littlebillie

"under God" is pretty Judeo-Christian, and leaves out a lot of Americans. I have to think that there are a number of posters who - while expressing outrage - have wondered, at least idly and on occasion, when this was going to be tested.

THERE IS NO SURPRISE HERE. It wasn't a question of if, but when.

And when is now. I am NOT surprised, but I am hugely disappointed. I've known atheists and religious folks both who have simply omitted those words when reciting the pledge, the first for reasons of lack of religion, and the second for separation. And never found the need, having made their personal accomodation, to raise a ruckus.

Legally, it's probably a sound, all other things being normal - but these are not normal times in world events, and I'd say this is giving succor to the enemy, and reinforcing the image of the Godless Empire...

"...one Nation, under Heaven..."?

The separation of church and state language comes from the Bill of Rights.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the

Government for a redress of grievances.

How does Islam regard slavery? What is its view of the modern trade?

it can get to be kind of hard to avoid when the kids see other kids at school with two moms or two dads, or kids who have been adopted by Rosie, or whatever. dad leaves the family and switches styles as part of his midlife crises.

when even the family dog can provide unintended exposures, it's hard to have a response for everything.

how is anyone dealing with gay families at the schools?

FBOisseau,

all the more reason to mention it, so that those who believe nature "ain't got no such" can find out otherwise. frankly, tho', I prefer to think that the folks I've seen posting so far are a little more aware of the world around them.

either way, it is to be hoped that such mention, unfamiliar or no, encourages a little reading and a little re-think.

adult-child support among chimps, bonobos and gorillas CAN contribute to power positioning in the troop politic - such has been noted - but for the most part seems to be set off to one side of that particular facet. while care-taker aunts can bask in some reflected glory of the alpha female, most often an entire troop rallies around a youngster - any youngster - in trouble.

of course, there is little divorce among our furry cousins to turn children into pawns on THAT board, and the child exploitation arena (labor, prostitution, whatever) is virtually empty.

sure thing. go to http://www.scout.org/wso/index.html and select the Constitution and By-laws Adobe option. You have to click it once, and then it'll take you down to where you really need to click it. It's in the first page or two, Principles.

Now, that's for the WOSM.

The WAGGGS comments are less spelled out, but you'll find references to the spriritual as you go thru their site. On a guess, they believe that the spiritual side of life is important, but in the interests of women living in areas where the mainsteam relgion subjugates women, feel it wiser to downplay "duty to God" as such. Even so, spiritual and atheist don't coincide, as far as I know.

hoping this helps

I'm grateful I live in a country where folks have the right to speak their minds, where kids like Cozza (regardless of what you think of Scouting For All) have the courage to speak up for what they believe is right, and where there are forums like this to KEEP discussing it, whatever side of the fence you're on.

fboisseau...

"littlebillie

If you want to take issue with me on a use of a single word, I will grant you that complete may have been a better word for me to use. This did not change the fact that you provided an example to support your position without, suppling a fact which was also important to this discussion that would have hurt your position. When someone in a debate, which this is, does that, I consider it

to be at the minimum misleading. "

it is equally misleading to apply a term for a human aberration for which the dictionary includes the word 'abnormal' to an animal behaviour that is part of the norm for a species.

so often in these discissons the cry is raised that "it just ain't natural", but when natural models are given, then the other objections get patched together.

among the bonobo, as you apparently know, the child-adult contacts are NOT power-based, do not involve pederasty (another human trait), and are performed in large to comfort the young rather than the gratification of the adult. to omit that is misleading in itself.

older human children that have been breastfed, esp. among certain poorer and/or very rural populations, frequently stroke their mothers breast even to the age of 10. sexual in our eyes, quite possibly, but a source of comfort for the participants.

since the bonobo was mentioned to provide an animal model - and since that behaviour to which you object is qualitatively and intentively different bonobo - I had felt no real need to mention it.

no would I have now, were it not for charges of deception.

BTW - usually, folks end up objecting to the rat studies rather than the chimp stuff. interesting twist here - thanks, y'all!

if in fact there has been "violation of policy", and that policy was known to and acknowledged by the - ah - budding thespian, then, certainly, the school board has every right to dump the man.

I am not clear, tho', as to what specific policy was violated, or how it might be worded; depending on THAT, of course, other issues may be raised. Freedom of speech coupled (if you will) with freedom of association would seem to cover acting, and I doubt that any other teacher has been fired simply for appearing in less controversial films.

it'll be interesting to see what happens with this. it seems the school board was aware of the teacher's orientation, so the issue is not that - it's performance in something that the kids shouldn't even know about anyway, so...

Do I agree with the school board's actions? Absolutely - based on the nature of the video. nevertheless, do I see at least SOME double standard? yeah, kinda. it's gray - and it's the gray that could make for some fascinating law to come out of this...

following up on yaworski's comments, no reason to give another religion any more respect than you give your own! I know very few - no, really, I personally don't know anyone - who really keeps the Biblical commandments completely and faithfully, or who even tries.

but when we are confronted with folks who DO take their religions literally, completely and sincerely, our response ranges from ridicule to indignance to fear.

I always like to think of 'ethics' as morality without a Supreme Being involved. Or conversely, of 'morality' as ethics enforced by religion. That's just a nutshell version. Looked at this way, I think there are some behaviors that can be ethical without being moral, and vice versa - mostly though, there's a lot of overlap.

Making the distinction can help clarify a lot of things, even if you draw the lines differently than I do.

Just an observation...

Girl Scouts say "... the motivating force in Girl Scouting is a spiritual one". Boy Scouts say it a little more strongly, but while using the word "God" do not preclude polytheistic scouts, such as Hindus.

And both the BSA and the GSUSA belong to the World Org that acknowledges a "duty to God".

So it really seems more like a spin difference than a real difference...?

Rooster- sorry if I didn't understand what you didn't say! :-) Another way to say it is, you won't admit that you didn't way what you meant. Regardless - speak and write precisely, and you'll avoid those issues.

Speaking of which -

"Yes, if you examine the world, you can find

perversity in the animal kingdom."

So - did God design the animals to be perverse? But then, it wouldn't be perverse... or are the animals sinning? But that would mean... Could you explain that comment, because frankly, that WAY baffles me!

When you say there is perversity in nature, isn't that saying that nature is unnatural?

Serious question - looking for a reasoned, serious answer.

Hey, I really mean it - how does the GSUSA reconcile its own 'spiritual' statement, its membership in the World Org with its "duty to God" - and being atheist-friendly?

It really seems like spin - "it's up to the individual" to decide on spirituality.

I really WOULD like an explanation if anyone can provide it. I don't see that much difference between the GSUSA and BSA on the issue, based on this stuff.

"Point to all the apes, monkeys, and chimpanzees you want, I'm not going to change my mind. I guess I don't see them as relevant."

I will then assume for future reference that invitations to look at the world around us and to study biology are either insincere or ignorant. Once this has been done, apparently folks wanna say it doesn't matter.

"This did not change the fact that you provided an example to support your position without, suppling a fact which was also important to this discussion that would have hurt your position. When someone in a debate, which this is, does that, I consider it to be at the minimum misleading."

When 'challenged' to provide natural examples of homosexual behaviour, I did so. When the use of the word paedophilia is used sans contexta to describe bonobo behaviour, that in and of itself is misleading. You can provide the full description if you wish - it is certainly nothing like the human version, of which you are of course aware. Indeed, it is so far different, it never occurred to me to bring it up. No model here of pederastic priestly abuses, etc. And certainly no rape, like humans. I see it as an entirely different issue. The definition of paedophilia among humans includes the word abnormal - among the bonobo, there is a huge difference.

-*-

Help me understand this whole thing. People say "it just ain't natural" AND THEN refuse to look at or accept any information to the contrary. See, I didn't know this part - I figured when someone thought there was no animal model of this behaviour, they would be INTERESTED in learning otherwise.

mea culpa, and duly noted.

fboisseau - someone seemed to have thought that asking for a model of homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom would find nothing. I was responding to that. Try using the word 'complete' instead of 'honest'. That itself is dishonest!

R7

"Odder still is how folks refuse to look at a challenge in context. I believe the subject was "human procreation" and perversity. Why

do you insist on bringing monkeys into the bedroom?"

Again, it was apes. Not monkeys. :-)

And I did so because someone (!) wrote:

"How about basic biology? Try making a simple examination of the world around you." This is part of that world - unless the invitation excluded all non-human aspects thereof. If so,

I invite clarification thereof in the future, because I kinda take biology and the world at large.

It's hard to know what someone means if it ain't what they say.

The rest of your comments are mostly smug-shots, I think - no real argumentative value. I take it you are not sympathetic with endangered animals - not every one is, it's a different kind of morality.

But you make a point about normal and/or moral - let me know how you use these, and how you define them, BEFORE I make any unhappy assumptions...

Hi, R7 - a few points...

1. Apes are not monkeys. Monkeys are not apes. And the green vervet had probably not indicated that it wished to be hunted as a food source by and for humans!

2. The bonobo is indeed threatened - mostly by human encroachment. To hold this against it seems a little too self-servingly pat and regardless, it's lasted THIS long as a species, right up to right NOW, so whatever it's style is seems to have worked until humans decided to take over their habitat!

3. Odd, isn't it, how folks challenge you to look to nature for models, but when you do so, other folks say that nature isn't valid.

4. Not sure what the question about Africa per se is supposed to be, but I hope its not about any human population? Could you clarify?

5. EVOLUTIONISTS say that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, not that humans evolved from chimps. Anti-evolutionists, tho', say that evolutionists say other things.

Hope this helps clear up a few things!!!

OGE,

Thanks for directing me here. It does define some of the issues. Reading thu, it occurs that a lot of the perceived 'evil' of the lifestyle would evaporate if gay unions (marriages, domestic contracts, whatever) were permitted. Promiscuity seems a natural result when society at large will not acknowledge you.

It will be fascinating to see what happens over in Europe - didn't some country legalize same-sex unions? - in a decade or two. Less promiscuity, or more, or the same? Less homosexuality, or... well, you get it.

Fascinating lab-at-large.

"What evidence is there that homosexuality is wrong (i.e., perverse behavior)? How about basic biology? Try making a simple examination of the world around you."

Studies of overpopulated non-human systems (most famously, rats from "psych 101" :-) show a marked increase in homosexual behavior. Studies of overstressed non-human systems. Studies of the bonobo shows lots of unstressed, non-population related homosexual contact.

When we are directed to nature, and challenged to find homosexuality, we do. I assume the conclusion is acceptance and/or tolerance? The lessons of nature would suggest that..?

when I see this kind of comment - " ...In no way are they discriminating. The BSA is just xercising

it's right of freedom of association allowed by the Constitution." the first thing that jumps to mind is that under these guidelines, the KKK does not discriminate either. Nor did the Rotary.

Actually, the truth is that this is discrimination - check the dictionary - but it is a legal discrimination, for reasons that the group feels justify it.

Describing this any other way misstates what is happening, on both sides...

"All behavior is by choice. I'm a heterosexual, but nothing compels me to have sex or to behave in any particular manner."

are you also hetero by choice? you don't really say above. did you choose the orientation? or did you grow into it? or were you trained into it? or - well, again, was it just a choice?

"There's a big difference between race and sexual

behaviorlet's not confuse the two issues."

Big difference if the behavior is by choice, less of a difference if the behavior is NOT by choice, and no meaningful difference if the behavior is genetic.

That said, I'm sure it's nothing new here - can someone bring me up to speed on the different views for each position , and what the consensus seems to be?

Rooster - Ah, yes - I indeed misspoke. It wasn't a Pack Leader - sorry, I was getting ready for last night's Webelos Skits, and I had that mindset in place. Troop leader, of course.

And yes - it did happen. I don't know you or your style well enough to know if you were calling me a liar ('untrue') or what, but it did indeed take place.

This happened in Ajo. And it was the only time in MY Boy Scout days that one of my fellow scouts ever lost a father - I'm sorry that you have more extensive experience with that, but glad that there was no fallout for YOUR friends.

As for the point of it, it means that - de facto or de jure - there are shifting views and acceptances as to what family is, and what the role of scouting is in teaming with those families.

We evolve and grow as individuals - and hopefully, as a society.

Religio, after all, used to be invoked in the name of segregation. Maybe it still is, but not around me.

We grow.

Or at least, we should...

In Arizona, around '63 or so, one of our Patrol members lost his dad. Shortly, he stopped coming to the meetings. When we boys asked him why, he kind of shrugged it off and didn't answer. It was our Pack leader who explained that w/out a dad, he really couldn't go camping with us, or do the things that those of us with dads could do...

no official policy, I'm sure - not even so much as a unilaterally issued position statement. Anecdotal evidence? yes. Unique? No. a stain on the badge?

Certainly