littlebillie

slontwovvy,

"Catholics were Christians. In fact, they still are Christians. "

Yes, I know. And actually, so are Mormons. I notice you leave them out of your response - which is part of the point. Regardless. I've heard SOOO many Christian kids say they're against Catholicism because Catholics "believe in the Pope and not Jesus". If you're not aware that there's a division of faith and principle there, please accept that there is (otherwise, just for example, there would not have been so much commentary thereon re: Kennedy's Presidency).

And it was this division that was the basis of my question - WILL the Catholics and Mormons be invited to take part in the warrior's new Crusades?

And if you still choose to rebut and rebuff, really, that's totally fine with me. And I'd add, good for YOU, for not being a knee-jerk anti-Papist, btw. From my perspective, tho', you've still demonstrated the issue by the omission of the LDS in your response.

"I remain puzzled by littlebillie and others within scouting who would open the doors to atheists. Why does BSA exist? "

Well, from the perspective of the faithful, if the BSA, by exposing atheist youth to faith, could save even one soul, or re-affirm one wavering believer, isn't that worth the doing?

Kids at risk - aren't these some of the ones would would most benefit from the program?

How can one say, "let's turn our collective back on these kids"?

Even if all we end up with is a more ethical atheist - well, that's a step in a better direction, too.

What is this Christians-against-the-rest-of-the-world tone that's just arisen? Can I get some clarification here? It's a little scary. What about Jewish, Hindu and Moslem Scouts - and Americans? Where do you see Catholics and Mormons in your Christian cry to arms? As I say - scary.

I do want to make one clarification pending a response to that, tho' - "There are many but few: Atheists, Agnostics, ACLU, NOW, Gay/Lesbian organizations that would like nothing better than to see the BSA

disappear." ACTUALLY - many would just like to see the BSA open its doors a little wider, rather than disappear. THAT is the preferred end result. Characterizing it otherwise is unnecessarily alarmist.

'let me see if I have all this straight. we all know what Establishment means, and we all know where Separation/etc. comes from. (We do, ya know.)

Balogna.'

No, I don't think so. the 'we' to whom I refer are the regular participants HERE, who for the most DO in fact recognize that it's Esablishment in the Constitution and Separation elsewhere. We've ALL hit the books on that one at different times, and it's been trotted out here iteratively and at length. Had I meant "the American people", I would have chosen other words - perhaps "the American people". :-) (and YES - I totally realize this is a set-up for anyone to take a personal potshot at any single participant, but I think we're all pretty clear on it nonetheless.)

"What? Let me get this straight, are you saying you either have to agree with everything that proceeds from SCOTUS or none at all? Nonsense."

Yes, nonsense - but nonsense of a kind with any blanket statement - and there've been more than one in this thread. Yes - I attempted irony. Apparently I failed, alas... (Too, I think back on all the times folks've said "you can't pick and choose the rules you wanna follow - they come as a set." Different issue, tho', I suppose)

"Public opinion seems to be growing against the more radical decisions generated by the lower courts. That will is a seemingly unstoppable force. Law is currently favoring Merlyns viewpoint, but one of the beautiful elements of democratic rule is the manner in which the will of the people expresses itself. It will be an interesting thing to watch develop."

Sooo - what are you saying here about public opinion? Honest question - no snipe, no set up. It's just that Public Opinion has often been *criticized* here as being too much the PC flavor of the month, and the BSA holds to timeless ideals, etc. Are you saying public opinion SHOULD affect law and policy in this way - or are you simply saying it'll be an interesting show...? The unstoppable force sentence seems to approve of PO, but even so, I thought I'd ask.

right now, we have larger social fringes - those extremes on a bell curve that go off into the distance - so that there is more of an audience - in terms of absolute numbers - than ever before in our history. Numbers + money = incentive to milk that market, and if you're just looking to be a known wacko, you gotta do ever more insane things to make the wacko cut.

BUT don't judge the big bulge in the middle of the bell by the fringe - there's more there, too. But being non-fringe, they just don't play look-at-me-monkey as much.

Even so, they are there, that silent majority. So - are THEY more or less of anything these days?

Well, in terms of history, it's a bad time to ask the question - once folks get scared (and oh, so many are, these days) then they also get a little xenophobic, so in many cases, you're going to see THAT masking the basic decency of the folks underneath.

Well, this is still the same country that donated more blood than could be handled after 9/11, and the same country that rallies in support of every stray dog cause that comes down the pike (despite getting fleeced in some unscrupulous cases).

America is still a kid country - heck, we haven't been around all that long, and our history is properly measured in decades rather than centuries. Some of our culture is rough around the edges - but part of that culture is helping the stranger and the stranded child, cheering for the underdog, and deciding when we play with the big boys, we're gonna play hard.

Barbaric? No - but we're still working out what it is to be civilized in America. And as the huddled masses yearning to breathe free come here, they too will bring influences to which we must adjust. We've had British, Spanish and Asian influences, French and Irish and refugee Jews - so much impact, so many influences - and we still haven't found the common ground of the melting pot.

But dang it - I'm American and I'm civilized; just don't tread on me.

let me see if I have all this straight. we all know what Establishment means, and we all know where Separation/etc. comes from. (We do, ya know.)

Nevertheless, we get a long harangue about not attributing to the Constitution that which is not there, which itself asserts 'Jefferson declared:

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty [especially Religious Liberty], and the Pursuit of Happiness [Private Property]." '

So I'm not sure if we've been restricted to the Constitution, or to Jefferson. If Jefferson, then consider:

"Ministers of the Gospel are excluded [from serving as Visitors of the county Elementary Schools] to avoid jealousy from the other sects, were the public education committed to the ministers of a particular one; and with more reason than in the case of their exclusion from

the legislative and executive functions." --Thomas Jefferson: Note to Elementary School Act, 1817.

"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the

elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination."

--Thomas Jefferson in re the Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:425

And here is where Jefferson gives precedence to the state over a religious acitivity:

"Whatsoever is lawful in the Commonwealth or permitted to the subject in the ordinary way cannot be forbidden to him for religious uses; and whatsoever is prejudicial to the Commonwealth in their ordinary uses and, therefore, prohibited by the laws, ought not to be permitted to churches in their sacred rites. For instance, it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children. It is ordinarily lawful (or temporarily lawful) to kill calves or lambs; they may, therefore, be religiously sacrificed. But if the good of the State required a temporary suspension of killing lambs, as during a siege, sacrifices of them may then be rightfully suspended also. This is the true extent of toleration." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776.

Ok, regardless the inconsistencies - and there are ever so many available regarding Jefferson, the man public versus the man private - let's move on.

"The words written to protect religious freedom and independence are now used to suppress it..." seems bitter and awry. The words written are now used to declare that no religious position shall be supported if favor above, or to the detriment of, any other.

AND if anyone decries the lawyers and judges who have made this so - which of course must include SCOTUS - then I will assume that they disagree with the BSA decisions in the Supreme Court and will end up joining Merlyn anyway, who is in fact playing by the rules we have instead of saying that the rules were writ by idiots so we can ignore them. Which borders on anarchy.

Which isn't what this thread is about.

So... um - welcome aboard!

I guess...

please note that littlebillie earned HIS Eagle back in the 60's.

please also note that I invite all thoughts AND I'm really interested in what Bob's are.

So is the thought that the BSA is going to be ok with the message that a boy's priest is ok to guide his religious live, but is not a fit leader for the BSA?

That doesn't seem a very clear message, especially for those issues where the SM is advised to encourage the boy to talk to parents and religious leaders..?

wouldn't that be the Epsicopal acceptance of gay leadership, that "something contrary to the values of the BSA"? Similarly, would the presence of a gay priest affect a church's ability to become a CO? I think the waters are a-muddyin'...

(I doubt that this is the first time THAT'S been used as a title!)

Anyway.

With the current tempest in the Episcopal tea-pot, what might possibly happen concerning the associated religious insignia and the Scout uniform? Would the presence of a gay bishop, in and of itself, be seen any differently than the UU position?

The news I'm seeing reads like the odds are on confirmation, so this is a arguably a bit more than idle what-if...

thanks for any thoughts you can share.

Well, I am just FLUBBERgasted!

Fred MacMurray, right?

"I find more than a little irony in seeing a publication of the LDS church vehemently defending the sanctity of one-man-one-woman marriage given their history of promoting both polygamy and child marriage, which I do NOT find acceptable in any way, shape or form, hetero- or homo-, serial or otherwise."

Seriously? Wouldn't the same train of thought invalidate ANY efforts of the US gov't against slavery in the world today, based on our own earlier history? Mainstream LDS IS monogamous, despite the continued activism of splinter groups and hold-outs. But if any present belief is invalidated by history, whether or not that history has been repudiated, then I guess there's a LOT of change in our country - I thought for the good - that need never have taken place.

?

ummmm - since nothing new's getting said on the subject, let's all just consider that I've restated my position as well.

there - that saved a LOT of typing!

Hey, all.

You know, all Merlyn is doing is trying to make sure that everybody plays by the rules of the game - i.e., the Constitution. And even some of his loudest detractors have, over time, gudgingly granted that he is on firm legal ground - even though they resent it, and question his real motives.

Some of those same folk also say the pink and atheist sympathizers should go out and form their own Scouts since they can't play by the Scouts' rules.

I'm just curious - has ANYone ever considered trying to promote a Constitutional amendment? One that would change the big set of Rules?

I'd think that it would need to be something that would either some how entitle Public Service Groups OR Federally Enchartered Organizations.

Anyway, the parallels just struck me after reading that LAST bit of silliness about the pledge, and I got to wondering, so this isn't really thought out - just a thought gone looking for a home...

this was a land of many nations BEFORE the Europeans got here - the OP just didn't have quite the same idea of border or sovereignty as the newcomers...

maybe you'd consider introducing the boy to the idea of Deism as held by many of the founding fathers..? there'd be both a certain historical American relevance as well as a demystification that he might find appealing - and, it could well represent one of the purest uses of the word "God" in Scouting.

food for thought, thought for feud!

Even if you COULD decide which is theoretically more difficult, then you have the whole issue of individual differences. Some boys are going to have a much tougher time with swimming or whatever, than others. I am not conversant with the GSUSA requirements, but I'd have to guess the same thought applies.

So once y'all finish talking this around the lake and even if you DO end up deciding this horse has more teeth than that one - then someone's gotta go look in the horse's mouth, which would probably be getting a bunch of kids together to work on BOTH badges regardless of gender or organizational affiliation, the survey attitudes, measure rates of failure, conduct post-completion interviews.... and in the long run, will it really be worth it? You might pluck the petals off a rose to understand it, but in the long run, you end up with a pile of compost, and not a rose.

MOST INTERESTING question raised so far was from the comments "Our new DE has earned the GS Gold Award. She also worked at hte BSA camp at her home council. One topic we had over coffee was should the BSA allow a knot to show that they had earned it." And based on the apparent and publically understood differences between the 2 organizations official policies on membership (I say it this way simply because I personally think they're a lot closer together on paper than most people think - just different spins...), my guess'd be, it ain't gonna happen. Since the public sees the GSUSA as atheist- and gay-approving, how COULD the BSA allow a GSUSA-related know on the uniform? That'd be like authorizing the UU religious award, at least that's how it looks from the cheap seats!

And regardless of what the actual differences might be, there's the principle of allowing the replacement of "God" by the girls that the boys won't accept - same result.

just a perspective...

In that latest atheist/Eagle flap, wasn't the kid asked if he couldn't just acknowledge nature or something greater that himself in some kind of semantic plea bargain?

regardless, I've always said that Scouting can be of great value to the kids who are beginning to have crises of faith - consider these as high-risk kids that really need the gentle undercurrent of abiding faith so many Scouting units can offer. (I say so many instead of all because some church-CO'd units can be a little monothematic and even strident, but even these have their place.)

SO - if Scouting can offer itself as a safe haven for these kids, and the adults can provide good role models of faith, well, I'd think that the longer these kids can associate with the program, the better off they'd be.

Bob,

not even the [devout][straight] boys for whom the organization was enchartered? interesting point...

"People have the right to be homosexual if they want. That is their perogative. They do not have the right to be a Scouter under the BSA policies."

oy. sometimes it may be a choice. sometimes it may not be - frankly, the verdict ain't in on THAT one!

BUT. before even going down that path, the last line should really be "They do not have the right to be a Scouter under the BSA policies if they avow themselves as such."

Are the auditors just for the specific CO/church, or are they operating under some larger umbrella? ie, is it just, say, the First Generic Church's auditors, or is it some group that's auditing all Generic churches in the area, First through Tenth? If the latter, and any of the others are COs as well, are they ALL doing it that way? How does it work for THEM?

But if there's no pattern to it, or it's just the one church's own auditors, then you really need to find out why they want to commingle funds this way. How would long-term purchase goals be handled? If you're saving up to buy a trailer, say, and you'd planned to set aside a certain amount per year? Are they expecting you instead to make large purchases on time, thus needing the boys to sell even more popcorn, because they plan to use any annual overage?

The devil's in the details, and it's possible that the CO representatives who are asking for this are just knee-jerk responding to that auditor request. A 4-party meeting is required - the church, the auditors, the parents, AND some of the boys. (some of the boys need to be there just to have the faces of the intended victims right there, just in case there is anything questionable afoot).

And if there isn't, and strong assurances can be given that there won't be AND if the Scouts can withdraw their monies if it "doesn't work out", then keep peace.

Don't know how much exposure the boys have to the big financial picture, but I do know some Troops have more than others, and it really is good training.

just a few thoughts...

"But the state has no more right to pry into an how an organization exercises its First Amendment right to association than it would to require a religious test before issuing a drivers' license."

should probably read "... the state has no more right to pry into an how a PRIVATE organization exercises its First Amendment". I think this reflects the legalities more accurately.

AS LONG AS THE STATE does not apply any pressure to participate in the annual United Way campaign, officially or UNofficially (the de facto pressure can be huge when departments are quota'd at 90% participation, say) AND/OR informs the employees how to connect with the United Way outside of of the business arena, and allows directed payroll deduction thereby, regardless of the target charity, then the state's actions are fairly defensible - they canNOT give the slightest appearance of endorsing any kind of discrimination.

A glance at the supported agencies (see

http://www.uwcact.org/communityimpact/agencies.htm)does seem to be fairly uncontroversial, though I notice YMCA and YWCA, but no corresponding Y_HAs, which do operate in Connecticut, but that's probably just nit-picking.

Still, it does seem to be a first step, over-all, in the same direction as asking California judges to separate themselves from the BSA or else recuse themselves from certain cases.

's funny. i doubt that I've seen anyone here in person - i just know you all to whatever extent that I do through your posts. and so of course the total of your posts becomes everything I associate with your Username.

i feel that most of the folks who post here are people of conscience, who feel strongly about important issues affecting not just Scouts but youth - indeed, society - at large. and whether or not i agree with what's said by whomever, most of y'all have my respect and some have my appreciation.

i guess i'm not here long enough to know many of the id's mentioned but i DO remember some - there are certain posters who seem just plain evil, just out to cause controversy to no end and with no idea about what scouting is all about

(by the way, I don't count Merlyn as one of evil ones - regardless of what anyone thinks, Merlyn is doing a favor for both the American atheist AND the Irving policy makers - taking too much 'public assistance' could end up redefining the BSA from a private to a public organization, and so forcing them into allowing gays. btw - i think they should be persuaded and not forced to allow gays. strange bedfellows all 'round).

anyway - long way around the lake - you are for the most part a darned good bunch, and regardless of where you might stand on certain issues, you're welcome in my Troop anytime.

so - taking the long way around the lake to say I appeciate most of you regulars - thanks.

"That would be like them saying you have the freedom of religion, but only Catholics may apply for a driver's license."

Actually, it seems more like saying that there's freedom of religion, just don't apply for a driver's license in a Catholic church...

It's really the result of a couple of different trends slamming together. First is, the evolving use of zero tolerance policies as a way to avoid numerous legal problems; second would be the increasingly complex civil relation among the individual, the state and the nation.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in the Episcopal arena...

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030718_1425.html

frankly, I think the headline rather overstates things, but it has some potential for watchability.