littlebillie

"You criticized me because I said these "parents" (two dads) shouldn't expect to "feel welcomed"..."

Actually, shouldn't the welcome be extended to the BOYS who are in this family, regardless of the parental structure of the family? Fine example set for these kids if otherwise. Some of you may remember the days when a kid without a dad was not truly welcomed (no, not officially - but the common wisdom was that w/out a dad, the kid couldn't participate as fully, go camping, earn the badges...sad to say). I'd thought we'd seen the last of that!

No matter where you stand on the exclusion issue, these boys are innocent bystanders who arguably may even need some extra consideration.

Well, that is unless someone really WANTS them to think that Scouts don't care about them...?

Could you tell me how the spiritual gets reconciled with the atheistic, and voluntary membership in an organization that calls for duty to God with knowing acceptance of atheists?

This is not a glove in the face or anything - I just truly don't see how these are compatible?

well, I REALLY like to think that the Executive folks in Texas take a look in here from time to time. Maybe to take an unofficial pulse, maybe to get ideas - maybe just for entertainment, whatever.

Regardless, IF they do look in, and IF they saw some brilliant thing that might open the doors without stepping on most toes - or keep the doors closed and make most folks more appreciative of it - either way - that they'd adopt whatever that brilliant idea was.

No real reason to think this - just seems to make sense... sort of a free think tank, y'know?

sctmom - see, that's the part that confuses me. "Complete nondiscrimination". But at the website, they say "We believe that the motivating force in Girl Scouting is a spiritual one" and just leave it up to the individual to decide if they meet that requirement. Does that mean that an atheist is welcome? No spiritualism there, the way most folks discuss it... and of course the World Org recognizes "duty to God" in its Charter or Constitution somewhere - and the GSUSA is a member of that org.

So I'm confused by the atheism thing.

And have you been to this website: http://www.diversityingirlscouts.org/ ?

It's a real eye-opener.

These issues are part of why I occasinally raise an eyebrow when I hear about the GS non-discrimination policy. a policy de jure seems to be spiritual; a de facto policy seems to be a kid in a wheelchair.

Now - I am NOT trying to take shots at the Girl Scouts. I just don't think their non-discrimination is as all-encompassing as I've been led to believe, based on such matters.

sctmom, the few that had the heart to try and continue after this found another pack in the area - sponsored by a public school, no less.

they still ask why their school thinks girls are better than boys... based on the continuing GSUSA presence.

Sigh...

In November of 2000, University Elementary School(UES)of UCLA withdrew support and sponsorship for Cub Scout Pack 1, and told the boys (all UES students) that they would no longer be permitted to meet on campus or use school facilities. This action was taken specifically and explicitly as a result of the 'gay' issue. (Ironically, 2 of our kids were from a 2-dad family.)

The Girl Scouts _still_ meet at UES.

Now even though UCLA is a public facility and receives federal funds, its elementary school is a laboratory school sponsored by the university, so it sort of falls in that shadowland between private and public - even so, UCLA might face potential impact based on this decision, based on the Van Hilleary amendment to the new Educational Bill.

Ironically, the only ones really getting hurt in this story were the boys themselves - more than a few tears were shed when the principal told them they could no longer be Cub Scouts at their school. But the BSA executive board? I don't even think they know about it, and the loss of 8 kids (we were a pretty small Pack at this point, not having been ALLOWED to have a membership drive for the two years BEFORE the big boot...) makes barely a ripple in the big pond of scouting!

So when a school takes a stand - who REALLY gets hurt? The kids, first and foremost. But the BSA and UCLA will go on.

The school - which as a sponsor potentially had a voice in the issue - chose to bow out of the whole thing, leaving the kids to pick up the pieces. Oh - and the GSUSA to continue on.

WHY the schools would take action that really only hurts kids, I don't know.

I just don't know...

Gay OR straight - aren't we supposed to be Asexual, pretty much? NOT avowed heteros and not avowed anything else? Single leaders of opposite sex not sharing tents out of wedlock, and all that?

Even groping one's spouse, regardless, suppposed to be avoided... and regardless of orientation, there should be no indication of sexuality, should there? The obviously promiscuous straight is a role model to be avoided as much as any?

?????

"Oh boy, this tired old line. I'm sorry but he was a homosexual. He may have been a pedophile but he was a homosexual pedophile."

Actually, perhaps not - in this case, the population of greatest opportunity was boys. this incident may indeed have involved a pedophile with no gender or orientation preference past 'young'.

I haven't seen enough facts to make the call...

First, I think the BSA had exactly the issue of separation in mind when it chose NOT to be identified as a religious group. (Wasn't it AA that got identified as such recently?) If it were actually religious, that might solve some things, but raise a whole bunch of extablishment problems...?

Anyway, now that the No Child Left Behind has passed with the Hilleary amendnment in place (Equal Access for Boy Scouts verbiage), does that make it mandatory for a school to charter a unit if approached? And prevent schools from dumping them if they wanted to, assuming they still wanted any federal funds?

I always find myself concerned about the Cub Scout who belongs to a two-dad or two-mom family, whe then sees his parents marginalized, turned into second class citizens w/in a Pack.

Oh - and it does happen!

Whaddaya do?

So help me out here. The GSUSA says it acknowledges a spiritual component in the life of the scout, but they're supported by atheists?

I really DON'T understand why the BSA gets flacked for this and the GSUSA doesn't...?

Why easy pickin's? That comes across as smug, rather than practical and compassionate... I'm not sure what the intent was...?

Special needs? That's an interesting direction for a lot of things - arguably, agnostic and atheist and gay and gay parent kids are all special needs, at least from the BSA party line position. Makes you think...

and I guess an adjuct question would be, is spiritual atheism an oxymoron?

I based my comments on the World Org's Constitution and By-laws (available at the same site you cited), ARTICLE II, Principles, 1. The Scout Movement is based on the following principles [first mentioned is] 'Duty to God'. I was taking this as the source reference for the WO - is that incorrect? (I AM kinda new here.)

Seems to me that if you buy into WO membership, you buy into that. OR at least you say you do, thus passing the same test the Girl Scouts have established...?

The GSUSA says that a member must have a belief in

SOMETHING spiritual, whether or not they choose to use the word God or something else in the oath. The Girl Scouts also say that it is up to the individual girl to decide if her own sense of spirituality qualifies her for membership.

Now, that throws the definition WIDE open, but since the GSUSA still belongs to the World organization - which comes right out and says God is part of its mission - we need to step back and reflect that the GSUSA isn't really any more officially accepting of atheists than the BSA, they've just really opened up what can be

meant by God, god, or spirituality - as well as leaving it up to the conscience of the individual to decide if they want to say that they meet the requirement! (Actually, there's an avenue for abuse here that may be seen as an unwitting temptation to the atheist child to lie, but that's another issue)

That really is the position the BSA should consider - in our varied religious lives, nothing less allows us ALL 'permission' to our own

belief system and language to express that belief.

There is One Who is a Shepherd of many flocks...