'Rogue' UK Girl Guide troop won't use new non-religious promise, excludes new leader

[moosetracker]

IT'S THE MESSAGE THAT WOULD INSULT THE CHURCH MEMBERS ON THE BB THAT SAT ON THEIR PROPERTY.. Your group did not need to do that, just sue them if you are going to sue them..

Because offering a discount that discriminates on the basis of religion violates the civil rights act of 1964,

Well the Senior citizen discount, or child rates must be discrimination on age also.. Have you picked any fights over those? With discounts, sometimes you can use them, and sometimes you can't.

So what? Atheists have the same first amendment rights as anyone else

This is marginalizing the fact that you feel your first amendment rights give you a right to harass and insult anyone you like as long as you find a legal way to do so.. I never stated these people (the fringe group) were criminals, I stated they were antagonistic and would want into BSA simply to find ways to push to remove any religious tradition from the BSA curriculum.. Perhaps your argument it on the grounds of "civil rights" in being discriminated against due to religious beliefs because you are now a member of the BSA, and can not attend the Troops plans to go Christmas caroling at a nearby hospital, or whatever.. In fact I think that was the issue of the women who joined a group with religious ties, then complained about her civil rights being violated because her and (son? daughter?) were given the option to sit quietly, or walk away from the group for the (prayer? oath?) rather then be able to enjoy the whole program.. Wish I could find the piece, but I can't remember any words or phrases that picks up the surfing the net..

 

 

 

Sorry, but your explanations do not help in the least.. These are examples your group does not only focus on government owned properties.. Finding a way to legally push your agenda to be intolerant of other groups doesn't change the negative effect, and the fact that people who stoop to this type of rationalization as to why they are morally right to harass groups they dislike is not people welcomed in the BSA..

 

First you say your group would never behave in an intolerant manner toward religious groups, now you say, unless we can find a way to legally do so..

 

[moosetracker]

Here is something interesting coming to the UK soon.. I wonder why Cambridgskip didn't mention it...

 

The British scouts are going to welcome in atheists with the idea I have to keep the religious tradition, but give atheists a separate oath they can take.. This will be a great testing ground to watch, although there legal system is different, so even if it works the question will be if there was a legal way the atheists could have forced full change, and did not go that root, -or- did the British laws not give them a legal avenue, yet ours would have one..

[h=1]British scouts to welcome atheists[/h]

By Trevor Grundy| Religion News Service,June 28, 2013

CANTERBURY, England  The British scouting movement will soon welcome atheists who are reluctant to join the worldwide organization because they must take an oath to serve God.

Trustees from the Scouting Association  whose patron is Queen Elizabeth II  are preparing to meet next week to approve a new scouting oath for atheists  thus putting them on par with Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs and Hindus.

While those with religious affiliations will continue to promise to do their duty to both God and the queen, the new “Atheist Promise†(as it’s being called here) will say something different  although the exact words have not yet been released.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

IT'S THE MESSAGE THAT WOULD INSULT THE CHURCH MEMBERS ON THE BB THAT SAT ON THEIR PROPERTY.. Your group did not need to do that, just sue them if you are going to sue them..

 

The atheist group DIDN'T KNOW THE BILLBOARD WAS ON A CHURCH'S PROPERTY WHEN THEY WENT TO A BILLBOARD COMPANY AND BOUGHT BILLBOARD SPACE.

 

Plus, THEY NEVER SUED THE CHURCH FOR ANYTHING, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO LEGAL ISSUE AT STAKE. The billboard company moved the atheist billboard to a different one.

 

Are atheists supposed to be clairvoyant now? Seems a bit out of character.

 

Well the Senior citizen discount, or child rates must be discrimination on age also.

 

Yes, it is. However, it is legal discrimination (in the case of restaurants) because the civil rights act does not prohibit it. It does prohibit religious discrimination.

So what? Atheists have the same first amendment rights as anyone else

This is marginalizing the fact that you feel your first amendment rights give you a right to harass and insult anyone you like as long as you find a legal way to do so..

 

Harassment can be a tort, but yes, the first amendment gives everyone the right to insult anyone. Want some links from religious billboards that specifically insult atheists? There are plenty.

 

I never stated these people (the fringe group) were criminals, I stated they were antagonistic and would want into BSA simply to find ways to push to remove any religious tradition from the BSA curriculum

 

Yeah, that's the way you like to make up motives for atheists, instead of what they actually do.

 

Perhaps your argument it on the grounds of "civil rights" in being discriminated against due to religious beliefs because you are now a member of the BSA, and can not attend the Troops plans to go Christmas caroling at a nearby hospital, or whatever..

 

Perhaps you continue to make up arguments out of whole cloth in order to denigrate atheists.

The BSA, even if it admits atheists, is still a private organization, and that would not be actionable. But you just have to make up scenarios where you can complain about atheists.

 

In fact I think that was the issue of the women who joined a group with religious ties, then complained about her civil rights being violated because her and (son? daughter?) were given the option to sit quietly, or walk away from the group for the (prayer? oath?) rather then be able to enjoy the whole program..

 

Yeah, there's a reference I can check.

 

Finding a way to legally push your agenda to be intolerant of other groups doesn't change the negative effect, and the fact that people who stoop to this type of rationalization as to why they are morally right to harass groups they dislike is not people welcomed in the BSA..

 

So if atheists sue over something and win, meaning the atheists were in the right and defending their civil rights, they aren't welcome in your view. I guess they're too uppity and should know their place.

 

By the way, the rogue GG troop has agreed to use the new, official oath.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ular-oath.html

 

PS: I also started a thread back in June about the UK scouting association announcing they will admit atheists, but it looks like it's one of the threads that was lost with the new forum changes. The google cache is here:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7dGNxRGVVKgJ:www.scouter.com/forum/issues-politics/384107-the-telegraph-is-reporting-that-uk-scouting-will-allow-atheists+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Merlin Leroy - No, I got the sarcasm.. It is just that I also sense you are pointing to the GG troop as the only one acting wrong in this story.. Since the story indicates that the atheist is not trying to find compromise, either by asking that both pledges are said, or looking if there is a different troop in the area that has conformed.. I do not see the GG troop as the only one acting incorrectly.. Also my comment is based on the fact the promise was changed by National to only respect the atheists and not the religious base that has been their original base group and I assume is still the greater portion of the group.. The change was made because atheist came into the group and instead of looking for a compromise that would make each group happy, they disrespected the beliefs of the group they were entering and lobbied National to only placate to their beliefs.. This action of atheists is why I am much more vocal about supporting the inclusion of atheists in BSA, and only slightly siding with you about including atheists..

 

Homosexuals want to be in scouting to be part of the group, and though homophobias will claim that they will insist that we all become homosexuals, or are joining in order to rape us all in our sleep, (which is pure bunk), They may push hard to be accepted equally, but they do not push that everyone become homosexuals. I can respect that. I have no problem with a group that just wants to be accepted..

 

If this was the only reason behind atheists wanting to join, I would be behind them also 100%.. For all atheists who this is their only agenda, I am behind them 100%.. But there is the faction of atheist who want to enter, then kill the religious tradition of BSA, by stamping out any religious aspect.. That group I am NOT welcoming, because they will NOT be respectful of others.. Therefore I can only see my support for this effort as somewhere between 60 to 75% based on what I estimate is the "normal people" atheist group and the "activist" atheist group..

 

With homosexuals, I also do not believe in local option.. Meaning that no unit should be forced to accept homosexuals if they are totally against them. I don't see it healthy for either party. The homosexuals should want to go to a group where they are welcomed and made to feel part of the group.. Obviously this group and this atheist are not a good mix. The atheist should look for a group that accepts her with open arms, then force compliance by a group that does not want to change.

 

(The comments above are based on the article as written)

 

OK Cambridgeskip.. You have stated the story is not accurate.. Is this because this rag has a reputation of never having a correct story.. Or do you happen to know the true story.. Have more respectable news agencies debunked this story, where you can give us the more accurate story?.. Even FOX can every now and then do a story that is not debunked.. Or is just corrected for their snarkiness or biased on the subject.. I did not really see which side they were pushing in this story. It seemed more like a report really created a demon or an angel, it just seemed to report both sides of the argument. So I wasn't able to pick out the pure bunk..

And that's the "fault" of atheists, how?

[moosetracker]

Not know their place or too uppity..

 

Let's say I owned two cats, one sweet and loveable, and one that is a cranky flea bitten bag that is always out fighting cats and even a dog or two in order to be king of the neighborhood, but both are part of my family and even the cranky one has traits I like, though I kind of wish he had a better personality.. So I got friends that I like a lot, and they ask if they can spend a week at my place while their house gets renovated.. I would love them to come, but there is a problem.. They got a mangy dog they want to bring with them.. He is known to have killed 3 or 4 cats and 5 or six more had to have surgery losing a tail, ear or paw.. They want to bring their dog to my house.. First I tell them I don't think the dog will be a good idea with my cats.. The husband gets all insulted and says how dare I say his dog would ever do that, He has yet to have eaten my cats, so it is very unfair.. (never mind the dog has never been near my cats).. So I point out all the other cats in the neighborhood he has eaten.. The husband defends the dog, after all you can't blame him cats are tasty, and it is in his nature to eat cats.. I am still unsold, so the couple leave the house with their dog, and I watch as he walks down my road in my neighborhood watching the dog slurping up 2 or 3 cats enroute and spitting out the bones, with the husband just patting his dog's head and saying "Was that good?? Yeah.. good boy!! "

 

 

Well it will be interesting to watch how the UK fares, but one good thing, sounds like their main sponsors for the program are more like community centers of the town then churches.. So perhaps except for the oath, they may have less of a tie with religions, and atheists did not find a way to kick them out of the community centers due to the fact they weren't included.. So it might be less of a fire/water mix.. But, hopefully we will see some of our British friends who can keep us updated.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Not know their place or too uppity..

 

Let's say I owned two cats, one sweet and loveable, and one that is a cranky flea bitten bag that is always out fighting cats and even a dog or two in order to be king of the neighborhood, but both are part of my family and even the cranky one has traits I like, though I kind of wish he had a better personality..

 

Now use this analogy about blacks.

[moosetracker]

In the analogy the cat is the conservative religious sector in the BSA.. Note, it already is a member of my home..So they must be the whites (in the black & white world..) The other group, (Couple & their dog) just can't plausibly be tied in to the black population.. Guess again..

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

The other group, (Couple & their dog) just can't plausibly be tied in to the black population..

 

Of course they can; all you need to do is hold the black population in contempt.

[moosetracker]

Contempt, no.. Because I don't hold the man/women & dog in contempt.. Fear, yes, the story shows fear of the dog.. But, in order for the story to fit closer to a black/white story.. The dog would have to just look mean, maybe be a little loud so we can say he barks a lot.. but be a lovable good natured dog.. Also the wife asking for entry could remain.. There were many blacks that did not get involved in the civil Rights movement.. Then the man?? Definitely would defend his dog, but he could take pride in talking about his dogs peaceful nature and can try to assure me, that while he has a loud bark outside when indoors he is quiet as he has no reason to bark..

 

The organized protests of the civil rights had a strong leader who pushed them to push for equality in a peaceful manner, so that the blacks were kept their dignity and pride, But, there peaceful protest 'caused the whites that killed and beat the blacks the only ones in the wrong, and soon caused the nation to see who was right, and who was wrong in the fight so that they backed the cause of the black people. They would not have, had the blacks in the civil rights movement gone around beating and murdering the whites.. Both would be wrong, and the war between the two organized hostile groups would have just raged on until they were all dead or in jail..

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Contempt, no.. Because I don't hold the man/women & dog in contempt.

 

WHOOSH is the sound of my point going way over your head.

[Pint]

The British scouts are going to welcome in atheists with the idea I have to keep the religious tradition, but give atheists a separate oath they can take.. This will be a great testing ground to watch, although there legal system is different, so even if it works the question will be if there was a legal way the atheists could have forced full change, and did not go that root, -or- did the British laws not give them a legal avenue, yet ours would have one..

 

Here is a little secret about Scouting in the UK - well its not really a secret - but to say otherwise doesn't sound as impressive.

In the UK we all run to the standard rules and regulations for Scouting- known as POR ( Policy Organisation and Rules)

Chapter 2 http://members.scouts.org.uk/documents/por/2011updates/Chap_02_2011.pdf contains within it the Equal opportunities policy there a re two slightly differnt versions, one for young people ( ie youth members) and one for Adults the Adult version has this to say on religious belief:

Note: With reference to religious belief, the

avowed absence of religious belief is a bar to

appointment to a Leadership position.

 

 

Leadership position refers to an Adult member, and not a youth member. As long as a youth member can say the Scout promise and Law there is no problem, which brings up the following issue:

 

The UK Scout Promise (Scout association) is currently worded like so:

 

On my honor,

I promise that I will do my best,

to do my duty to God, and to the Queen

To help other people and to keep the Scout law

 

and the Scout law is as follows:

1. A Scout is to be trusted.
   
2. A Scout is loyal.
   
3. A Scout is friendly and considerate.
   
4. A Scout belongs to the worldwide family of Scouts.
   
5. A Scout has courage in all difficulties.
   
6. A Scout makes good use of time and is careful of possessions and property.
   
7. A Scout has self-respect and respect for others.
   

With regards to the promise there are a a few variations for separate religions , for those who can not say the Scout promise, information on that here http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/facts/pdfs/fs322016.pdf im guessing that there will be another variation for those who at the time of making/saying the Scout promise fell they have/or have not yet found their faith.

 

 

Next.....

Well it will be interesting to watch how the UK fares, but one good thing, sounds like their main sponsors for the program are more like community centers of the town then churches.. So perhaps except for the oath, they may have less of a tie with religions, and atheists did not find a way to kick them out of the community centers due to the fact they weren't included.. So it might be less of a fire/water mix.. But, hopefully we will see some of our British friends who can keep us updated.

 

Scouting in the UK is organised differently to that in he USA, we have few sponsored groups, and no Chartered organisations, most Scout Groups are their own entity, i will try and explain....

 

A Scout Group can consist of any, all, or multiples of the following:

Beaver colony

Cub Pack

Scout Troop

These as a part of the group are all one unit, and the sections within that Group ( unit ) usualy meet etc on separate days, however they may all join up for big events and at certain times/occaisions.

Each Section has its own leaders, and in some cases may share leaders with other Sections so a Scout Leader ( in BSA speak Scout Master) may also be an Assistant Cub Leader.

Overseeing all this is a Group Scout leader, and instead of a charter org/sponsor whatever we have a Group Scout Executive committee ( all volunteers ) these are usually made up of parents, ex scouters, and any one else we can grab, the Group Exec usualy looks after things like Adult Recruitment fundraising finances, public relations, Equipment ( ie camping stuff) Looking after the Scout Groups own building(s) and any other premises - or where a Scout group doesn't own its building arranging with community halls etc to find somewhere for the Groups sections to meet.

If the Scout Group is sponsored then a representative form that sponsoring body may also be present of the Group Exec. If the sponsorship lapses then things just carry on: ie a sposnsored Scout group has free access to a Church hall and their sponsorship ends. The church may then levy a fee , just like any other community group would be for the use of its facilities.

Its usually in the church's ( or any other such place ) best interest to make their halls etc open to the wider community to use, as in doing so the church can then claim government grants etc towards the upkeep of their facilities as they are being used by the community.

To sum up this means that there is no single external body or other non governmental organisation that can throw a 'wobbly' over Scout policy and threaten to withdraw youth members.

 

As for other Scout organisations, the UK Scout Assocaiton does not have a monopoly on the term Scouting/Scouts and there are a few other organisations in existence, such as the Baden Powell Scouts, British boy and Girl Scouts, and a few more. However these are very much in the minority and i have yet to meet any in person.

If a UK Scout Association group decides to move to the Baden-Powell Scouts for example, then they are free to do so. However the UK Scout Association will see this group as having closed and all its assets ( buildings/equipment/funds etc) will transfer to the Scout (Association) District

 

And as for the so called Three G's issue thats mentioned from time to time on here:

UK Scouting:

Girls: We have had Female leaders since the very early days of Scouting, Girls could join Venture Scouts ( as it was then) from sometime in the 1970's In 1991 Girls could join other sections ( beavers/cubs/Scouts ) if the Group agreed to be Co-ed once a Group was co-ed all other sections above had to also become Co-ed and there was no going back to single sex. in 2007 All Goups had to accept girls any leaders refusing this were removed from Scouting, information here: https://members.scouts.org.uk/documents/girlstm.pdf

 

Gays: in reality these are very much a minority group, however we can not discriminate at all on the basis of sexual orientation any one doing so will be removed form Scouting

Factsheet here (Adults) http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/facts/pdfs/fs185081.pdf and here (Youth) http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/facts/pdfs/fs185082.pdf

 

God: covered above: but only an avowed absence of religious belief is a bar to an adult becoming a leader, so if someone believes in something but doesn't know what (Agnostic? ) then thats OK - as for Youth as long as they can get over the hurdle of saying "Do my duty to God" ( or any variation thereof ) then that's OK.

 

hope that answers a few questions.

 

[moosetracker]

My feeling exactly about you Merlyn, you just can't get the difference of how the blacks worked their civil rights movement and the Homosexuals worked their civil rights movement which allowed them to stand their ground, keep their pride and dignity, get their message across LOUDLY.. And turn the nation in the direction of supporting their cause, due to the amount of dignity, and Respect that they conducted their movement despite the horrible treatment that they received.. Your movement, is just not going in the right direction.. From what I can see, if all atheists in this movement are exactly like you, then I believe you guys really don't care.. Your just having fun with you low level harassment at the enemy..

 

Martin Luther King's dream was not that his people respond to the brutality in kind, but rise above it.. The nation stood up and took notice of how worthy they were, and how wrong the treatment they received was.. It was not about taking a baseball bat to the whites who took one to you, or burning the home of those who burned down yours.. It wasn't a movement of "They did it to us, so we have the right to do the same.. The homosexuals figured out the formula and were able to work the same magic..

 

Two wrongs don't make a right.. And therefore, until your group figures out the right formula, (that if you guys are even interested) the nation will simply not take up the issue for either side, just let you fight like cats and dogs.. Unfortunately BSA is already living with the cat, so it would be difficult to incorporate the dog in the same house.. Perhaps if we had the dog living with us, then it would be the cat we would need to be skeptical about adding to the mix.

 

 

Pint.. Thanks for the info.. But it seems you are saying that the oath is the oath with the God in it.. But it sounds like as of June they now have two oaths one with and one without.. Is that not true?.. Are adults as of the new ruling still barred and the youth only get to say the different oath? If that's the case, you are starting off with your atheist mix as are doing with our homosexual mix..

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

You just don't know history, moosetracker. There were the black panthers and Malcolm X, and for that matter MLK was considered extreme by a lot of people at the time. The Stonewall riots were actual, violent riots, and you might want to look into more radical gay rights groups like Bash Back.

 

So your fainting couch antics in protesting how horrible atheists are for having the gall to file lawsuits is pathetic.

[moosetracker]

I do know there were these pockets of extremists, you can't control everybody's actions, I have mentioned the black panthers, earlier in the thread.. And the opposing side loved to highlight them to show that the other side was wrong.. Thing was, the larger group that was peaceful was accepted by most of the group to be their official leader and spokesperson, and they would denounce this actions as being the right way to go, and be louder in there insistence that the group push for change in peaceful manner.. It was the louder voice.. In the end their cause was won by the nation respecting the actions of those who stood up for their rights in a respectful manner, and those who fought in a hostile manner had no impact on changing the attitude of the nation.. The cause was not won because of their actions, it was won in spite of their actions.

 

Your group just has the rabble rousers.. So basically the group that was totally ineffective..

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Now all you need to do, moosetracker, is show that the peaceful black liberation activists (who filed lawsuits), and the peaceful gay rights activists (who filed lawsuits), are different from the peaceful atheist activists who file lawsuits. Where's the atheist equivalent of the black panthers?

 

So basically the group that was totally ineffective..

 

Moosetracker, I got about 10,000 public schools to drop BSA charters and end illegal discrimination against atheist students. I don't call that ineffective.