TheScout]

If one wants to ensure that American liberty endures, he or she must realize that we must do something about this problem. The more people of questionable loyalty we let into this country will only force an increase in security measures.

 

Several canidates in the GOP debates, including some of the major ones endorsed a proposal for a national ID card. Though I am a conservative, I am quite liberatarian when it comes to federal power and think this would be a travesty. This is the trend where this country is heading. Many people value security more than liberty. The more folks of questionable loyalty that you allow in this country will only increase the demand for more security measures.

 

So what do you care more about, letting Muslims into this country, or protecting American liberty.

 

Put my vote down for liberty.

[theysawyoucomin']

Merlyn,

 

What else would the VPOTUS say to a bunch of ring knockers? "Go forth and crochet!" Some of those folks are going to the meat grinder.

 

Right now we could pull out. The left has no remorse for the killing fields in Cambodia or Vietnam what's a few million arabs?

 

the bad guys will waste you with your MUCH holier than thou thoughts just as quick as they waste me. Hate Bush all you want, see if that buys your safety.

They blew up the WTC once, long before GWB won the election.

 

A friend of mine was there on that day too.

 

They just didn't have enough explosive to knock it over. I think GWB was owner of the Texas Rangers then and Cheney worked for the hated Halliburton.(whatever they were doing they weren't "reigning") So they were trying to kill us long before Bush and Darth came along.

 

If 19 guys from Chicago blew up the sites in Mecca or Medina do you think there would be two stones still standing the day after at any American site on the "arab street"? Would they say, "Wait there are good Americans relate to them?"

 

.05% of the liberals don't want to kill me so your point is moot. They might wish me dead but they need my tax dollars so we can buy clean needles to give to heroin addicts and other wonderful programs like that.

 

Lisa,

Please don't quote chapter and verse, because many of your thoughts are contrary to what the founder said. You either buy into it or you don't. Also it was never meant to be a suicide pact or death wish. I'll gladly accept him and his culture but when somebody with similar beliefs and background wants to eat my son's liver you'll have to pardon me if I'm not so accepting anymore. I'm shallow that way.

 

I've got a copy of Footsteps of the Founder too, we can start quoting all you want.

 

 

 

 

 

[Trevorum]

Oh I don't know. I don't think it's the Muslims who are the religious minority we should be discriminating against here in America, land of the free. Most of them are OK folks - after all they believe in the same God as Americans, just a different name for Him, eh?

 

Me, I think it's those dang ACLU'ers we should throw out of the country. Oh, wait - that's not a religion? Then never mind.

[Lisabob]

"Lisa,

Please don't quote chapter and verse, because many of your thoughts are contrary to what the founder said. You either buy into it or you don't. Also it was never meant to be a suicide pact or death wish."

 

 

I wrote a long reply about how this isn't a contest to see who is the most doctrinaire (though I don't agree with how you've characterized my views), or who can produce the most quotes, etc.. But then I figured I'd just cut to the most important point, in my view.

 

I do not see how reaching out to a minority group of any kind and inviting them to join scouting, to adopt the basic premises and values of scouting, is in any way similar to a "suicide pact or death wish."

 

Supposing that you did read the original post, did you notice that the person interviewed - the Muslim leader interviewed - very clearly stated that there were many similarities between the traditional values of scouting and the basic values of Islam? I'd think we would be thrilled to see such a confluence of ideals.

 

I live in an area of the US where there is a very large Muslim population. We have Muslim boys in several troops in our district, including in my son's troop. They're just like any other boys when it comes right down to it - they like to camp and make smores and goof around and do the stuff scouts do. And their families? Very supportive of scouting. Why people seem to feel a need to make "boogey men" out of them is beyond me.

 

Are there "bad apples?" Yes. And fanatics of all stripes are dangerous, scary people. Let's not brand an entire world religion though, because of the actions of a small minority. That would be like saying all Americans are bad people because of the abuses perpetrated by a few at Abu Ghraib.

 

And by the way, if you don't think there are people who DO do exactly that to Americans as a result of our military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, you're mistaken. But there are also a lot of moderating voices - they just don't tend to get as much coverage because they aren't as sensational as a bombing. And we all know that fear and sensationalism sell.

[Lisabob]

For those who wonder how in the world it can be that "only" 68% of American Muslims condemn Al Qaeda outright, you might be interested in this article about Irish Americans and the IRA.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201943.html

 

Uh Oh. Better toss out all those of Irish ancestry.

[TheScout]

The comparison you make between the IRA and al Qaeda is very offensive.

 

The 1918 Irish election, the last election in which the whole island participated produced a large Irish nationalist majority. The British refused to accept the democratic result and split of the portion of the country which (barely) wanted to remain in the Union. The IRA has since been committed to the natural union of the entire island in one state. No one can deny that is not ordained for that entire island to be united. Should the Irish just have accepted the division? I think not. If I was Irish I would have opposed it. I hope if anyone tried to seperate a part of the United States you would work to halt it as well with all your means.

 

Compare the noble objective of a united Ireland to that of al Qaeda. What is the goal of al Qaeda. Who knows? Whatever it is trying to force a vision of the world on other people through violence. The Irish are merely using violence in a desire to be left alone. For a people who have been oppressed by the British for 800 years, my liberty loving heart can not question their desire to be free.

[Kudu]

"Internationally, Muslims make up a large part of the worldwide scouting movement. In fact, Muslim-dominated Indonesia ranks second worldwide for the number of scouts, just behind first-ranked United States."

 

I have always been curious about this.

 

The BSA is a powerful religious corporation with a government-established monopoly on Scouting in the United States. As far as I know the BSA is the only Scouting monopoly in the world that forces all of its members to sign a written statement affirming that the recognition of the god named "God" as the ruling and leading power in the Universe and the grateful of acknowledgment of this particular god for any "favors and blessings" are "necessary to the best type of citizenship."

 

According to some sources, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the United States. If for the sake of argument we accept that as true, how would you conservative Christians react if some day the conservative Muslim Scouting majority substitutes the god named "Allah" for the god named "God"?

 

The BSA's Declaration of Religious Principle would now read:

 

"The recognition of Allah as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of Allah's favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members.

 

NO MATTER WHAT THE RELIGIOUS FAITH of the members may be, THIS fundamental need of good citizenship should be KEPT BEFORE THEM."

 

The BSA would remain "absolutely nonsectarian," of course, so that BSA members would be free to worship rocks or trees or the god named "God" as understood by Christians, provided that they affirmed in writing that "Allah" is the ruling and leading power in the Universe and the grateful of acknowledgment of Allah for all of our "favors and blessings" is "necessary to the best type of citizenship."

 

As far as I can tell, liberals would accept the changes without a whimper because for some reason they tend to take the BSA's "absolutely nonsectarian" claim at face value and they agree with Trevorum that Muslims believe in the same God, and simply use a different name for Him.

 

How about you conservative Christians who currently rule the BSA and impose the DRP on everyone?

 

Would you have any problems affirming in writing that you and your family members, your neighbors, and the people in your congregation are not good citizens if they do not believe in Allah?

 

Would you have any problem with your sons, as a condition of advancement, being tested by their Scoutmaster and Committee Members to prove that they acknowledge a "Duty to Allah"?

 

Would you still have the courage of your current convictions, or would you dare to think the unthinkable and agree with me that the state establishment of a monopoly on Scouting for one single PRIVATE religious corporation is un-American, and the imposition of the DRP on adult volunteers and little children as a condition for membership in Scouting is contrary to the spirit of the teachings of both Baden-Powell and Jesus of Nazareth?

 

Kudu

 

 

[TheScout]

I am not sure where they rant came from. Though I support the BSA, I do not support is congressional monopoly. I have also never seen anyone on this forum (or at least in this tread) in support of the monopoly either.

 

Lastly, the DRP are not imposed on anyone. Members of the BSA join and subscribe to the DRP through their own free wil.

[Gonzo1]

I'm not so sure it's a monopoly.

There's Campfire Girls, I mean Campfire USA, GSUSA, Boys Club I mean boys and Girls club, 4H, Spiral Scouts, Baden-Powel Scouting Association and whatever group anyone else wants to start.

 

Merlyn,

"as if Iraq had something to do with that attack." Um, let's see, try UN Resolution 1441, try the surrender documents Iraq signed at the end of the Gulf War in 1991 and how IRAQ WOULD COMPLY WITH UN RESOLUTIONS ALLOWING WEAPONS INSPECTORS INTO IRAQ TO ENSURE THAT WMD WERE NOT BEING MADE OR STORED. Then Saddam kicked out the inspectors, what did he have to hide, hmmm, WMD's!!! After the 9/11 attack, Saddam gave a death gratuity to surviving family members of the attackers! Bush Doctrine: You're either with us, or you're against us. Iraq or Sadam didn't have to actually do anything, Iraq and Saddam supported terroists, terror networks and had and used WMD against his own people. Saddam was given about 13 or 14 chances to comply before we invaded, he didn't and we went in. Why did we go into Germany? Aww never mind, you probably think Adolf Hitler was a good guy too. The bottom line is that Iraq aided, spported and approved of terrorists and terrorism. The Global War on Terror will be a long one on many fronts in many places, not just Iraq or Afganistan.

 

It is far better to have the fight over there than over here (again). We aren't ready to have car bombings going off at our nearby mall, are we? Or having the city bus blow up and so forth, are we? Why do they do these things, because WE ARE AMERICANS! They want to kill you, me, your family my family, you neighbors family and so on.

 

If you can read this post, thank a teacher, if you can read it in English, thank a veteran.

 

Gonzo

United States Navy 1982 - 1992

United States Navy Reserve 1992 - 1998

United States Army Reserve 1998 - 2006

 

(This message has been edited by Gonzo1)

[Trevorum]

Kudu, I've tried to make this point before, but you have not responded. Maybe you never saw the post.

 

Anyway, the word "God" is not a name. It is a title. True, some monotheists do not see a difference, but "God" (capitalized) is equivalent to "King", or even "President". Those titles refer to an office, which can be held by various persons. The various names of the western supreme deity include Adonai, Jehovah, and Allah, all of whom are "God".

 

[Lisabob]

TheScout, if you were offended then that is indeed unfortunate. Try asking the families of British soldiers tortured and killed by IRA members how they feel about the IRA though, and you'll get an ear full. (And actually, I'm rather sympathetic to the cause of the Northern Irish, though not to the bloodier methods of the IRA).

 

It should be noted as well though, that your suggestion that all Muslims should be removed - or kept out to start with - because they "could" be terrorists, is also very offensive. And flat out wrong as well.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

uz2bnowl writes:

What else would the VPOTUS say to a bunch of ring knockers? "Go forth and crochet!" Some of those folks are going to the meat grinder.

 

So do you think it's proper for Cheney to falsely imply that Iraq had something to do with the 9/11 attack?

 

Gonzo1 writes:

Merlyn,

"as if Iraq had something to do with that attack." Um, let's see, try UN Resolution 1441, try the surrender documents Iraq signed at the end of the Gulf War in 1991 and how IRAQ WOULD COMPLY WITH UN RESOLUTIONS ALLOWING WEAPONS INSPECTORS INTO IRAQ TO ENSURE THAT WMD WERE NOT BEING MADE OR STORED.

 

And how does that show Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks?

 

Oh, nothing.

 

Aww never mind, you probably think Adolf Hitler was a good guy too.

 

That's right, when you have no argument, just try smearing people.

 

It is far better to have the fight over there than over here (again). We aren't ready to have car bombings going off at our nearby mall, are we? Or having the city bus blow up and so forth, are we?

 

The invasion of Iraq didn't decrease terrorist activity, it made it worse. How is increasing terrorist activity "better"?

[Gonzo1]

Merlyn,

Oh nothing? Iraq was a breeding ground for terror. I'm sure you have as many firends serving today in Iraq as I do, (but really you probably don't) and I can say with certainty that things are far better now than before when the murderous dictator (the beloved of the left media here) was in power.

 

smearing people? The only difference between Hitler and Saddam is time. Saddam didn't live and weild power long enough to kill 6,000,000 people, Saddam only killed about 800,000.

 

The invasion of Iraq didn't decrease terrorist activity, it made it worse. How is increasing terrorist activity "better"? The GWOT is successful and paying offin great dividends. Further attacks have been thwarted here and abroad. I know, you're gonna say that 3,000 US soldiers have died while in the GWOT. That's right, each one a terrible loss. However, each soldeir a volunteer and he or she knew exactly what they were getting in for, not a college education, but to serve our country and that knowledge comes with the possiblilty of going to war.

 

It's not that Iraq had anything to do D I R E C T L Y with the 9/11 attack, but indirectly. Saddam provided a training ground for terrorists.

 

 

[TheScout]

Lisa, You paint a one sidede picture. You can also ask the same question to the famalies of Irish Catholics killed by British soldiers and police. There is a big difference between the Irish people fighting for self-determination and al Qaeda attacking out over the entire world to impose its closed view of the world. One group is fighting for liberty, one is not.

 

I do not think it is inapproprate to stop Muslims from coming into the US. Some of them want to kill us and have attacked us. Think about it, if we had never let Muslims into the US, we would probably be better off. September 11 would never had happened. I think avoiding that tragedy would be far more appropriate then letting them share in the American dream.

 

As a believer in freedom I watch with horror the results of the September 11 attacks with increased government powers over its citizens. The more Muslims you let in, the more pressure there will be to have even more security measures. That is not consistent with my dream of America.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Gonzo1 writes:

Merlyn,

Oh nothing?

 

Nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, no.

 

Iraq was a breeding ground for terror.

 

It still is; in fact, it's increased.

 

A lot of countries are breeding grounds for terrorists; do we invade all of them?

 

I'm sure you have as many firends serving today in Iraq as I do, (but really you probably don't)

 

While I only know them through the internet, I'm a non-military member of MAAF, the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, some of whom are deployed to Iraq and other places.

 

and I can say with certainty that things are far better now than before when the murderous dictator (the beloved of the left media here) was in power.

 

Terrorism has increased; I don't call that "better".

 

And even granting your opinion as right (which I don't), that still doesn't show that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

 

How about getting Osama bin Laden? Shouldn't the US try to get him? Why is he still at large?

 

smearing people?

 

Yes.

 

The only difference between Hitler and Saddam is time.

 

And guess what, you dishonest Boy Scout, I don't think EITHER is a "good guy." Yet that doesn't stop you from lying and saying so.

 

Of course, it fits in with your jingoistic "you're either with us or against us", and "against us" means differing in the slightest with our incompetent and lying President.

 

It's not that Iraq had anything to do D I R E C T L Y with the 9/11 attack, but indirectly.

 

So why did the Bush administration's statements confuse the public such that a huge number THOUGHT Iraq was responsible for 9/11? Why, it's as if the Bush admin. wanted to mislead the public so they'd be in favor of invading Iraq...

 

Now, why has the Bush administration forgotten about getting bin Laden, who WAS directly involved with the 9/11 attack? Even granting your Republicant point-of-view that invading Iraq was a good idea, shouldn't the order of priority be:

1) those DIRECTLY responsible for the 9/11 attack

2) those INDIRECTLY responsible

?