The Press and discriminatory story writing.

[DanKroh]

erickelly writes: "While often used to refer to relationship among various Christian denominations, Ecumenical's definition is "involving or promoting friendly relations between different religions" (Encarta) and that is the definition to which I was refering."

 

That's fine if that's what you mean with it, but most people are going to read it and think you mean "Christian only". Just saying. YMMV.

 

"As for the boy in your example that grows up to not believe in a higher power, why would he want to remain a group that had that belief as part of its tenants?"

 

Well, because:

that's where all his friends are

he likes doing merit badges

he likes to camp

he likes doing all the other cool things that scouts do, strangely none of which has any overtly religious component (except for the occasional prayer and the mention of God in the oath)

 

"I never looked at this a punishment being meated out by the BSA but rather a statment of "We believe in X, if you believe in X great, but if not why would you want to affiliate with this group""

 

See the above list of why they want to affiliate. Maybe you don't see it as a punishment, but what about the average teenager? Again, if they've already been in the organization for 10 years, why would he want to leave?

 

"And what would we tell the other members of the group? That originally we said faith is a critical element in life but we were wrong and now it doesnt matter one way or the other?"

 

Personally, I would tell them that we are more concerned actions and deeds than professions of belief. Some people get their moral code from a belief in a specific faith, other people have a moral code based on their own thoughts about right and wrong. It's how you live by that code that is important, not it's source.

[GernBlansten]

"But I would ask you this, why would an atheist want to or even be willing to state they will strive to live by the tenants of the scout oath and law as they currently are written? "

 

The same reason an obese scout or scouter can recite "To keep myself physically strong," and remain in the organization. Its a goal, not a membership criteria. Remember its, "On my honor, I will do my BEST"

[TheScout]

So you are comparing people who are immoral to those who are obese?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Why not? Isn't gluttony a sin?

[erickelly65]

GernBlansten

Once again the differences in your example are huge.

An obese child isnt rejecting the tenant of being physically fit he just doesnt happen to achieved that status (which could be for a myriad of reasons)

The atheist boy in the example is "Stiving" to meet the requirement of faith. He is out right rejectiing it.

 

It couldnt be more "apples and oranges"

[erickelly65]

GernBlansten

Once again the differences in your example are huge.

An obese child isnt rejecting the tenant of being physically fit he just doesnt happen to achieved that status (which could be for a myriad of reasons)

The atheist boy in the example is "Stiving" to meet the requirement of faith. He is out right rejectiing it.

 

It couldnt be more "apples and oranges"

[erickelly65]

GernBlansten

Once again the differences in your example are huge.

An obese child isnt rejecting the tenant of being physically fit he just doesnt happen to achieved that status (which could be for a myriad of reasons)

The atheist boy in the example is "Stiving" to meet the requirement of faith. He is out right rejectiing it.

 

It couldnt be more "apples and oranges"

[erickelly65]

GernBlansten

Once again the differences in your example are huge.

An obese child isnt rejecting the tenant of being physically fit he just doesnt happen to achieved that status (which could be for a myriad of reasons)

The atheist boy in the example is "Stiving" to meet the requirement of faith. He is out right rejectiing it.

 

It couldnt be more "apples and oranges"

[erickelly65]

YIKES....sorry about the multiple posts...I am not sure what I did but it sure made a mess (and with typos too..ugh)

[packsaddle]

Heh, heh, would a glutton for punishment qualify? If so I plead guilty.

 

Checking my glasses, suddenly I'm seeing quadruple...the oath lists three things at the end: physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight. The god thing occurs as a statement of duty and as part of the DRP. But the three things promised in the oath are ranked equally, not in order of ascending importance. Or do I have that wrong? The comparison is not to equate gluttony with some aspect of morality (although I think some might argue in that direction) but to note that physical health IS ranked by BSA as equal to moral living. In that sense the comparison is in how these are applied to membership which, as noted, is NOT equal. (That mentally awake part, ahem, should scare heck out of a lot of us).

 

As pointed out, BSA is willing to wink at the first two while focusing its exclusionary wrath on the third. This is the part that seems hypocritical to so many. If all the drug-taking, tobacco-smoking, fat, slovenly, stupid, and crazy people were also excluded from membership, what a great organization we'd have! The numbers might suffer a bit though.

But no, we ignore those first two parts as if we have no idea what they mean. And then feign indignance when young Denzil points at hypocrisy.

 

TheScout, could you please explain to the CoL people how decentralized BSA is? The thing I notice is that you seem to advocate local option when applied to government (something that, to my mind, is really important) but to advocate the central authority with regard to membership in a national organization like BSA (something that, to my mind, is probably of less importance than overall government). Dare I mention the word?

[packsaddle]

Sick People! I forgot sick people! That would include all sorts of maladies, people with HIV and cancer, genetic abnormalities, handicaps, herpes, the list goes on.

(A joke question: know the difference between herpes and love? Answer: Herpes is forever, tee hee.)

Anyway, these defectives should probably also be excluded.

 

Oops, typo (hope that's not grounds for exclusion)(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[GernBlansten]

My point is that BSA can and should hold whatever values the organization wants. But it should not exclude anyone (save for safety reasons). Keep the religious components in the oath, don't change a word. BSA won't be attractive to most atheists, but allowing them to join if they wish won't hurt the organization one bit and it will relieve the negative press. And who knows, maybe those little godless heathens who do join will see the light when exposed to the program and become theists.

[skeptic]

There are two continuing areas of attack, or, if some prefer, disagreement with BSA policies. One is the Gay issue, and the continuing castigation by the PC groups that BSA are ignorant bigots, or living in the dark ages, or other complimentary comments. Yet, seldom discussed is the little pre-cursor to Gay, avowed; (avow: to declare openly, bluntly, and without shame ;ever ready to avow his reactionary outlook). If you attach this word to other areas, such as smoking, drinking, gun carrying, and so on, then you would have lots of people that would not fit the leadership desires. While that word is not used in most areas that might be cause for turning someone down as a leader, it only because few would ever question the reasoning for the decision. Whether or not it is true in most cases, the "lifestyle" image attached to Gays is not one that most parents would want to expose their children to directly. And while I cannot prove it, I would wager strongly that few of the individuals that are so upset by this BSA stance would actually allow their own children or grandchildren to participate in a unit with one of these outspoken individuals in leadership.

 

So, the reality for the BSA is they are in a lose, lose situation with this issue. The PC position makes them scapegoats either way. Reality is that most units would disappear fairly soon if these individuals (again, we are talking about avowed) were allowed. And heaven forbid if it was approved, and then the individual was found to be a pedophile preying on the youth. The first thing out of the victims lawyers' mouths would be, "you knew about him; why did you allow him to be a leader?". And the jury would almost as quickly say, yes; give them some outlandish sum. Rock and a hard place.

 

Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity.

So, if you do not believe in one, then why would you even entertain joining the BSA? They do not require you to join, and you can do all the things they do other places, other than their singular advancement program. You can still be friends with youth in the program without joining, so that is not a reason.

 

Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable ; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

This individual is more likely to be the one you would encounter, especially in the example given of the young man who, at 16 makes a decision regarding his beliefs. If, he is able to make a personal decision of this magnitude that he is, in fact, an Atheist, then he also will be able to understand the reason why he no longer can be part of the BSA. If, as is usually the reality, he is still not sure, but only reflecting a parental or family view, then he is still within the parameters. A serious discussion would probably determine that he knows "something" is responsible for the things that have no answer, but he does not know what. An good example of this is the quote of one of the Randall twins years ago that "Mother Nature" was responsible for the wonders of nature. It just was not the God that a majority of people recognized.

Part of the mistake too often made is the idea that God refers to one specific deity. That is nonsense; and BSA recognizes almost all forms, even the vagaries of Budhists. Granted, a large percentage of BSA members are of a specific few beliefs, but the law of reverence does not specify any of them.

 

So, why is the BSA singled out? For the very reason that they still actually stand for their foundational beliefs. And, while there are many who claim they are out of the mainstream, that is really not the case. Again, if you were able to actually get a true poll, one that was made without any political leanings, and could guarantee no personal attacks by the "radicals", it would still show a substantial majority agreeing with the BSA. But, of course no poll can do that, and people have become so tired of personal attacks by a small minority, that they simply refuse to get in the middle.

 

These are observations and opinions. Please do not attack me personally, as I will not respond, and will simply block any such individuals. Feel free to pontificate all you want about how accurate, rational or irrational, or skewed they may be.

 

 

[packsaddle]

Welcome to the forums, Skeptic. Nice nickname BTW.

Your opinions may hold true some places but not my neck of the woods. There ARE gays in BSA, and if I know it that probably meets the 'avowed' part. They pose no threat whatsoever to the boys. I know this with complete confidence. On the contrary, they bring a welcome diversity of views and talents to the units, same as anyone else.

Regarding lifestyle exposure, regardless of what a parent might want these days, unless we keep them in a bubble (Gonzo1 you hear this?), they're going to get that exposure either from neighbors, friends, friends' families, television, or someplace on the 'street'. This parent certainly did NOT try to shelter our children in these matters, rather we taught them to judge people as individuals without prejudice. While I know there are forum members who agree with you, I suspect there are quite a few others on this forum who feel the same as I do. So I present myself as one exception to your sweeping statement of opinion and there are probably others. I know plenty around this area.

 

If you search the threads fairly diligently, there have been long discussions in the past regarding terms such as 'atheist' and 'agnostic'. I'm not sure how many of us want to rehash all that now. I'll just see what pops up from your post.

Again, welcome to the forums.

[Trevorum]

Welcome, skeptic. I share packsaddle's views on these issues. You may be surprised to discover that many others also would openly welcome these Scouts and Scouters without hesitation. As pack says, these folks are already in Scouting, and more to the point, they have been since 1910.

 

"Celebrate Diversity"