Announcement Module
No announcement yet.

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

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
Conversation Detail Module
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    OK you got me, and I am adult enough to admit it, unlike you.. We remember the same time I complained. I did not think I started it though.. Same argument I make here. Most atheist are fine, and I would welcome them. This element of atheists I do not agree with and they are the reason that the BSA will not open their doors to any of them.. I was wrong with my posting it, but I was consistent with my viewpoint in that post as I am in this post. But, you said I posted articles.. Plural.. You need at least two, to be totally truthful.

    You on the other hand are totally inconsistent with your defense of atheists:

    Merlyn :

    "I don't feel I am a hypocrite for looking for ways that we can all get along, and be respectful of each other.. It is wrong for the religious sector to not want to find a way to include your group.. But it would be equally wrong for the atheist to come in and then make BSA exclusive to only them, and be disrespectful of the religious sector, and their beliefs.. Inclusiveness means finding ways to have everyone resepectful and tolerant of each other.

    It isn't respectful to assume atheists are likely to act like that. It's like claiming you're not racist, but adding that any black kids that join have to respect the white kids, while not mentioning anything about how the white kids have to act regarding the black kids. You're singling out one group for potential bad behavior and taking for granted that the other group is all sweetness 'n' light.

    Merlyn :

    "Sorry, but atheists are the ones behind trying to take “God” off of a lot of things, money, pledge, public statues etc,

    Yes, because money, the pledge, and public statues are supposed to be for everyone, not just the majority. How about putting "One White Nation" on our money, "One White Nation Under God" in the pledge, and having public statues dedicated to "white people"? If this was the case now, and a large percentage of non-whites wanted to change this, would they be the sort of people who should be kept out of the BSA for being too "uppity"?

    So atheists would never act this way, but it is perfectly fine for them to act this way..

    Doesn't matter that it is not something they did in scouting, your group is not in BSA scouting, so all you can do is look at what you do outside of scouting for foresee what the problems would be to incorporating you into scouting.. While there is a large group of respectful atheists who can respect others beliefs there is a fringe with a history of disrespecting the beliefs of others.. It points to a small subset in atheists that creates a good reason for atheists to be denied membership to anything that has even a small link with religion, be that BSA or the Masons or whatever.. Same pattern as how we can foresee how welcoming many members in the BSA would be about welcoming in atheists.. Their history and pattern of certain groups depending on their perspective being either welcoming or unwelcoming. History of certain groups jumping ship due to the change.. All of that can be looked at to foretell how the reaction of atheists in the group will be taken, regardless of the fact it has not happened yet.

    Your viewpoint is no better then NC trying to legislate a state religion and make illegal Sharia law. Now I am sure you would applaud them outlawing a religion, but I am sure you would not be happy with a state imposed religion..

    I guess if you feel that every place open to an atheist needs to remove religion from your sight, then there will continue to be places that you will be excluded from so that the organization can enjoy their religious traditions. Bottom line you give them the reason to exclude you.. You always compare your group with the black struggle.. Black people never did anything to make white people fear their skin tone. Black people never demanded that they be included into groups so that they could force white people to follow their customs or traditions. Black people simply wanted to be treated with the same respect as white people.. Same can be argued of the homosexual civil rights movement.. They just want equal treatment, they have no need to conquer..

    So whine all you want about being exclude, and continue proving the reason why you should be excluded by disrespecting everyone who does not agree with you.. See how far it gets you in winning your fight.


    • #32
      OK you got me, and I am adult enough to admit it, unlike you.

      I admit being wrong when I'm wrong, but if someone has the gall to try and tell me what I FEEL and gets it wrong, I certainly don't.

      Your viewpoint is no better then NC trying to legislate a state religion and make illegal Sharia law. Now I am sure you would applaud them outlawing a religion

      Oh look, another lie from moosetracker telling me what I think, even though he's wrong.

      In fact, I even posted about NC legislators trying to establish a state religion at Hemant Mehta's "Friendly Atheist" blog:

      Search for my real name, Brian Westley (which has been established in this forum earlier), and you'll find this. The first line is from Hemant's article, the second is mine:

      Brian Westley 5 months ago

      Voters should remember that when the next elections come around.

      The hell with that; impeach these totalitarian idiots.

      Stop lying about me. In your case, that's about the same as "stop typing about me".
      Last edited by Merlyn_LeRoy; 08-24-2013, 12:40 PM.


      • #33
        that line basic say you would not be happy with a state imposed religion.. Exactly what I said.. True, I would have been shocked if you defended a state religion, but you didn't.. Unless impeach these totalitarian idiots is a way you show support for something. At the same time the ban on Sharia law was going on, not even an honorable mention, so the article did not extend it's anger onto any legislation for or against religion.. Just anger about legislation for religion.. You did not disprove my assumptions.

        I don't need to type about you, you have typed all about you in this thread to uncover the fact that what I questioned you about that caused all your anger, is still a legitimate question to ask of you.. But, you need not answer it.. As stated through yout ranting, ravings and whinings you answered it. Thanks..


        • #34
          At the same time the ban on Sharia law was going on, not even an honorable mention,

          Not at the same time. Hemant's post was April 3, 2013, and the Sharia law ban came up in May.

          Now, if you'd like to read about me defending religious rights, you can try here:

          Here's where I mention see-you-at-the-pole is legal:

          You did not disprove my assumptions.

          You don't have to assume; if you assume and get my opinions wrong, I'll just call you a liar, and you'll just start whining again.
          What you OUGHT to do is ASK ME WHAT MY OPINION IS, instead of making all your stupid, false assumptions.
          That's what reasonable people do.


          • #35
            And from now on ditto from me.. because you have made wild accusations about me in this thread that is very wrong.. And you don't just do it to me, you do it to everybody you have a disagreement with.. If you don't like it from others, stop doing it to others. You can't demand from others what you don't practice yourself.


            • #36
              If you don't like it from others, stop doing it to others.

              That's funny, considering you started it off by trying to tell me what I felt instead of asking me.


              • #37
                That's funny because your post ahead of it calling me disrespectful and a hypocrate obviously predated my response to your rude and inaccurate comment about me. And was the very reason for my response back to you.
                Last edited by moosetracker; 08-24-2013, 04:31 PM.


                • #38
                  Yes. I indicated where you were being disrespectful of atheists, and called you a hypocrite for simultaneously demanding respect from atheists. I responded to something you actually wrote, which is how I conduct a genuine argument. I didn't assume I knew what you were thinking, attempt to tell you what you were thinking, and get it wrong.


                  • #39
                    Hypocrite -
                    1. a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
                    2. a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

                    So you yourself have pull out of my past post where I have stated my support for atheists with reservation to the radical part of the group.. Prove to me where I have made a false appearance of virtue or religion?.. You don't know me personally, but I will allow you the option of proving where my acts are in contradiction to my stated beliefs or feelings..

                    Disrespectful ??!! To be one of the very few to support your group at all??? If you wish to support the radical fringe of your group, then that is the only way I can see you thinking me disrespectful.. Therefore the question to you Why are you defending them???

                    Look... I along with many on this forum and I also personally in my current scouting role have been fighting for years to remove the insane dictating control the radical religious conservatives have over how ALL units conduct themselves so that they can feel comfortable and wipe out all that offends them. I am not looking to hand the reins over to atheists with an agenda to control ALL of BSA in order to make themselves comfortable and wipe out all that offends them. I argue for local unit control in any argument that I take.

                    For me you would be welcome, as long as you find or create units that have your values.. But, don't dictate that all units have to drop their religious values and traditions so that you can feel comfortable where ever you go, like you do with money or statues or what not. If a unit wants an xmas party if you don't like it, then don't attend.. (When in the pack we had someone against Halloween.. So objected to a pack Halloween theme.. Got all upset, when we said we would miss her as she thought we should drop the whole hay ride, party theme to cater to her whims).

                    I am not in years of working hard to throw off one group of radical dictating conservatives who want the world to spin around them, in order to get messed up with another set of radical dictating atheists who want the world to spin around them..

                    Sure you should expect some accommodations, such as I would not expect you to be comfortable with the oath I say.. But, equally I don't want to change my oath nor do I want the religious sect to have to change their oath to accommodate you.. So, the only answer I have is two slightly different oaths.. We don't change for you, you don't change for us..

                    Religious Requirements - I understand you would have a difficult time with.. The solution The Requirement has alternates to choose from Choose A or B.. A being religious, B being something similar but without the religious element.. But, NO.. I do not want your group to demand that the religious groups change for you.

                    Am I looking at your fight to rid the world of God on money and statues and whatever, every place that you might want to go, and the example of UK Girl Guides accepting in atheists and then requesting they change the oath to accommodate them as if they are now the only group that is worth consideration, nor acts by atheists around religious traditional displays in order to ridicule them as a potential problem to joining scouts?? YES.. yes I do.. Just as I look at the radical religious right as a current problem scouting needs to either get under control even if it means they will leave BSA in a huff..

                    In the meantime, as I have stated before, I am fine with those who can join and have small adjustments so that they can run a unit, but not all of BSA in a manner comfortable to them..

                    Is that disrespectful to all atheists? I think not.. Disrespectful to the radical atheists, maybe, but no more disrespectful then I am to the radical religious conservative.

                    So if you want to defend them please do.. Either defend why they should become our new dictators if we allow them entry, or defend why joining BSA would be considered different for them then what they are doing all over the country in eliminating the mention of God.. Or why the radical element of your group would have no interest joining BSA, even for the fun of sticking a monkey wrench into the works..

                    But, since you refuse to explain that then I will have no reason to even reconsider my position.

                    Bottom line you are lying about me being a hypocrite, I am very consistent. Local option, no dictatorship by the radical right, no dictatorship by the radical left, no dictatorship by the religious, no dictatorship by the atheists (if they are ever allowed to be members.) Find a unit that resembles you values and don't stick your nose where it does not belong..

                    You are also lying about me being disrespectful to atheists (at least to atheists that don't disrespect others and so ask for a reciprocal attitude.), since I welcome those who can be tolerant of different values and beliefs. As far as I am concerned it is not even disrespectful to defend your castle from anyone hostile. You are taking my words, twisting them around and saying untruths about me. You can't even twist to call me a hypocrite, either you don't know the meaning of the word, or your making things up.. Either way it's a lie.. I mistook it for misunderstanding my statements, and tried to re-explain myself.. But basically if you want to play the childish game of liar liar.. Then we will play the game. I don't think I have had such a childish fight since I was 10 years old.. Geesh!!!
                    Last edited by moosetracker; 08-25-2013, 12:44 PM.


                    • #40
                      Prove to me where I have made a false appearance of virtue or religion?

                      I didn't say you had. You DO realize that a hypocrite does not have to satisfy both definitions, don't you?
                      And you were being disrespectful of atheists while simultaneously demanding respect from atheists earlier in this thread at post #7.

                      Disrespectful ??!! To be one of the very few to support your group at all???

                      Yes. It's like someone being in favor of integration, but who also keeps pointing out blacks who have broken the law in news articles and saying how these wouldn't be the right sorts of black members, and repeated harping on how blacks have to be 'respectful' of the white members. Such backhanded support doesn't look like support after a while; to me, it looks a lot more like scapegoating and painting with a broad brush after so many occurrences.

                      ...the example of UK Girl Guides accepting in atheists and then requesting they change the oath to accommodate them as if they are now the only group that is worth consideration...

                      The UK Girl Guides decided to change their promise. Do you have a problem with an organization deciding to change their own promise?
                      This news article was about a unit that isn't even allowing an atheist adult leader take the official promise. That's not the atheist's fault.

                      Girlguiding is to strengthen its commitment to being open to all girls by updating the Promise that girls and volunteers make when they join the organisation. The decision comes after a consultation involving nearly 44,000 people of all ages from inside and outside guiding.
                      The updated Promise will ask members to ‘
                      be true to myself and develop my beliefs’. This will replace the previous phrase ‘to love my God’. The change was made after the consultation showed that different words were needed to include all girls, of all faiths and none, more explicitly in the Promise.
                      ‘However, we knew that some people found our Promise confusing on this point and that it discouraged some girls and volunteers from joining us. We hope that the new wording will help us reach out to girls and women who might not have considered guiding before – so that even more girls can benefit from everything guiding can offer.

                      ‘Guiding believes in having one Promise that is a clear statement of our core values for all our members to commit to. We hope that our new Promise will allow all girls – of all faiths and none – to understand and feel proud of their commitment.’
                      The decision to review the Promise was made by Girlguiding’s members and Board of Trustees in 2011, and reflects the charity’s commitment to evolve in line with girls’ changing views. The Promise has been changed 11 times in the organisation’s history, most recently in 1994.

                      Recent and ongoing Girlguiding and ChildWise research has indicated clearly that girls hold a wide variety of beliefs about a god. According to the 2013 Girls’ Attitudes Survey, 37 per cent of girls do not believe in a god, 13 per cent believe in a god at some times but not at others, and 26 per cent currently believe in a god.

                      The Promise consultation took place online and face-to-face at Rainbow, Brownie, Guide and Senior Section meetings. Additional focus groups were run among girls from harder-to-reach communities to ensure that their views were included in the findings.
                      Last edited by Merlyn_LeRoy; 08-25-2013, 01:00 PM.


                      • #41
                        One thing that needs to be taken into account in this is the fact that Girl Guiding UK are / is not Scouting, they are affiliated to WAGGS, Scouting both in the UK ( as in Scout Association ) and the USA ( as in USA BSA) are affiliated to WOSM (World Organisation of the Scout movement) Speaking form a UK point of view both Scouting and Guiding share a lot of common values, and a similar set of shared objectives, but they re separate organisations and what one does shouldnt/doenst have any effect on he other anymore than what any other youth organisation may do. If you read into it a bit further, there could be a slight attack on Scouting in the statement "‘Guiding believes in having one Promise that is a clear statement of our core values for all our members to commit to. We hope that our new Promise will allow all girls – of all faiths and none – to understand and feel proud of their commitment." UK Scouting has a promise with a few variations for other religions that do not always use the word God and from what I understand there may also soon be a variation for those who feel they dont have any religious beleif at the time of making their promise. If we are goign to compare them: when Scouting in the UK became compulsory co-ed ( 2007 ) one Scout group, or to be more precise there was one Scout troop that refused to allow girls to join, thenend result is that those leaders were removed from Scouting.


                        • #42
                          I asked you to prove either definition, you have proved neither.. Therefore you are still a liar.

                          True -- Back then, I would have been in favor of Blacks coming into BSA, but not members of the Black Panthers.. Anyone killing and bombing etc would not be the right influende.. But, I would not want white murders and bombers in the BSA either.. If you want to defend why murders and bombers are respectful members of society you can defend them also while you are at it.. That is not disrespectful, that is being reasonable.. What is disrespectful is to point to the radical fringe and say because of the actions of the black panthers, no blacks should be allowed in the BSA, Black people are all alike.. What would be disrespectful is for me to point to your radical atheist fringe group and say see them?.. All atheists are like them, don't allow any atheists in they are all destructive and disrespectful and immoral..

                          Yes I have a problem with an organization deciding to change it's oath or it's rules to cater to only one part of it's group, denying the rights of others in the group. Doesn't matter what the PR statement says after the vote, the vote was made due to complaints by the atheists who demanded it be changed. PR will not delve into the negative.. I was also against BSA in the 1990 adding rules to throw out and deny membership to homosexuals in order to cater to the conservative Christian because it was unfair to the others who did not share the same beliefs.. I think the anti-atheist rule was always in place, so I can't comment on that while simply discussing rule changes.. We have been fighting back for our rights for years since.. And you have also argued against rules in the BSA that cater to this group.. But, let me ask you since the rules are set around denying membership to homosexuals and atheist, why do you fight these rules.. After all they are the rules of the BSA organization, accept it and stop fighting for change, or lamenting over them being unfair. What does that say about you to be all for restrictive policy that sides with your group, but against restrictive rules against it? Huh??'

                          You are still a liar for calling me disrespectful... Or if you prefer, if you continue to claim you know me, and can make these statements about me.. Then I have equal rights to make claim that I believe every word I wrote about you, and have the right to ASSUME what I want about you and post it.. You can not claim the right to make false assumptions about me and post and defend them, although your defense is a ridiculous as your original claims and demand I not make assumptions about you and post them for all the world to see..

                          As stated I can be an adult and admit when I was wrong, you claimed you could do.. I only see a brat who refuses to admit that you have lost.. So continue on.. and on.. and on.. About how you know everything about everyone, and can make any crazy statement against them that you wish.. But, death to anyone who returns the favor..

                          I am still waiting for a rational discussion.. Know I won't get one.. But, love a fight where I have won it several posts ago, and the other party is unable to admit defeat so will continue on to their death.


                          • #43
                            I asked you to prove either definition, you have proved neither.. Therefore you are still a liar.

                            I've already pointed out that you disrespected atheists while demanding that atheists respect you:

                            [Gays] 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..

                            As to this:
                            Yes I have a problem with an organization deciding to change it's oath or it's rules to cater to only one part of it's group, denying the rights of others in the group.

                            Take that up with the UK Girl Guides, it's their decision. For some reason you seem to want to blame atheists for it.

                            You are still a liar for calling me disrespectful...

                            Sorry, you don't get to choose what other people find disrespectful. You can say you don't find it disrespectful, but you can't say I don't find it disrespectful.


                            • #44
                              Thanks Pint.. In the USA, the BSA has other programs that are not BS or CS.. They had problems with Venturing (or Venturers get confused with that), where the God thing got in the way of units that focused on professions like firemen or police.. In order to remove God, and allow in atheist they couldn't just do that, they had to create a whole new organization, change the name from Venturing/Ventures to Explorers and give it a different oath.. Then you could choose to join the new program (or not)..

                              With the Ventureing/Venturer program (which is still a program in BSA, but a different on then what went to the Explorers.. They decided to be co-ed.. In order to do that, they had to allow the units the open option to decide for themselves if they wanted to be all male, all female or co-ed..

                              Except for a few things that the radical conservatives have gotten BSA to right rules that are only to appease them, to the detriment of all others, and a rule that says no unit can deny admittance to blacks for the sole reason of the color of their skin (you can for other reasons like discipline, troop too big to except anyone white/black or purple.) , and strangely enough homosexual youth (which I don't agree with.).. Their solution to contentious issues is to offer the units the choice .. "Local option"..

                              To get back to mandatory admittance of a homosexual youth.. Why do I disagree with this, although I have been a loud voice in demanding the BSA open their doors to both youth and adult.. It is because I believe whole heartedly in local option where their are very polarized opinions.. I do not feel it is a good experience for the youth to be put into a unit where they are unwanted and disrespected, which hopefully a parent would never do to a child they care for, but we have known some real dingbats who would stoop to using their child as a pawn whether they are hoping the child will be "straightened out" by them, or they want to "stick it" to the unit.. If the youth is the one choosing to demand membership to a unit that does not want them, in order to cause trouble, well I feel it unfair for the unit.. I respect religions to have their beliefs, I just resent them forcing their beliefs on people who are not of their religion.. Now, if someday the government passes civil rights laws like they did with blacks, it would then be time for the BSA to mandate all units to follow the law, as they have to get over it and do so in every other public function they attend (accept for their church).. Until that time, they should be treated like the admittance of women and girls, and religions who only accept their own members etc. Also BSA should be teaching these kids to be upright citizens, and follow the law.. But I still would hope that if the youth is not the one wanting to join a group that will not welcome them the parents will have common sense not to put him into a hostile environment.

                              Where there is no polarized viewpoints about something, then sure set unified rules.. Where there is polarized viewpoints, (especially political, religious or both) respect all the different viewpoints through local option.. I do not like someone else forcing their beliefs on me if I have a strong differing view.. I do not believe I have the right to force my viewpoint on others.. Except if their viewpoint is to deny others their rights or freedoms because they feel they have a right to force everyone to conform to their beliefs.. Well then I will chew them up and spit them out..


                              • #45
                                And I stated I only disrespect those who disrespect others and therefore ask to be disrespected by their actions.. I respect anyone who finds how to tolerate and respect others.. I NEVER asked the disrespectful to respect ME.. First off I am NOT important enough to walk around DEMANDING respect from anyone.. All I said was that I would not welcome the radical fringe of your group into the BSA because they lack the ability to show tolerance and respect for anyone who has a different point of view.. Same as the radical conservative fringe of the conservative religious right.. They disrespect and want to eradicate homosexuals and atheists from their sight because it offends them, and try to force rules and laws in BSA and politically to force everyone to comply to their whims.. Your radical fringe want to eradicate anything religious from your sight because it offends you, and try to force rules and laws politically to force everyone to comply to their whims.. There is no difference between either group, except for what offends them.. Lies, Lies, twisting my words and making things up to spit out Lies..

                                That is not hypocrisy.. But.. Thanks for the answer. Since admit you are wrong for how you twist, and pick through my writing to make falsehoods about me..You have told me I have the perfect right to say anything I want about you and weather I I can either just accurately quote you.. (get a lot out of that alone.) Or like you if it's a slow day I can pick out parts and phrases of yours and blend them together to my purpose and throw out wild accusations about you..

                                Therefore where to start ??? This will be fun..

                                To my original question to you then got you all unhinged.. Sorry, you don't get the right to tell me I can't interpret your defense of your radical fringe buddies as meaning you agree with them..

                                I was comply with your wishes a few posts ago, and TRIED to give you an open ended question, to answer which of course you ignored.. What do you call a man who rants and raves over BSA rules that are unfair to him, and gets all flustered, when someone tells his group not to fight it but start a new group.. But.. when the shoe is on the other foot and his group wins a battle.. Delights in saying this..
                                “It appears their "love of god" means excluding people who don't believe the same as them, and also breaking the rules of the organization. Why don't they start their own organization instead of trying to change the one they're in?”

                                Answer.. A man who demands all rules are written to benefit him, yet disregards the feelings of others when rules are written to benefit him and hurt others.. IS A HYPOCRITE!!!
                                Look it up..
                                What do you call a man who demands that no one read what he writes and infer logical conclusions about them, because their LIES, but deems himself utterly within rights to do it to everyone else around him, even when he makes things up and twists words around to do so??? Perhaps the word that comes to mind is A HYPOCRITE!!! And lets add on disrespectful to boot.. Because it fits..