article: Potomac Falls woman removed from son’s Boy Scout troop

[Beavah]

Yah, I figure it's another part of da unpublished memo, eh? I reckon "morally straight" also encompasses polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia and such.

 

It is funny to me to learn that Merlyn really is a religious missionary, eh? He's not content to let a conservative church set its own standards for membership, as they by all accounts did in this case. He wants to go after 'em and convert them, too. "It's never going to go away!" and all that. People have to believe what I believe or I will pester and harass 'em until they do.

 

Moosetracker, I'll be the first to admit that there are plenty of religious folks for whom religion has become an idol, eh? Yeh can tell 'em because they're focused more on their religion or what's written in the Good Book and they don't talk very much about God or what God expects of them, not others. Yeh can turn even Christianity into naught more than a Golden Calf, eh?

 

But then, yeh know, I've always been amazed at how liberal-minded folks are willing to make broad-brush statements condemning religion and da religious, and talkin' about how religion has caused wars and all kinds of other bad things. But they would never, ever, make the same claims about other groups - that blacks have done thus and so, that Jews have done thus and so, that Arabs are all this that or the other, that communism or capitalism or monarchy or democracy have done all these bad things. I often wonder why that is?

 

People are people, eh? They often fail to live up to their own standards and values. Da question is what those standards and values should be that they strive for. And I reckon some religions at least have done OK on that score. The notion that we should take care of the poor among us is fundamentally a religious one, eh? It was never proposed by any state or monarch.

 

 

[packsaddle]

"But they would never, ever, make the same claims about other groups - that blacks have done thus and so, that Jews have done thus and so, that Arabs are all this that or the other, that communism or capitalism or monarchy or democracy have done all these bad things."

C'mon, do you WANT them to make those kinds of statements about the other groups?

 

Could be you don't hear it about those other groups because my Tea Party supporting, homophobic, fundamentalist and openly racist minister and neighbor down the street who continues to fly the Confederate Flag above the American Flag...already does that for everyone. I have never heard him utter anything hateful about religion..oops, except for Jews...um...and Catholics, come to think of it, and Mormons.

I have to admit, I've never really understood the thing about Catholics. Why not Presbyterians? Lutherans? Why Catholics? I'll probably never understand.

[Beavah]

Yah, it's those silly papists, eh? Honestly, there's often nuthin' quite so bad as the squabbles between two different shoots from da same branch of protestantism.

 

I was out campin' recently at a rural state park in a state a bit south of ours, and chattin' with da evening ranger at the gate while waitin' for part of a lost convoy. He and your neighbor would have gotten along just fine, I reckon. Yeh don't see that sorta thing much up our way, so I was really quite taken aback. I was a good ol' uniformed white feller, though, so he figured I must agree. Sigh. Sometimes it's hard to sow seeds when da soil is so dry and rocky.

 

B

[CalicoPenn]

"I have to admit, I've never really understood the thing about Catholics. Why not Presbyterians? Lutherans? Why Catholics? I'll probably never understand."

 

Can you name a nationality that has not been subject to prejudice in this country? About the only nationalities I can think of that had a pretty easy time of it were the British, French and Spanish (because they actually colonized this country) and the Scandinavians (Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Icelandic and the quasi-Scandinavian Finns) because I suspect everyone was still afraid their Viking heritage would rear its head. I would have said Germans but that changed in WW1 and WW2. Almost every nationality that has come to this country has faced additional hardships caused by prejudice.

 

One of those groups was the Italians - when they started coming over, they were not well liked. And what is essentially the state religion of Italy? The Catholic Church. The Irish were not really well liked when they started coming over either. Which church is most connected to the Irish? The Catholic Church.

 

The Catholic Church helped explore and colonize this side of the planet. They have been an integral part to the European colonization of the US from the beginning. They were a respected part of the religions in the US for a very long time. So what changed? The Italians and the Irish started immigrating to the US - and people hated the Italians and the Irish. That hatred transfered to their church - the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, it seems that once we're infected with hatred towards something, our society can't seem to shake that hatred off. Fortunately, it's a fairly small minority that keeps that hatred burning, so I consider that hopeful.

[83Eagle]

I've learned quickly here that if threads are started by particular posters, they are just another whetstone on which to grind their personal axe...

[Horizon]

I don't like how it was handled, but if the COR does not want someone as a leader - then they should be allowed to remove them as a leader. The leader did not fit into the COR's definition of a good leader.

 

Now, I personally do not agree with the COR, nor do I agree with the BSA's limitations - but I think that the COR should be allowed to make this choice. I just wish the BSA would allow that same decision making to be made by more CORs, so that I could start a new unit at my church (a Covenant Network member of the Presbyterian Church USA).

[moosetracker]

Beavah - was that a typo, or maybe I am not understanding your meaning?..

"talkin' about how religion has caused wars and all kinds of other bad things. But they would never, ever, make the same claims about other groups - that blacks have done thus and so, that Jews have done thus and so, that Arabs are all this that or the other, that communism or capitalism or monarchy or democracy have done all these bad things."

 

The whole thing with predjudice is that people do not meet people as an individual and make up their mind about a person indiviidually.. Blacks .. where to be ignorant, will bring down a neighborhood because of vandalism and the like.. Irish are hot tempered.. Ever hear and dumb Polish jokes?.. Indians are heathens and can't hold their liquar.. I know I am missing tons of them, but I wasn't raised this way, I am pulling from TV shows..

 

Calico - Catholics aren't the only religion getting beat up here.. What about the anger toward Muslims due to the current past history. We have been discussing the rebel Mormon sect with pologamy.. Jews are painted as greedy when grouped together.

 

If you think I was brushing all religion with a broad stroke of ALL religious people have lost the sight of god, and worship thier religion.. That was not what I was saying..

 

What I was saying is SAYING you believe in God, whether with religion or not, does not mean you truely are believing in something higher then of this world (Government as you stated is not higher then the human populas, because it's rules and beliefs are made by humans.. And worshiping your Religous institutions, or the preists within is no better then worshipping Government, because sorry.. It is all man-made.)..

 

Now if you use a religion to come together with like-mind folks, and just openly and intellegently discuss you common interest, and find comfort in unity.. Religion is not bad..

 

If they can walk away from a religious discussion with whomever, could be the Pope himself and say "Although I admire the man, I think his opinon on this subject is not right.. Because their is something in my heart or soul that says this is not right.."

 

But, because someone says they believe in God, they may believe or they may be no more enlightened then an athiest.. Because do they really believe in God or in their church of choice.. If it is the church, they really believe in nothing any higher then another human beings, philosophy & beliefs.. Just like a man who does not believe in religion or God, but believes in his government or his country and follows the laws that the government puts down on what makes you a good citizen..

 

I believe in the voice inside me and that that is God speaking to me.. Well part concious & part God.. The "Have a cookie, don't have a cookie" internal debate stuff is concious, I don't think God care that much about my diet.. But the heavier things where I fear taking the step on a path, or my desires really are tempted to sin.. That is God..

 

Now take an athiest.. If they know right from wrong, and follow an inner voice that leads them down the right path, they could call it all concious, and no God.. But, they are listening to that same internal voice I am..

 

Why am I allowed into BSA because I believe that the inner voice (at times) is God, and they can follow their own inner voice, but not believe it is God.. But they can't be part of BSA??

 

Am I really better then them? Are they really worse then me? Seriously we could both be on the same path.

 

You Beavah, just can not use that broad-brush statement to condemn atheists as all being unable to be good people due to not believing in a higher being. Nor can you use that broad-brus statement to say anyone who states they believe in God, is on the right path..

 

That is all I am saying, there are wonderful people in both groups, there are sinners in both groups..

 

Athiests can be lead astray, because they do not believe in God, country, or their inner voice.

Those like me who talk to God directly can be lead astray, because I can shut out that inner voice, or convince myself it is saying something else.

Those of Religion can be lead astray, and in large mis-directed groups by one or more sinful shephards, unless they can truely understand the difference between a mortal guide, and God..

 

So again I say what makes me better then an athiest who seriously wants to learn about helping other people, and learning right from wrong?

 

Me, I say nothing makes me better.

 

 

 

[perdidochas]

Moose,

 

To answer the question you posed:

"Now take an athiest.. If they know right from wrong, and follow an inner voice that leads them down the right path, they could call it all concious, and no God.. But, they are listening to that same internal voice I am..

 

Why am I allowed into BSA because I believe that the inner voice (at times) is God, and they can follow their own inner voice, but not believe it is God.. But they can't be part of BSA?? "

 

Do words not matter to you? Do promises not matter?

 

The Boy Scout Oath (Promise):

On my honor, I will do my best

To do [em]my duty to God[/em] and my country and to obey the Scout Law;

To help other people at all times;

To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmm.... Usually hearin' and listening to lots of "inner voices" is somethin' that yeh should seek treatment for, moosetracker. There are medications for that.

 

The problem with your notion of just-follow-your-inner-voice is that da religious racist and the atheist communist despot are followin' their inner voices, eh? All yeh have to do is listen to anything Quadaffi says to know he at least thinks he's following his inner voice. We humans are so very good at foolin' ourselves.

 

That's why we form communities of belief, eh? To check and inform our inner voices. Yah, yah, sometimes God inspires individuals, but lots of times they claim that when it's not the case. A community of faith provides a check against that. Your friends and your neighbors, your priests and your bishops, your bible and your biblical tradition all act to ground, guide, inform, and inspire your conscience.

 

No different than school, eh? Your "inner voice" can tell yeh that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. But then you're part of a community where "priests"... I mean knowledgeable teachers... explain that no, gravity is a funny thing, and all objects fall at the same rate, subject perhaps to different air drag. They might refer yeh to authoritative textbooks when a phenomenon is too hard to demonstrate in a classroom. Yah, yah, some teachers might even get things wrong from time to time.

 

But does that mean that living in a community that values learning is bad because it rejects and tries to inform your inner physics voice? Or perhaps, is it preferable for a good citizen to be a part of such a community, because despite da risk of having an occasional bad teacher, the benefits are still better overall than goin' it alone?

 

Your very language about "helping people" and "right and wrong" is religious language, eh? Shouldn't it be informed by the religious communit(ies) that developed those very ideas?

 

Nobody is sayin' any individual person is "better" than anyone else. There are indeed wonderful people in both groups, just as there are wonderful people who have never gotten an education. But don't yeh think it would be better if every citizen went to school, and learned to better inform their "inner voice"?

 

Includin' those of us who show a relatively unfortunate bias against religion and its adherents.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Gary_Miller writes:

How can you or anyone accuse BSA of "Bigotry" just because they have set a standard for their membership.

 

I accuse the BSA of bigotry just like I'd accuse a "no Jews" organization of bigotry, even if they defended it on the flimsy grounds that Jews just don't happen to meet their standards of membership (which includes not being a Jew).

 

Beavah writes:

It is funny to me to learn that Merlyn really is a religious missionary, eh? He's not content to let a conservative church set its own standards for membership, as they by all accounts did in this case.

 

No Beavah, it wasn't the CHURCH that decided this (from the article):

Phil Holliday, the executive pastor at Christian Fellowship Church and Esther Schaeffer, the charter organization representative, say they are simply following the rules.

When a chartered partner agrees to sponsor a scouting unit, an annual charter agreement is signed, they explained.

 

In the contract, they agree to provide a place for a meeting, select volunteer leaders and follow the policies and guidelines established by the Boy Scouts of America.

 

We are simply doing what we agreed to do in our charter, Schaeffer said.

 

See? The church is saying that the BSA's rules are FORCING them, it wasn't their decision.

 

[shortridge]

Maybe I'm dense, or just haven't read through every single publication I've been given or purchased as a Scouting volunteer.

 

But in which handbook or manual does it state that only heterosexuals are allowed in the BSA? In which handbook or manual are we volunteers directed to tell people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender that they can't register as leaders? Where are we told to do this?

 

Please don't direct me to bsalegal.org. I'm talking about information that we as volunteers are given when we sign up to volunteer. When are we told this, and how are we told this?

 

I'm asking because I don't ever *recall* being told this. It's just "one of those things" that "everyone knows." But maybe I missed something.

[Gary_Miller]

Merlyn, one can not change a definition just because it serves their personnel agenda.

 

Never the less if we use your definition then you and anyone else who is affiliated with The Boy Scouts of America is a bigot. It does not matter if you agree or disagree with the policy, if you are registered, donated money, drove a scout to camp, or have anything to do with BSA you are affiliated with them. And by your definition that makes you are a bigot.

 

Merlyn_LeRoy, "See? The church is saying that the BSA's rules are FORCING them, it wasn't their decision."

 

When the church signed up as a CO they signed on to uphold BSA standards and policies. It was at that time they made their decision.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Gary_Miller writes:

Merlyn, one can not change a definition just because it serves their personnel agenda.

 

That works for your definition, too.

 

Never the less if we use your definition then you and anyone else who is affiliated with The Boy Scouts of America is a bigot.

 

Fortunately, I'm not affiliated with the BSA.

 

When the church signed up as a CO they signed on to uphold BSA standards and policies. It was at that time they made their decision.

 

Would that be the same way thousands of public schools agreed to violate the constitution back when they chartered BSA units that excluded atheists?

 

(By the way, I was only pointing out the Beavah that the church didn't decide this; they're certainly running away from any responsibility for this decision. "I was only following orders")

[moosetracker]

perdidochas - maybe it is because I look at this by way of a discussion I had with a Catholic Priest at one time.. Husband & I when getting married had both our faiths do part of the ceremony..

 

Husband was Catholic, I was protestant.. We as a couple at the time had found a nice liberal church that was protestant. Husband has parts of his faith he likes, but does not care for things like the Pope and the importance put on one man, or the wealth of the Catholic church, and a lot of the pomp & circumstance. So felt more comfortable in a Protestant faith.. Although I did not grow up with my father after my parents divorce he is a Protestant minister and was the minister who stood up at the ceremony for us.. But, his family wanted the Catholic presence.

 

Anyway with Catholics there was some weekend couple meeting we attended, and my husband & I were to say or sign something stating we would raise our child to be Catholic to the best of our ability.. I talked to the priest about my problem with this, since I had no plans to raise the child Catholic.. His response was to look at the words To the best of my ability.. If the best of my ability was to teach him about God in another way, then so beit..

 

Now you may not like the out he gave me.. But, that is what talking to others and taking away from a conversation what you like and dont like is all about.. I was fine with the interpretation and so said the oath or signed the papers or whatever BSA also states I promise to do my best

As for morally straight.. All BSA looks at and practices is the tossing out of homosexuals because it is a group practice, rather than individual decisions and is easily defined.. The will also kick out someone with a crime, which would throw out the pedophiles. Maybe they may do the polygamist but I doubt it as they would have to stand in court and say they are standing in moral judgement as to whose religious practices are good and whose are not.. They will never oust an adulterer or a couple who lives together out of wedlock, because now they are standing in moral judgement of individual lives..

Now a CO does have the right to choose their leaders, but again, if they dont want to be slapped with a law suit, it had better be they select all their leaders, based on their positive assests and have enough enthusiatic adult leaders that are clamoring for the positions offered.. If they have an open door policy for everyone, but then stand in personal moral judgement of one or two individuals.. Like the COs who have no women rule.. I disagree and would never join the CO, but they are ruling against all women, not one women because they dont think she has the qualities they want to see in their women.. But if they are hand selecting their leaders, and have a pool to pull from, I guess the women they dislike can be overlooked, in favor of someone else.

Playing judge & jury on each individual persons moral standards is a slippery slope..

Beavah in school with science, the principles of gravity are pretty much in agreement with all schools you go to.. You may have a history teacher that interpret history in a different way then way then your history teacher the year before. But so too can you walk out of that school and get a differing viewpoint on history from you Grandparent, or Uncle, or a book you pick up..

 

If you feel closer to God by going to church and talking to like minded people who share your views.. And dont take their word as the new holy scripture ordained by God himself, because he wears black robes and a collar.. But as ones mans interpretation, then you are doing fine..

 

But if I choose to learn about my God, outside of a church, by talking to people of differing views, and reading differing books on the subject.. And discussing the subject on a forum with people like you.. Then I am also finding a way to check my inner voice as you say.. But I do so by having a wider source then just my school ..err.. church Because the interpretation is complex, not a scientific rule with only one answer..

 

As for the idea of "helping people" and "right and wrong" being a religious language, Although religion will use it, I do not believe they have a copy-right on it.. Those are common ideas of not only people due to us being creatures that form a social grouping, but you can find it in any animal that roam as a community, as a base instinct monkeys or Apes, wolf packs, Lions pride.. All will teach their young what is right and wrong in order to be part of the community.. All will work to help and protect each other to some degree.. It is a basic survival trait and instinct, to teach your young the rights & wrongs per your society Something instilled by God.. Religion just capitalizes on it to orgainize their different beliefs, and each religion will disagree on exactly WHAT is right & wrong.. Or exactly HOW you can help other people.. All based on the interpretation of other people.. And they may be right, they may be wrong but with good intentions.. Others though are purposly wrong and leading people into what other people would consider sin, or utilizing it to themselves sin with unsuspecting innocent victims..

 

Since all religions do not agree, either you can say that they are all getting correct signals from God, but he is highly confused.. Or that as long as we are doing our best, he is benevolent.. Or that we all have difficulty understanding our inner voices regardless of if you go to church, or just listen to the voice through quiet time and reflection.. Otherwise there would only be one religion, and all who went to church would be in single minded agreement.(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[perdidochas]

Moose,

 

My point is that the scout oath is a promise to do a duty to God. In order to do a duty to God, you have to recognize that there is a God (or some higher authority). An atheist (or agnostic) cannot promise to do a duty to God. A person (say a deist) who has vague recognition of some higher being can promise to do a duty to God. It's simply that language means something. Promises mean something. If they don't, then why use them at all?

 

I think the priest was too easy on you. Words matter. If you had no intention at all of raising your kids Catholic, you were straight out lying. If you had a vague idea of trying, I'd give you the benefit of "best of my ability," but I don't think (just based on your statement, not on anything else) that you had any intent to try at all. Do words matter to you?

 

I'm sorry if that got personal, but you brought it up. Promises mean something, and IMHO, you need to at least attempt to fulfill a promise. To outright make a promise without that intent to attempt to fulfill it is just hypocrisy.