Northern Star Council - Inclusive

[packsaddle]

I know a couple of Buddhist scout leaders. They are reluctant to say much about this but they have told me in the past that there are some Buddhists who (and I don't understand this at all) refer to Buddha as 'God' but that they and most of their fellows in this area are basically atheist. To me this is a pretty bad inconsistency for BSA policy. The thing that seems most inconsistent is that it seems that a Buddhist can be an atheist and BSA is ok with that. But if a Unitarian Universalist is an atheist (and this does happen, so they claim) BSA is NOT ok with that.

Broken record time now....local option would take care of all this as well.

[Hal_Crawford]

And yet, a scout can get a religious medal for being a Buddhist. Seems a bit inconsistent to me.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

eolesen writes:

Merlyn, how do you explain how the existence of UU, Pagan, Wiccan, Buddhist, Hindu, Sihk, and Scientology Scouters?

 

Easy. The BSA's membership requirements are not coherent.

 

All that the faith statement requires is a belief in a higher power. Atheism doesn't acknowledge that, agnostism and all of the others mentioned do.

 

Incorrect. I'm an atheist and an agnostic. It's also possible for an atheist to have "a belief in a higher power" as long as that "higher power" isn't a god. So does that meet the BSA's requirement?

 

Oh, and the BSA's own legal website says agnostics can't be members:

http://www.bsalegal.org/downloads/PETITION_FINAL.pdf

"By reason of these values, the Boy Scouts do not accept atheists or agnostics..."

Their FAQ is gone, but that also said atheists and agnostics could not join.

 

Doesn't have to be monotheist.

 

The way the BSA has phrased it, it does. But I've never considered their membership requirements to make sense.

 

(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[AZMike]

"Merlyn, how do you explain how the existence of UU, Pagan, Wiccan, Buddhist, Hindu, Sihk, and Scientology Scouters?"

 

Sikhs are monotheists, BTW.

[shortridge]

"Fact is, I don't like gay's. Never had and never will. It is an unnatural abomination plain and simple. If you disagree, thats your choice, just like its gays choice to be gay. No one is born gay, they choose to be that way of thier own free will."

 

Nldscout,

 

How do you square your comments with the anti-bias provisions of the judicial code of conduct in New York, which includes sexual orientation? How do you separate your powerful personal feelings from any decision you might have to make involving a gay person? How can any gay person trust your rulings?

 

I for one hope the mods do not remove those comments and the name-calling and the profanity. You have shown the raw hate and ugliness that undergirds your beliefs.

[packsaddle]

Shortridge, I certainly won't. Actually, I'm glad that he has the courage to express his views so honestly and openly. Surely no person can criticize him for being dishonest.

[nldscout]

shortridge

 

To answer your question. I deal with criminal and vehicle matters almost exclusivly, very rarely a civil claim. What a persons orientation is of no matter in those circustances, why would it. A criminal is a criminal, be they male of female, White or black or latino or any other ethenicity, straight or gay, tall or short. Either you commited the crime charged or you didn't. I cannot recall someone being gay ever being brought up in a case.

 

There is a big difference between court and being a member of a private organization. Why are you people wasting all your energy on allowing gays, but don't say hardly anything about allowing female youth members or athiest, or other catagories that BSA finds not inaccordance with its membership policies.

 

So tell me, why shouldn't we allow anyone who wants to join be a member, why restrict anyone?

[shortridge]

Not to belabor the point, but how would you deal with a gay person charged in a domestic violence case?

 

How would you respond to gay jurors who request to be excused because they have to take care of their sick partner?

 

And what about a traffic case in which a person's same-sex partner was injured?

 

 

More to the point for this discussion, would you tell a young Scout who came out to you that he was an abomination?

[nldscout]

"Not to belabor the point, but how would you deal with a gay person charged in a domestic violence case?"

 

Why do you think its different than a husband abusing his wife? Or a wife hiitting her husband or BF? You hit siomeone and you get arrested. Like I said a Criminal is a Criminal.

 

"How would you respond to gay jurors who request to be excused because they have to take care of their sick partner?"

 

Who knows, guess we will have to wait till it happens.

 

"And what about a traffic case in which a person's same-sex partner was injured?"

 

See above, if your a Criminal your a Criminal.

 

 

"More to the point for this discussion, would you tell a young Scout who came out to you that he was an abomination? "

 

This one is easy, you need to find a new group to belong to.

 

Like I said, BSA is a private organization and they have rules. If you want to be a member, then you should learn to follow the rules. You can try and change the rules, but BSA has no thanks we will keep the rules we have.

 

So now you have to deceide, will you stay knowing the rules will not change? Or will you continue to disrupt the scouts for your own satisfaction??

[shortridge]

I'm going to keep on following the Oath and Law, thanks much.

 

"A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobeying them."

 

That does not say "If a Scout thinks a rule is unfair, he should shut up because the majority has ruled and no dissent is permitted."

 

Members of Congress have been vowing to overturn Roe v. Wade for years. You apparently believe that they should be barred from doing so because legal abortion is the law of the land.

 

A judge with your line of thinking would have been one of those magistrates tossing sit-in demonstrators in the hoosegow back in the '60s because segregation was the law.(This message has been edited by Shortridge)

[moosetracker]

Even in traffic or criminal.. I would imagine since traffic is without jury, then it would be small crimes that don't need jury (sorry, I don't spend time in court systems).. Anyway point is, if no jury then the decision of guilt may be skewed.. Similar to how some people will put a black person especialy if the crime was commited against a white person. Also the sentencing could be harsher, where for nldscout a similar crime by a heterosexual may get a slap on the wrist and by a gay they would get jail time.

 

Luckily per nldscout no one has come through who by dress and actions is unquestionably gay.. Let's hope it stays that way..

[nldscout]

"Luckily per nldscout no one has come through who by dress and actions is unquestionably gay.. Let's hope it stays that way.. "

 

I am not sure where you get that statement from. I have seen gay people in court, but like I said. It doesn't matter.

 

If your a Criminal then your a Criminal. You break the law, expect to get sanctioned in some form of another.

 

I don't have to like you in order to deceide your guilt or innocence. Fact is I don't like 99% of the people that appear in front of me. I am not there to be your friend.

 

So you being gay is immaterial.

 

"A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobeying them."

 

Try and change them all you want, be my guest, however BSA has said they are not changing. So that leaves you 2 choice, stay within the present rules or leave. Do not disrupt the program because you don't like the rules.

 

If the day comes and BSA changes its rule, then I and a lot of other souters will have to deceide if we can live with the new rules or if we will just leave.

[ChaiAdventure]

it is all getting clear.....

 

being a member of a private organization is absolute justification to be bigoted, racist, etc.... or on the flipside, exclusive, selective, etc...

 

with that established, it is simple...either the membership affects the decisions of the ruling body, or it abides by them...

 

I,in no way, support what NLD has said on his feelings for gays but he brings up an interesting point. Why are we talking inclusiveness regarding gays, but not athiests and female youth (rewind a couple of decades and we would add female adults). Is it because gay-rights are the "cause du jour" or is it because we truly believe that we have harmed a segment of society.

 

I would argue that what we should be focused on is the stance against female youth....50% of the target population of overall youth.

 

Gays and atheists live among us in scouting...whether we agree with their choices or not. Females are only welcome to the party as Venturers (let's just say it....not quite boy scouts) or as adults where many secretly try to recapture times from their youth when they wanted to be scouts (I know I am going to get crushed by that statement, but I don't mean it negatively...just rather as a sad realization of missed opportunity).

 

I guess the momentum of women's suffrage wasn't enough to drive this then.....and the 2010's are the decade of the gays...maybe next decade, unless another cause has that time-slot already booked.

[SeattlePioneer]

Hello nldscout,

 

 

The fact is there are often plenty of good reasons for "discrimination."

 

 

One need only look at the effects of desegregating major league baseball, which led rather directly to the destruction of black professional baseball.

 

African Americans were hot to get access to traditionally white colleges and universities, but when that happened, they were equally unwilling to give up the "traditionally black colleges and universities" they controlled and valued. That's still true today.

 

As soon as equal employment became the law, the cry went up for race based quotas in employment, college and university admissions and government contracting. Efforts to end those kinds of discrimination have been angrily opposed by those who benefit from such programs.

 

Few people are opposed to ALL discrimination. Most people have agendas of discrimination they support, and others that they oppose.

[packsaddle]

SeattlePioneer, until now I had no clue that you supported racial segregation.