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

[SeattlePioneer]

Just because it's the courts that are censoring

> speech doesn't mean it isn't censorship, pure and simple.

 

I agree with SP.

 

Respecting the beliefs of others is advanced citizenship. It is a standard that we as Americans have yet to understand or embrace. Frankly, we aren't yet smart enough or emotionally mature as a nation to be able to act on this ideal, even though we say in the Scout Law. >>

 

 

I think we ought to be able to recognize the censorship of speech by the courts over religion for what it is.

 

 

My Cub Pack is chartered by a Catholic parish. I'm sure the non parish members who form the large majority in the pack have wondered what influence that would have on the program.

 

As Cubmaster, I tried to answer these unspoken questions by defining "Duty to God" as:

 

1) Respecting the religious traditions of your family and

 

2) Respecting the religious traditions of other families.

 

 

In a Boy Scout Troop I invited a Jewish parent who was a religious leader in his synagogue to demonstrate his use of the Shofar (rams horn) at a Troop Court of Honor and lead the Troop in an opening prayer.

 

I'm not interested in excluding religion from the public square --- or from Scouting. What we should be doing is giving varying religious traditions represented in our units an opportunity to explain and show us their religious traditions.

 

Militant atheists and Federal Courts want to exclude religion from the public square and public activities by censoring what people are allowed to say and do. I think that is wrong.

 

We need to join together to understand and respect our varying religious traditions --- atheism included. They should all have a respected place in the public square and in Scouting in particular.

 

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

SeattlePioneer writes:

Militant atheists and Federal Courts want to exclude religion from the public square and public activities by censoring what people are allowed to say and do. I think that is wrong.

 

The federal courts want this now? Well then, I guess you're screwed.

 

We need to join together to understand and respect our varying religious traditions --- atheism included. They should all have a respected place in the public square and in Scouting in particular.

 

So, you're against excluding atheists from scouting? Or is excluding atheists a way to "respect" them now?

 

[BSA24]

> We need to join together to understand and respect

> our varying religious traditions --- atheism included.

> They should all have a respected place in the public

> square and in Scouting in particular.

 

I agree. The United States was founded and continues to exist as a nation where one is free to pursue religion in his own way. We don't allow any one religion to define our lives for us, and we shouldn't allow lack of belief to define our lives for us.

 

Where we are having trouble is in the public square where all are taxed to pay for landscaping and maintenance, the schools where all are mandated by law to attend, and court rooms where all are mandated by law to appear.

 

While I agree with you ideals entirely, I just don't believe that Americans are mature enough to allow for it. Censorship of religion from the public square remains necessary because we handle it worse than we do firearms. We can't be trusted to behave in a polite, civil way.

 

And let's be honest - the root cause of this lack of maturity is due to the nature of Islam and Christianity themselves. They are taught in the United States as evangelical pursuits. It is the mission of adherents not only to believe, as Judaism and other non-Abrahamic religions teach, but also to pursue the recruiting of new believers.

 

As a result, people are taught in church and mosque to behave so poorly in public that they have gone and ruined it for everyone. Putting up crosses and then denying access to others is common. Insisting on the expression of only one religion. Or how about the militant scouter who ends his pre-meal grace with "In Jesus Name, the only true God, Amen." Yeah, that happens every day. Or better yet, the prayer where before we eat lunch a scout prays that we will all come to Jesus before it is too late. Yes, that happens too.

 

Militant atheists do not exist in a vacuum. They are an equal reaction to an action. In nations where religion is not evangelical, such as Europe, atheists are largely silent.

 

[BSA24]

> If atheists are unhappy with Scouting --- don't join. Don't like it? Tough.

 

It may bring pleasure to assume this stance, but it is unbecoming of an organization with ideals like ours.

 

[SeattlePioneer]

>

 

 

Well, I can understand your doubts!

 

Actually, the Supreme Court's War On Religion tends to bring disparate religious faiths together, to fight a common enemy!

 

Personally, I find the efforts of the Federal Courts to vacuum religion out of public life and censor the speech of religious people to be outrageous.

 

I recommend "The Naked Public Square" by John Neuhaus which goes over these issues in an interesting and capable way.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Public_Square

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Since Neuhaus thought that atheists cannot be good citizens, I'll stick with the federal courts.

[BSA24]

I don't think Federal Courts are trying to eliminate religion. I think they are simply enforcing the establishment clause of the Constitution. As the nation's consciousness about what constitutes a belief and a religion morphs over time, those who were advantaged by the previous interpretations which excluded other voices are now having their rights reduced to make room for others.

 

As someone who was raised in a very conservative Christian home, it seems natural to me to bow my head in prayer and say "Amen" at the end. But these are strictly Christian practices. Having someone give the prayer while I merely quietly bow my head is also Christian.

 

Perhaps what you see as pushing back on religion is actually setting up preventative care to preserve Christianity in the future when its number of believers are outnumbered by something else. It is only because Christianity is completely dominant in American life that these rulings seem to be against religion. In fact, they are against Christian assumptions that all belief systems work the same.

 

Look at Scout practices. We say we welcome all faiths, but we only practice Christian Sunday morning services. We only use Christian style prayers. We only use Christian "Amen" at the end. We talk about "God" even though Buddhism has no inherent belief in a conscious deity (though there is room for such). We talk about "God" even though Muslims feel that "Allah" is the proper word.

 

Scouting doesn't welcome all faiths. Scouting welcomes all people to practice Christian cultural behaviors and not make waves or say there is no God. "respect the beliefs of others" is currently translated to "respect Christian culture." There is no respect for much else.

 

Until that changes, Christians cannot be trusted with the public square. No one can be. We are all too human and irresponsible with the power of the majority.

 

That is what courts are for. They prevent the majority from enacting law that steps on others.(This message has been edited by BSA24)

[AZMike]

"Christians cannot be trusted with the public square."

 

I would certainly agree with our president that he is a Christian, and as he uses explicitly Christian imagery to promote his agenda (as when he stated that Jesus would agree with him, and quoted from the Bible at the (gasp) National Prayer Breakfast):

 

"For me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus's teaching that for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,"

 

Will you now feel yourself compelled to unplug his teleprompter?

[AZMike]

It's also interesting that many liberal politicians (not only Obama) state that while they are personally opposed to abortion, they would never try to "push their morality on others" by voting for any bills that would restrict it in any way; yet they continually talk about how their Christian beliefs compel them to vote for more aid to the poor from tax dollars, restricting petroleum development, restricting gun ownership, opposing tort law reform, etc., all of which require infringing on the competing rights of others. Why should their religious beliefs be trumpeted if it is a liberal cause (especially one which leads to a significant level of campaign contributions from big pharma, the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, the trial lawyers associations, etc.) but become solely a personal issue if it is abortion?

 

Certainly, conservative politicians take similar stances. I am just curious why a rigorously "personal morality" religious stance should only apply on this particular issue.

[BSA24]

AZmike,

 

Yep - shut him up on the topic. If he's on everyone's dime, then he needs to stick to the topic and not play at being a preacher. He's not one. There's never been a president who was "morally straight" anyway. Being a politician pretty much disqualifies you from that category.

 

As for political consistency - I think that is an unrealistic expectation. Given the inconsistencies everywhere in everyone's political beliefs. Liberals throw back "You are pro-life, but you don't want to take care of people after they are born - just before." They also throw back, "You are against big government, unless it is regulating marriage, private affairs, or giving tax breaks to churches."

 

There's all sorts of inconsistencies everywhere. I think that's what this debate is about.

 

It's about being consistent. There are a growing number of Americans who find BSA's membership restrictions to be out of step with the national culture as well as the ideals that they think the organization represents.

 

 

[AZMike]

If our nation is that inconsistent and polarized, no one private organization will ever please anyone, and probably shouldn't even try.

 

If someone wants their kids to belong to an organization that promotes traditional (whatever that means) values, which include an orthodox religious view of homosexual behavior as a sin that is morally incongruous with the goals of scouting, and favors the expression of a general non-denominational theism, the Boy Scouts should probably fill that role.

 

If the marketplace of ideas demands an organization that does not express those values, it is probably the time for those parents who hold to secular and progressive values to establish a competing national service organization for boys (and girls, if they want) that will express values more congenial to their politics and aspirations. They could call them the Rainbow Warriors or The Secular Boys' League or the Red Guard or the LGBT-Friendly Rangers or whatever. It would allow and moreover, openly celebrate lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered scouts and leaders, prohibit the expression of religious ideals such as the modern version of the Pledge of Allegiance, wear a uniform that is not militaristic in origin (that alone might win some converts), and create a series of Merit Awards that reflect the values they wish to promote - Diversity, Inclusion, Community Activism, Creative Voter Registration, and what have you. It would probably share many of the same goals as the old Scout movement (such as environmental protection), but would better reflect the goals of many parents who feel shut-out by traditional values.

 

The idea of a "gay-friendly" boy's organization that competes with the traditionalist Boy Scouts would attract a lot of favorable media attention, and the organization would get a boatload of grants and donations from celebrities in Hollywood and the music industry, who would probably do some benefit concerts, and the White House would honor the organization every year on May 1.

 

If those who would favor this model are correct, the "old" Boy Scout organization would lose most of its membership and whither away to irrelevance like the 4H or CYO, with just some cranky leaders and a small base of boys who go camping, tie knots, say prayers, and are probably home-schooled and, well, religious fanatics anyway.

 

Why not? As a great progressive thinker suggested, let a thousand flowers bloom, let a thousand schools of thought contend!

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

I think this idea of a new Scouting organization might not be such a bad thing. The BSA will, of course, be willing to share the name "Boy Scouts", so instead of the names that AZMike suggests, I would suggest "American Boy Scouts." Now, because many of the American Boy Scouts members and leaders have been members of the BSA, and have helped build up the BSA through the past 102 years through several generations (my family's BSA heritage goes back to at least 1938), it would be only fair to have some sharing of the assets as well. A poll would be taken, and let's say that 30 percent of the BSA membership said they planned to join the ABS. Now, we could divide this up several ways. The BSA councils could just transfer 30 percent of their camps, bank accounts, endowments, etc. etc. to the corresponding ABS councils, or with the camps there could be some kind of time-sharing arrangement where the ABS gets to use the camp 30 percent of the time. You'd have to do that with Philmont, Seabase, Summit etc. since there's only one of those each; ABS would get access 30 percent of the time. Of course, ABS gets 30 percent of the cash at HQ in Texas as well. Maybe someone would be willing to serve as CSE of the ABS for 30 percent of what Mr. Brock is going to make.

 

This plan is sounding pretty good to me. How about you, AZMike? Of course, we could just go with local option in the BSA we already have. I think that sounds like an even better solution.

[SeattlePioneer]

Hello BSA,

 

 

>

 

 

There is nothing simple about the policies the Supreme Court is enforcing on the people of the United States. They are making political decisions in the name of the constitution --- and those decisions have been vacuuming religion from the public square and censoring the speech of what people are permitted to say in certain public settings, such as commencement speeches.

 

The previous line of decisions by the courts left it to elected public officials to make policies about what to do about religiously tinged issues. I suggest that elected officials did a far better job of that than rigid court decisions, since they could adapt to the infinite variety of local situations.

 

"One size fits all" fits very few people.

 

But it has tremendously advantaged the militant atheists who are are still looking for the opportunity to strangle the last king with the guts of the last priest.

 

I would be amused if the courts would treat atheism the same way they treat other systems of religious beliefs. That would be amusing!

 

>

 

 

Nonsense! Public officials make decisions based on local political situations. Most communities have a variety of churches and public officials are constrained to find ways to accommodate diverse populations.

 

Perhaps there is an argument for court supervision at the extremes, but the current political policies of the Supreme Court are biased, obnoxious and offensive, in my view. They provide a definite bias towards atheism and therefore create an atmosphere of hostility towards religion.

 

 

[AZMike]

"I think this idea of a new Scouting organization might not be such a bad thing. The BSA will, of course, be willing to share the name "Boy Scouts", so instead of the names that AZMike suggests, I would suggest "American Boy Scouts." Now, because many of the American Boy Scouts members and leaders have been members of the BSA, and have helped build up the BSA through the past 102 years through several generations (my family's BSA heritage goes back to at least 1938), it would be only fair to have some sharing of the assets as well. A poll would be taken, and let's say that 30 percent of the BSA membership said they planned to join the ABS. Now, we could divide this up several ways. The BSA councils could just transfer 30 percent of their camps, bank accounts, endowments, etc. etc. to the corresponding ABS councils, or with the camps there could be some kind of time-sharing arrangement where the ABS gets to use the camp 30 percent of the time. You'd have to do that with Philmont, Seabase, Summit etc. since there's only one of those each; ABS would get access 30 percent of the time. Of course, ABS gets 30 percent of the cash at HQ in Texas as well. Maybe someone would be willing to serve as CSE of the ABS for 30 percent of what Mr. Brock is going to make."

 

Perhaps Mr. Takei would!

 

Why would an organization voluntarily give 30% of its resources to a competitor, even if formed by those who were former members? At best, you might get the money from your kid's scout accounts...

 

Also, the "American: in "American Boy Scouts" is far too nationalistic and jingoistic, and would alienate the self-esteem of members who aren't American. It would also needlessly remind parents in enclaves such as San Francisco, whose city fathers demanded that their fire engines remove the American flag after 9/11 because "not everyone associates the United States with peace," of our involvement in wars of aggression.

 

In fact, we should probably eliminate "Boy" from the title, as it is both a term of racial opprobrium in some contexts, and also discriminatory to the girls - excuse me, young women - who would wish to join the organization. Although those youths and leaders whose sexual identification is still in a state of flux, and may be up in the air about what they will finally decide their gender to be.

 

And "Scouts" - really, this is a term that is primarily associated with a military unit, and the same parents who are our target audience for the new organization are probably those who also oppose allowing military recruiters on campus.

 

Your suggestion, though well intentioned, is needlessly divisive, NJCubScouter.

 

Perhaps a better title would be the World People Group. That is unlikely to offend.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

SeattlePioneer writes:

The previous line of decisions by the courts left it to elected public officials to make policies about what to do about religiously tinged issues. I suggest that elected officials did a far better job of that than rigid court decisions, since they could adapt to the infinite variety of local situations.

 

Local officials all too often ignore civil rights:

http://www.mormonstoday.com/000625/N1SchoolPrayer02.shtml

...

But the problem faced by the Mormon and Catholic families wasn't limited to simple promotion of a church. It included outright harassment of their children, simply because they weren't part of the dominant church. When one of the children in the Mormon family questioned a teacher's promotion of a revival, the teacher asked the student what religion she belonged to. When told that the child was Mormon, the teacher launched into an attack on Mormonism, calling it a "non-Christian cult," saying it was of the devil, and telling the child that she was going to hell. The court also heard 'uncontradicted' evidence that students who declined to accept Bibles or objected to prayers and religious observances in school were verbally harassed.

 

Because of the climate, the families decided that they needed protection, and filed their lawsuit anonymously. But the district actively sought to find out their identities, according to one report going as far as to interrogate some students in an effort to discover the identities of the families. These efforts led the district court to threaten "the harshest possible contempt sanctions" if school employees continued trying "to ferret out the identities of" the families. It specifically enjoined the district from using "bogus petitions, questionnaires, individual interrogation, or downright 'snooping'"to discover who the families are.

 

The court also closed the courtroom when the children in the families testified because of "the possibility of social ostracization and violence due to militant religious attitudes. One of the witnesses who testified in the case (not a member of either family), chose to home-school her youngest daughter to avoid persistent verbal harassment, with pushing and shoving, over issues of religion in the public school.

 

"One size fits all" fits very few people.

 

Like when local officials misuse public schools to promote the majority religion, as above or here (yes, this IS a WorldNetDaily link):

http://www.wnd.com/2005/10/32839/

 

But it has tremendously advantaged the militant atheists who are are still looking for the opportunity to strangle the last king with the guts of the last priest.

 

Well, the Santa Fe lawsuit that eliminated prayers before school football games was brought (anonymously, due to the danger) by a Mormon and a Catholic family; and the WND letter is by an evangelical Christian.

 

I would be amused if the courts would treat atheism the same way they treat other systems of religious beliefs. That would be amusing!

 

Generally, they do. Got any specific examples?