Why not girls or atheists?

[Beavah]

Yah, I'm just curious, and maybe da folks on da liberal side of the fence can satisfy my curiosity.

 

Da BSA in Cub and Boy scouting "bans" girls as youth members, atheists as youth or adult members, and gays as adult members.

 

So why is all da current media hysteria so focused on gays as a adult members?

 

After all, girls and atheists are far more well-accepted in society. While some areas get mildly annoyed by da behavior of atheists with respect to Christmas displays and other art, we otherwise have no issues. Coed programs and matching girls programs are the norm, rather than the exception. In fact, it's hard to even find exceptions any more.

 

So why da focus on gay adult leaders? Why not on kids? Why not on other inclusiveness?

 

The vast majority of states still prohibit marriage for gay adults, eh? So compared with issues of youth gender or belief, the notion is much less acceptable.

 

Just curious.

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

After all, girls and atheists are far more well-accepted in society.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-07-26/athiest-poll-president/56516466/1

...

The latest survey, from June, found that 54 percent of those asked said they would vote a "well- qualified" atheist into the Oval Office

...

On the other hand, the survey showed that those who do not believe in God still come in behind every other group polled for, including gays and lesbians (68 percent) and Muslims (58 percent).

...

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422&page=1#.UDZKKU1lTRo

...

When asked which groups did not share their vision of American society, 39.5 percent of those interviewed mentioned atheists. Asked the same question about Muslims and homosexuals, the figures dropped to a slightly less depressing 26.3 percent and 22.6 percent, respectively.

...

 

 

While some areas get mildly annoyed by da behavior of atheists with respect to Christmas displays and other art, we otherwise have no issues.

 

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/media/death-threats-against-atheist-spokesman-after-fox-news-appearance

http://www.alternet.org/story/153803/why_is_an_atheist_high_school_student_getting_vicious_death_threats

http://current.com/community/91446453_death-threats-force-removal-of-atheist-billboard.htm

 

[OldGreyEagle]

We should probably also ask why the GSUSA does not allow boys to be members a well,

[skeptic]

Beavah; remember, the political rabble-rousers already got to the Girl Scouts, so why should they annoy them by pushing for girls in BSA?

 

Many of the legal cases revolve around atheist issues rather than (directly) Gay issues, due to the Dale decision. But, atheists have yet to mount the long term, extensive campaign that Gay rights groups have over the past couple of decades.

 

Of course, other than the name, having girls at ALL levels would not really be a problem anyway, other than assuring additional leadership needs were met and allowing units option of one or both, on the "local option" plan.

 

For me, you can NEVER separate a generic belief in a spiritual entity or power beyond ourselves, whether you call it God, god, something else. That is an absolute cornerstone of Scouting, from my perspective. That is NOT saying atheists are bad people necessarily, simply that their beliefs, or lack thereof, do not fit the basic program parameters. We have beat the "changing the program to fit me" idea has been beat to death already, even though some here and elsewhere seem unable to grasp the ill-logic of that.

 

Simply my personal views and observations. Those few who seem inclined to diss anyone with whom they disagree, please simply leave it, as I already know how you feel, and you will not change my opinion with irrational or hyper-sensitive comments. Let us simply disagree and get on with it.

[CalicoPenn]

Beavah,

 

Think back to what triggered this latest batch of news stories - it started with a report of a woman who happened to be a lesbian being removed from her leadership position as a tiger leader for her son's den. Prior to this story, most of the stories were about young men (or not so young gay men) booted out of the Scouts when it beccame known they were gay. Young SINGLE men. Had traction for a while after the Supreme Court ruled on the Dale case, then the media mostly left it alone, maybe reporting on a case near the anniversary of the Dale decision, but for the most part, it fell off the media's radar.

 

Soo what is different this time? The story wasn't about a gay male that was single. It was about a partnered woman who was a PARENT. This time, the Scouts dumped a parent who happened to be a well-liked leader and happened to be gay, happened to be a woman, and happened to be the parent of a cute kid in Cub Scouts. I'd call it the perfect storm of sympathetic "victim" of the BSA policy. I think even folks that would accept rationalizations (misguided as they are) about keeping single, gay males from the Boy Scouts looked at this situation and paused to think something was just not right about this.

 

A petition was started, headlines were made, the BSA came out and said they would study it, and I think that would have calmed the media storm and folks would have let it go, until the BSA did something really stupid. After first claiming they would put together a committee to study it, they announced just weeks later that (oops) we've had a committee studying the issue for the past two years all along and this is what they said. That pot that was cooling on the stove? The gas was turned right back on and it didn't take long to go to a full boil.

 

I suspect the media felt like they were being poked by the BSA when they said they would put together a committee then revealed they had one all along - the media doesn't like to be lied to and while we might quibble over whether the BSA lied, I suspect the media feels the BSA did.

 

The BSA gave the media a bigger bone to chew - and they took it - asking the President and his presidential rival their opinions, following the stories of Eagle Scouts returning medals, following stories of parents leaving Scouting with their sons (the latest one I read about today comes from Oregon where the entire adult leadership of a Cub Scout Pack has pulled their sons from the Pack and have quit Scouting), and of other parents - no one has really mentioned it but the story about the leader that was "thrown out" currently being discussed also mentions that this leader is partnered and that he was a leader in their son's Troop. He may be a bit less sympathetic because he's a man - but the parenting angle is there again.

 

In other words, the media is focused on gays because that's where the story is right now. When a story with a sympathic athiest or girl "victim" becomes known, I think we'll see that take up time in the news cycle too.

[Peregrinator]

So atheists get attacked when they attack what others hold dear? And this is news? It's called blowback.

[Papadaddy]

One word...homophobia.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Peregrinator writes:

So atheists get attacked when they attack what others hold dear? And this is news? It's called blowback.

 

No, it's when atheists demand equal rights, they often get death threats. It's called terrorism.

[NJCubScouter]

Calico knocked it out of the park... or hit the nail on the head, depending on whether you prefer your cliches to be of the sports or home improvement variety. That's the answer.

[Peregrinator]

Opposing the public expression of religion is not demanding equal rights.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Peregrinator writes:

Opposing the public expression of religion is not demanding equal rights.

 

Good non-sequitur. None of the cited cases are opposed to the public expression of religion.

case 1 is about the 9/11 museum having some tower wreckage shaped like a cross, without anything similar memorializing non-Christians.

case 2 is about removal of a banner with a school prayer on it; that's long established law (and the banner was unlawfully put up after the courts ruled against school prayers).

case 3 is about atheists putting up billboards, and the guy who owns the land the billboard is on receiving death threats.

 

In addition to your statement being false, atheists have first amendment rights to oppose the public expression of religion. If you don't like that, that's just your bigotry showing.

[Peregrinator]

Good non-sequitur. None of the cited cases are opposed to the public expression of religion.

 

Case 1 and 2 certainly are. That the atheists in question may have the law on their side doesn't change the nature of their protest.

 

In addition to your statement being false, atheists have first amendment rights to oppose the public expression of religion. If you don't like that, that's just your bigotry showing.

 

You throw that word ("bigotry") around so much in this forum that it's become meaningless.

 

By the way, I am not arguing that the death threats, etc., were justified. I am simply pointing out that when one attacks what people hold dear, one should not be surprised when they respond with threats and violence.(This message has been edited by Peregrinator)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Peregrinator whines:

Good non-sequitur. None of the cited cases are opposed to the public expression of religion.

 

Case 1 and 2 certainly are. That the atheists in question may have the law on their side doesn't change the nature of their protest.

 

No, the "public expression of religion" does not include unlawful government imposition of religion.

 

In addition to your statement being false, atheists have first amendment rights to oppose the public expression of religion. If you don't like that, that's just your bigotry showing.

 

You throw that word ("bigotry") around so much in this forum that it's become meaningless.

 

I use it against bigots like yourself. Stop whining.

 

[Abel Magwitch]

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2012/01/16/hispanic-cub-scout-pack-comes-columbia/

 

Girls are allowed to be Cub Scouts. It seems to depend on the council and the national Hispanic Initiative of the BSA.

[Cambridgeskip]

With regard to girls I suspect it's quite simply that because in the form of Girl Scouts girls are seen ot have an equivalent organisation. Seperate they may be and with a different emphasis but the similarities and history are massive. Hence its just seen as like having boys and girls only schools. Seperate but equivalent.

 

With regard to atheists I suspect it's a case of there being two kinds.

 

The minority who will have nothing to do with a religious or spiritual organisation and generally have no wish to be part of it so the question never arises.

 

The majority for who they don't believe in any form of God but are quite happy tojust say they are Chirstian or whatever on the application form.

 

Hence it doesn't become a problem.

 

If it does emerge that they are atheist it doesn't raise quite the same reaction of horror among existing members as being gay for some reason does. People shrug their shoulders and let them get on with it.