1985 Boy Scout commercial with a (now) non-supporter

[Eagledad]

>>My point is that the character of each person needs to be evaluated on their own merits and not by merely slapping a label on them.

[NJCubScouter]

Eagledad asks:

 

How about the SM who got caught by his wife being unfaithful with the ASM?

 

The choice is left up to the CO as to whether he will remain SM. If he applies to be SM somewhere else, then that CO will have the same option, and so on.

 

Or the child porn film maker who wanted to be a SM.

 

Take out the "child" part and make him a regular-old porn film maker, and the answer is the same as the adulterer. Leave in the "child" part, and you have someone who is committing very serious crimes against children. If this fact is generally known (and your questions pre-suppose that the facts you have mentioned are generally known), this person will not be an SM -- they will be arrested, charged, convicted, sentenced to prison and when they get out, will probably have conditions of parole that prohibit any involvement with any child, anywhere, any time. And then if if they do apply to be an SM, they will be excluded by the national background check due to their conviction for serious crimes against children.

 

There is the stripper who wanted to be a CM.

 

Same answer as the adulterer. They can be a CM if the CO wants them to.

 

But how about a gay person, and let's say he has never cheated on his partner/spouse, made any dirty movies, or worked displaying his body to the public? Let's say he lives a quiet, monogamous suburban life with his partner (or spouse, depending on the state) and maybe an adopted child or two, and their dog, and he goes to work every day as an insurance salesman, or public school teacher, or pharmacist or whatever. And let's assume that, by being seen with his partner or spouse here and there, and identifying who the person is, he is considered an "open or avowed homosexual." (So far, by the way, this is a composite of several gay people I have actually known.) Now let's say he wants to be den leader, or Scoutmaster, or committee member or crew adviser for the BSA unit that his adopted son is in.

 

Is the answer the same as for the adulterer, the non-child pornogapher, the stripper? Or the habitual drunk, the grossly overweight person, or any one of a number of other examples raised in this forum over the years? No. The answer is different. All of these other people can be leaders, if appointed by a CO. The hypothetical gay person cannot. If council hears that he is openly gay, he will receive a letter terminating his membership and basically telling him he cannot be involved in any unit, with any CO, anywhere. It's not up to the CO, unlike all the other situations that you listed and that I listed.

 

That is the problem. If the CO was allowed to say either yes or no to the gay person, just like the CO can do with all the rest (or with any of us, for that matter), there would be no issue. It sounds like a good plan to me.

[Eagledad]

>>That is the problem. If the CO was allowed to say either yes or no to the gay person, just like the CO can do with all the rest (or with any of us, for that matter), there would be no issue.

[moosetracker]

The difference is a line was drawn. Most of us draw a line to who we allow as role models for our kids. The BSA picked theirs.

 

Good thing those lines are always drawn in the sand.. Make it easier to erase and redraw it when the need arises.

[NJCubScouter]

I would prefer that the "line" make sense.

 

And just to be really clear, the "line" is between "local option" and exclusion. No CO has to appoint a leader they don't want.

[Eagledad]

>>And just to be really clear, the "line" is between "local option" and exclusion.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

AZMike writes:

Eisenhower stated "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war." Like it or not, we are a country that was formed by religious people and based on religious ideas. It's a good addition to the Pledge, I think.

 

Eisenhower also stated "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

 

Which is the antithesis of religious freedom.

[AZMike]

>>Eisenhower also stated "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

 

Which is the antithesis of religious freedom.

[moosetracker]

SP.. Not really, the liberals may want their states to support same-sex marriage, as does homosexuals themselves.. But, no one is argueing that all churches must perform those marriages.

 

No one argues that an LDS church must open up to all children of all faiths (some do some don't). Other churches have only wanted to cater to children of their faith.. so be it.

 

Some CO's only want men as adult leaders. There have been others who have complained about this, the only thing we tell them is if they really object to it, and feel it goes against the principles they are teaching their son, then find a different unit, if not and their son is happy in the unit.. Let their son be.

 

I know of one unit that is open only to children with handicaps.

 

Guarenteed if the BSA opened up to athiests, there will be some units set up to only athiests.. Maybe even to homosexual children (but to do that would be harder, as it would be scrutinized and analyze to make sure it was similar to gender grouping (boy scouts if for boys).. And not about having a club that dealt with sex issues per se..). That it was more for giving them a safe haven where they will not be harrassed or bullied, rather then a place to find date's, camp with boyfriends, and talk about sexual issues.. It may be hard to do.. More likely they would probably need to find a CO that is open to homosexuals, start a group that is very welcoming to homosexuals, and depending on the area may be open to anyone, but if it starts off as dominated by homosexuals they may not have too many normal people feeling comfortable in the unit.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

>>Eisenhower also stated "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

 

Which is the antithesis of religious freedom.

[AZMike]

By your logic, someone who holds to a "progressive" ideology could argue that we should delete other sections of the Pledge to better conform to his or her beliefs.

 

One could argue that one should not pledge allegiance to a flag, as it is "only" a piece of cloth.

 

One could argue that "one nation" is inaccurate, as America holds both rich and poor communities.

 

One could argue that "with liberty and justice for all" is inaccurate, as liberty and justice are denied to many.

 

One could further argue that it is wrong to force any child to compromise his or her belief by publicly averring such sentiments, and that it is a violation of their right to free speech.

 

Perhaps you feel we should dump the whole Pledge. After all, why do we need any statement that encourages solidarity as members of the same nation? And really, why do we need to have a Scout Oath or Law?

 

Rather than trying to alter an American tradition to more fully conform to one's individual beliefs, it would be preferable that a child or the child's parents simply choose not to say the relevant phrase they find offensive, or choose not to say the Pledge at all. While progressives raise the issue that in so doing, some child may be harassed, or bullied, or have his self-esteem lowered for expressing his proto-atheistic beliefs, we should recognize that some religious denominations do not recite the Pledge, such as Jehovah's Witnesses. They do not recite the Pledge, sing the National Anthem, run for Public Office, serve on jury duty, serve in the armed forces...or join the Boy Scouts. This may cause some hardship for individual JW kids, but you should we willing to stand up for your beliefs. Are you saying that atheist kids should be held to a different standard, or taught to be less courageous in standing up for their beliefs, than the JWs? If so, then why?

 

Would you argue that the Boy Scouts should be altered to better conform to the JW denomination, to avoid causing JWs a loss of self esteem or compromising their freedom of expression? If not, why then should we alter the Pledge of Allegiance to comport with an atheist's beliefs, or lack of same?

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

Eagledad says:

 

>>And just to be really clear, the "line" is between "local option" and exclusion.

[Beavah]

But, no one is argueing that all churches must perform those marriages.

 

Yah, I reckon that what yeh mean is that no one is arguing that all churches must perform gay marriages YET.

 

Just like until fairly recently, nobody was arguing that all churches had to perform abortions or sterilizations or offer contraceptive services.

 

Beavah

 

[moosetracker]

There you go messing up church with business again.. And with that I even agreed for elective procedures if the catholic hospitals do not want to participate fine, because there are other places the person can go to to get the abortion or contraception. as long as they don't have hangups over emergancy care, like a pregnat women in a car accident where it is they may need to perform an abortion to save the mothers life.

 

 

No I mean like the LDS churches who would allow blacks as members, but not as church official long after blacks had equality elsewhere.. Did it change .. Yes.. But outsiders did not push for change. It was their own members who pushed the change.

 

Perhaps, eventually the Catholic members will push from within for change, but the outsiders will not..

 

BSA like catholic hospitals have blurred the lines of if it is public or private, By taking government assistance, and so is open to similar scrutiny.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164547,00.html

 

True if BSA did make it local option, the public would insist the schools or other public organization be open to all if they host a scout unit. But, if hosted by the church or other private organization, they can run with whatever outdated or predjudicial beliefs the private organization holds, until their own members bring about the reform.

 

 

 

[Peregrinator]

as long as they don't have hangups over emergancy care, like a pregnat women in a car accident where it is they may need to perform an abortion to save the mothers life.

 

A Catholic hospital would not be permitted to perform an abortion in such a circumstance.