erickelly65

I dont pretend to know much about the background of anyone here or their history of posts. I do think the safety implications of any change to the requirements for leadership (i.e. allowing women to be Scoutmasters, or allow Homosexuals (male or female)would warrant a discussion of the operational implications (meaning what changes, if any, need to be made to our guidelines to ensure a safe environement for our youth (and adults)) To me, bringing those issues up that someone who is attracted to a particular gender may act on it and how do we mitigate that risk isnt irrational. Do I thin

I personally am not a fan of the term homophobic as it get so cavalierly thrown about. I don't believe that anyone that thinks homosexuality is wrong is necessarilly "phobic" (some are some arent) The conotations of the word are by their nature inflammatory and there for dont advance the discussion.

Goldwing is write in that there is somewhat of a double standard against the straight male and what a threat we might be to young girls. You need look no further then our sisters in the GSUSA. They place significant limits on what leadership roles and level of participation men can have especially when compared to BSA. Having said that two wrongs dont make a right. Sidebar comment - why is it that so few people here fill out their profile information?(This message has been edited by erickelly65)(This message has been edited by erickelly65)

Well, we do allow straight men to be leaders around teenage girls in our Venturing programs.

Onehour wrote We would never think of allowing unrelated women to camp with our boys given all the possibilities for improper contact or even the appearance of improper contact. There is no rule that only related women (or men for that matter) can be adult leaders. Even if a leader is related to a boy in a Troop, they arent going to be related to all boys in the Troop. That is one of many reasons why we have the 2 deep leadership and separate accommodation policies in the G2SS. Onehour also wrote: Whether you think homosexuality is morally unclean, deviant, and unnatural, or whe

This is a way tangent comment...Last night while channel surfing I came across a program on the History Channel that was discussing Gamma Ray Bursts and theory that in Earth's ancient past it was hit by such a burst and that burst and its initial effects and the lingering impact on the climate wiped out the trilobite's

The 10 Commandments are unique to the Judeo-Christian tradition. Scouting is not a "Christian" organization but open to many faiths. To follow your line of thought, the Scouts shouldnt have other faiths involved either.

trilobites? thats just crazy talk.

The tough thing is deciding when ones view is standing ones ground on principle or it's just pig-headedness. From my own presonal experiences I feel scouting today has been much more swayed by the far right then it seemed to be when I was a Scout. As a Scouter and Parent, I worry about raising the youth of today. I think Scouting is a hugely powerful program and can have profound influences on the character and success of young people (it certainly was lifechanging for me as a child). Today, more than ever, it seems our youth are starved for positive role models (especially boys) and pr

Trev, Thanks for the info but for me its a "so what" point. For me, its never been about keeping atheists out as being able to keep the traditional faith elements in the program that support my beliefs. (My son belongs to the pack chartered at our church and if other packs want to have other standards that would be cool with me too) To paraphrase Lincoln stated in 1862: "If I could have scouting without allowing any atheists I would do it; and if I could have it by allowing all the atheists in I would do it; and if I could have it by allowing some and leaving others alone I would also

Merlyn, So I assume then that to you there is no way to keep the "Duty to God" in the oath and Reverent in the scout law and not be an organization that is invidiously discriminatory. I didnt realize that the GS's allowed the substitution of "God" with a non-theistic alternative. Thanks for the info.

Molscouter, Thanks for the pointer. I am sure I'm having as much fun as Merlyn. I enjoy the back and forth of it all as I assume Merlyn does. Discussion like this is what makes this country great. We can be heated and even a bit testy at times but at the end of the day the peaceful interchange of believes and thoughts is a good thing. The only thing that would be better would be to do it all face to face over a few pints.

How could the BSA accomodate non-theists and retain the theistic elements of its program? What do you think of how the GSUSA handles it? For that matter, some BSA units allow atheists -- they deliberately ignore the policy. It's hardly a question of how to do it when it's being done. Merlyn, I am only questioning it because none of my suggestions (posted earlier) on how to accommodate were acceptable. In fact, when I suggested that very thing (doing what the GSUSA does) you scoffed at me. I wrote: I have no problem with people who are atheists. At the same time, I do want

Sure. How about "How easy to cry victim and what an age-old and effective method to color your opponent as the evil oppressor." I never said all atheists did this....just you.

Let me ask a high-level question. How could the BSA accomodate non-theists and retain the theistic elements of its program? (i.e. ....I will do my duty to God...., A Scout is Reverent, etc.) How can you run a youth program that teaches some youth a resposibility to a higher power is important but then turn around and tell others something else? And if you can't do both at the same time is any program that choses to persue the theistic option, inherently bad because it's selecting a path objectionable to the others that dont share that belief? How can you create a program that allows the

Merlyn wrote: erickelly65, I use the word "discriminate" to refer to, well, discrimination. I'm fully aware that there is legal and illegal discrimination. If I need to refer to legal or illegal discrimination specifically, I'll say so. I do consider the BSA's discrimination to be "bad", whether it's through, say, a private school (legal) or a public school (illegal). And if you don't want me to accuse you of whining, don't whine. And if you want to convince me that you show atheists one iota of respect, do so. I certainly haven't seen any on your part. Response So once again you are t

From Merlyns post erickelly65 writes: You wrote - But there really aren't that many organizations that practice such invidious discrimination apart from the Boy Scouts, Freemasons, or KKK. Now why would I be offended by the notion that people of faith wishing to associate with people of like beliefs would be called purveyors of objectionable, harmful discrimination. Merlyn Responded I give up; why? That the BSA practices objectional discrimination is evident by people who object to it. My offense to your comment is your inference that discriminating on faith is invi

Merlyn ---it isn't a "game"; I reply to specific statements. A lot of people, including yourself, often talk in vague generalities, but don't spell out what you mean. You wrote "your interpretation of what is government neutrality I find oppressive to people of faith," yet you haven't said what I've said that IS oppressive. I have written about generalities because my view is that your are oppressive to people of faith is built from the general tone, vigor and disrespect with which you have responded to those of faith (or anyone that disagrees with you for that matter) but since it

Merlyn, I disagree.and as an aside; I believe the courts are mistaken in their current stance/interpretation of separation of church and state. Secondly you wrote The government can't support ANY organizations that discriminate on the basis of religion, whether they exclude atheists, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, etc. Or, for that matter, if they only allowed atheists, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, etc. but you balked at my suggestion that the program allow any member but keep the same program (as being mighty white of me) so I assume you think that no religious group can be supported by the

Merlyn, You wrote What, specifically, do I advocate that you consider "oppressive"? Given my view of equal and fair neutral treatment by the government (which I know we dont see eye to eye on) I find your statement; I understand that some people only want theists in the BSA. As that is the also current official policy, I work towards removing government support oppressive. It seeks to hold an organization to a different standard from others based on a religious belief.

Merlyn Well, here's where you can actually contribute by quoting something I've written that you consider "oppressive". I've written a fair amount, so I would hope you can quote something I've written to support your opinion. I find your statements and general tone on faith and government to be hostile in a Prima facie way. Sure enough the BSA has had a sweet deal for a while with Philly. It worked out for Philly too as it got this great building constructed. To me that sweet deal is Philly refused to grant others that deal back in the 20s (In todays world I dont think any government in

"I (have) written numerous times that the government needs to be neutral on religious matters." Packsaddle the issue lies in my belief of what "neutral" means in the above statement. It seems you and Merlyn believe (much taking the risk of being called a liar again...woe is me) that to be neutral means there is no place for religion in the public forum. I believe that neutral means there is room for ALL in the public forum (religions, belief systems, political and social groups, etc) and that the government becomes non-neutral when it givers greater access to one group to the detriment o

Okoff come the gloves. First lets get some facts straight Merlyn responded to my post that If youre an atheist and want a secular scouting experience, go create it. (The US scouting program is in the minority in having only one Boy Scouting program in our country) With No, that's actually a WOSM requirement. Other countries have all their scouting orgs as part of one umbrella organization to satisfy WOSM. To be blunt, you dont know what youre talking about. One simple example, Germany has over 150 scouting associations and federations of all flavors most belongin

understand the view that a public organization shouldnt sponsor a selective/private organization. However, I disagree with the general assertion that a group subscribing to a particular belief system that makes belief in that view a requirement of membership is victimizing (aka "discriminating against" in the legal sense) others that don't subscribe to those beliefs. i.e. Muslim's are not victimizing me by not letting me enter their mosque, nor Masons that wont allow me access to their lodge, etc. How easy to cry victim and what an age-old and effective method to color your opponent a

I think the government should provide access to a variety of not-for-profits. If a jewish, christian, muslim or atheist group wants to have a softball league only open to their respective belief system and the school has the facilities to have games...go for it. So long as access to those resources is allowed to all, I don't see a problem. As long it is not a group espousing hate or violence against those outside there belief system, I think we should all have access. We all pay our taxes.