NJCubScouter

Rooster says: This amendment seeks to honor and protect the one symbol which we all should be willing to rally behind, the U.S. flag. I think what it really seeks is to gain political advantage for its supporters by allowing them to demagogue the issue of patriotism. But assuming that it does "seek to honor and protect... the U.S. flag" as you state, I think it would accomplish the opposite. I think it would devalue and cheapen the flag a bit by diminishing the freedoms of speech and dissent, which are among the values for which the flag is a symbol. This is true regardless of whether the "slippery slope" concerns are valid or not. I think one exception to the First Amendment is one too many.

I think it would be good to see some actual statistics before reaching any conclusions on the reasons for a discrepancy that may or may not really exist. However, I doubt you are going to see such statistics because, even if the BSA breaks down its accident/fatality/lost-Scout statistics by CO, I doubt they would release such figures, especially if they showed that a particular religion's unit's numbers are higher than everybody else's. So I guess we are just left to speculate and conjecture with few if any facts at hand and no way to tell whether what we are saying has any basis in reality. (One might say this is a specialty of this forum.)

Semper, I hesitate to participate in turning this thread into a debate over the beliefs of Thomas Paine, but if you are going to quote that part of his essay/speech, it might also be relevant that the same piece contains the following: "The Universe is the bible of a true Theophilanthropist. It is there that he reads of God. It is there that the proofs of his existence are to be sought and to be found. As to written or printed books, by whatever name they are called, they are the works of man's hands, and carry no evidence in themselves that God is the author of any of them. It must be in something that man could not make that we must seek evidence for our belief, and that something is the universe, the true Bible, -- the inimitable work of God." As indicated by this passage, Paine did not believe in any version of the Bible, which would suggest (to get back to the actual subject of the thread) that he did not believe that the Ten Commandments were the Word of God either. The entire piece, with some commentary, can be found at: http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/exist1.htm And to directly answer your question, if a public school had a course or unit in comparative religion or comparative philosophy, I don't think there would be anything unconstitutional in including ALL of Paine's "Discourse..." I emphasize all, because of the impact of "selective editing" (which we have just seen.) Paine was a Deist. His references to God as an "Author" are not accidental. He believed in a creator-God as opposed to a controller-God, a "personal" God, a God that writes Bibles or a God that judges humankind. Including his work in a public school course that also included other beliefs would show students that a person can believe in God without believing in organized religion and many of the things that go along with it, including the Bible. It would be a useful thing for students to know, because I don't think most of them learn it at home or in their place of worship.

The Ten Commandments can remain on public properties. In some cases, depending on what other symbols are on display. See: http://tinyurl.com/axyer The headline and subheadline of that article are: "Split rulings on Ten Commandments displays "Supreme Court: Courthouse exhibits crossed line, but outdoor tablet OK" I have not been able to find a copy of the actual decision online yet, but based on the article, it appears the Supreme Court (or more precisely, the swing voter, Justice O'Connor) has in effect established a "test" whereby displays of the Ten Commandments will be looked at on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the nature and setting of the particular display goes so far as to "endorse religion." If it does, the display is unconstitutional. In other words, they can be displayed if their religious significance is covered up under a bunch of other displays that are of a historical, non-religious origin. Or, as Rooster states (correctly, in the case of the Texas display that was ruled constitutional): These monuments and plaques simply provide a record of this countrys legislative history. However, I have to wonder whether someone who is a deeply devout believer in the divine origins of the Ten Commandments would see that as a victory. My observation of this issue over the years has been that most people who want the Ten Commandments placed in public buildings want them there precisely because of their religious significance. But now the Supreme Court is saying that, if the context indicates that they are there because of their religious significance, it is unconstitutional. This may be an instance of "be careful what you wish for, you might get it."

The Guide to Safe Scouting says in bold type: Allegations by a Scout concerning abuse in the program must be reported to the Scout executive. If a Scout says that another Scout "fondled" him while they were sharing a tent, that is an "allegation concerning abuse in the program." I don't see any room for interpretation here. This should have been reported immediately to your Scout Executive. There is more about this in the Guide to Safe Scouting but you can read it online at the BSA web site. Probably the most important point (other than the one quoted above) is that there should have been no discussion about this allegation within the troop. It should have been kept confidential other than reporting it to the SE.

For anyone who doesn't understand why flag burning is a free speech issue, here is some recommended reading: Texas v. Street, the Supreme Court case that started it all: http://tinyurl.com/5lnfd And here is an article about the issue: http://tinyurl.com/cftyr

Well Merlyn, Barbara Bush did get arrested once, but I don't think it had anything to do with the flag, unless there was a flag pattern on her swizzle stick. Oh, you mean Barbara Bush the mother, not Barbara Bush the daughter. My mistake. Honestly though Merlyn, I am concerned that points like "who is desecrating the flag" may distract from the real issue here. I don't think the real issue is how one defines desecration or consistency or fairness or vagueness or chilling effect or any of those First Amendment-y issues. I think the issue is that the person who IS trying to send a message that he hates America, and America should burn and be overthrown and whatever, and is burning the flag as a symbol of this message, should continue to be constitutionally protected in doing so.

Eamonn, with that clarification, here is what I think: I think you are mixing up "partisan poltics" with "ideological politics." Partisan politics is Dem. v. Rep. or where you come from Conservative (with a capital C) vs. Labour vs. Liberal (capital L) or Social Democrat or whatever that middle group is calling itself these days. Ideological politics overlaps partisan politics but not completely. There are conservative (small c) Democrats (have you met Ed Mori? Or Senator Lieberman) and liberal Republicans, in fact as recently as the mid-70s liberals were a major force within the Republican party. Then the conservatives became dominant and almost all the leading liberals either died out, lost re-election (Jacob Javitz of NY, Clifford Case of NJ, Lowell Weicker of CT who lost to Lieberman), left the party or have taken to calling themselves "moderates" (e.g. Senator Specter from Pennsylvania.) There is, however, a group called Log Cabin Republicans -- a group of gay Republicans who lobby the party to be more favorable to the issues of gay rights. It may be 10 people at this point, but they are there. I cannot speak for Prairie (though we seem to agree on most things), but I don't think he was talking about any of that. He was talking about what has sometimes been called the "Religious Right," a term I use solely as a shorthand and not to start and argument. It is a stereotype to some degree, but as stereotypes go it is a fairly accurate one. While I am sure more of that group are Republicans than Democrats, I think some find the Republican not to be conservative enough either. In any event THAT is the kind of "politics" Prairie was talking about. I think it is generally recognized that one of the religious/political tenets of the "Religious Right" is opposition to gay rights and a belief that it is ok to exclude gays from, for example, the BSA. Not that everybody who favors the BSA policy is a member of the "Religious Right" but I would say the percentage is pretty high. And incidentally, the three statements by Prairie that you quoted and said you disagreed with... I agree with all three of them. But I don't suppose that should come as too much of a shock to those who have been reading my posts.

Hops, with all respect, your bald eagle analogy really is not relevant. I would not burn a bald eagle, but the fact that it is a national symbol is pretty far down the reasons why I would not do so. Absent the symbolism, a flag is simply a piece of cloth. Assuming it is your piece of cloth and you aren't going to set anything on fire, you can ignite a piece of cloth and nobody is going to care. It is only the recognition of a particular pattern of shapes and colors as the "American flag" that gives it any meaning, and which in turn makes protecting it (AND burning it) meaningful. None of this is true of a bald eagle, even if it were just a bird and not a national symbol. You wouldn't burn a robin or a sparrow either. And your comment to JohnDaigler, "Don't burn Old Glory," misses the point as well. He wouldn't burn it, and I wouldn't, and I suspect almost everybody else in this forum wouldn't either. That's not the issue. The issue is whether some other person may do so without getting thrown in jail for it. Under the First Amendment as it currently exists, they may, and that is how it should be.

I agree with JohnDaigler. I would not burn a U.S. flag in protest no matter how much I opposed one or more policies of the government. However, I think this amendment is a terrible idea. I do not think we should be making any more exceptions to the First Amendment than already exist. The First Amendment and the Bill of Rights exist not to protect actions that are popular with a majority -- those actions would not need constitutional protection -- but to protect those actions that are not popular. Flag burning is a means of expression, and it pretty much the least popular and in my view one of the least appropriate means of expression, but that is exactly why it needs to be protected. If we start passing exceptions to the First Amendment, I don't think there is any way the exceptions would stop with flag-burning.

Tj, I was thinking the same thing. (Rooster, in case you are wondering, it is you that Tj and I are referring to. Congratulations, you just made a great argument for "local option.") In response to earlier posts: Cajuncody, what you are talking about there is what is generally called "Office Politics." It exists in volunteer organizations just as in "offices" unfortunately. I suspect most of us have experienced some degree of this kind of "politics" within our unit, district, council, etc. Fortunately for me those experiences have been relatively "mild" in my son's pack and then troop. To the extent there are rivalries within the troop leadership, I have managed to stay on good terms with everybody. However, in my brief brushes with the district level of Scouting I have become convinced that as dedicated as the volunteers generally are at that level, there is way too much office politics. Regardless of the level, I don't think it's ever going to go away, there will always be people who think they are being made to do too much, or aren't being allowed to do enough, and in some cases they will be right, there will often be factions, cliques, etc. It is just a fact of human interaction and hopefully enough people stay focused on the boys so that the program does not suffer from it. However, I think this thread is about "partisan politics" or "ideological politics" rather than "office politics." Gern, I had also read about the LDS "threat" to leave the BSA in a number of different sources. I believe the statement was made in specific reference to the "Dale case" where is was possible that the courts might require the BSA to admit openly gay leaders. Of course, that did not happen (by one vote.) What I would like to know is whether the LDS has ever made a definitive statement about what they would do if "local option" were permitted. My guess is they would grumble about it, but stay put. As long as they don't have to allow gays, why would they care? I also think that, just as the BSA does depend to a degree on LDS because of their large numbers, it wouldn't be very easy for the LDS to simply leave the BSA due to the interwoven nature of the relationship, and the fact that so many LDS members and leaders (all, in theory, unless they grew up before the BSA was the LDS's official youth program) were members of the BSA. I doubt that "local option" would drive them (or many other people) out of the BSA.

Uncleguineau asks Juris: Did you mean to say "My *fellow* Scouters?" What you said was, "My Scouters." Well, if he meant it literally, that would be a whole new variation on the "My troop" vs. "The unit which I am honored and privileged to serve" controversy. Or maybe Juris is actually God?

ScoutNut, thanks for that information. I was somewhat familiar with LFL but was not aware of the names of the different programs. I looked at this web site: http://www.learning-for-life.org/lfl/programs/elem.html and now I see that Seeker is just one of the group-names I did not know. But one of the things I am not clear on with LFL is, are the children themselves "Seekers" or is that just the name of the program? In other words, do they "join," are they "members" of Seekers or LFL? Or are they participating simply because their school (or teacher, or school district, or whoever) has chosen to have the program in the child's classroom? If the latter is the case (which is what I thought), then the fact that the program is "co-ed" would not seem to be a harbinger of any change in policy for the "traditional" BSA programs since it is not a matter of admitting or accepting members, but simply one of delivering a curriculum (with an associated "recognition" program which the web site tells me is where the names Seeker Discoverer etc. come in) to the students who happen to be in a particular class -- which in almost all (but not all) public schools will be a "co-ed" class. Am I correct? By the way, don't let Bob see you referring to "BSA's classroom based Learning For Life program." He likes to think BSA and LFL are separate.

In Bob-world, it is always the volunteer leaders who are at fault.

Eamonn, I see you spun this off of the British Scouting thread, but is there a particular post or a statement in a particular post that this new thread is a reaction to? I am not sure whether you are disagreeing with something that someone said, or not. I also am not sure whether you are just talking about partisan politics, or ideology in general. I'd agree that on the local level, Scouting has generally remained non-political. But I also think that BSA National has a particular ideological bent, which mostly does not affect national policies but is reflected in the "gay issue" in which a particular religious/ideological viewpoint that is prevalent in parts of the country is imposed on the rest.

What Prairie Scouter said.

Torveaux says: The Seeker program (for Kindergarten) is co-ed, so maybe there is a change brewing... I have never heard of the Seeker program, which organization is that a part of? Please don't tell me the BSA is starting a kindergarten program. Well, if it's true, tell me, but I won't like it. (Though it wouldn't be my problem anymore, these days I only have to help deal with 11-year-olds who sometimes act like 5-year-olds... not to mention 16-year-olds who sometimes act like 5-year-olds... but at least not actual 5-year-olds.)

Rooster says: Stop telling folks (the BSA hierarchy) who dont think like you, how to run their lives (or rather, the private organization that they oversee). As I have said many times before in answering the same kind of comment, the BSA may be a "private organization" (it doesn't always act like one) but if so, it is a private organization of which I happen to be a registered, dues-paying member. Of course I realize that that status does not give me any decision-making power within the organization. One of the things it does do is to cause me to think of the BSA not as a "they," as you apparently do, but as a "we." I think that gives me the right to request that the national leadership live by the BSA's own principles, which they are not doing on the gay issue. Instead, they are "taking sides" on a religious issue, and that is a violation of the Declaration of Religious Principles. What you really resent is this My opinion is the prevailing opinion in the BSA (or at least, its more representative then yours), and contradicts your personal desires for the organization. Let's say your opinion is the "prevailing opinion" in the BSA. So what? I suspect that it is also the prevailing opinion (or for those of you who might be offended by that, the prevailing belief) within the BSA that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. That is not a belief that I share. But the BSA does not force that opinion on me, or consider me any less of a contributing member because I do not share it; to the contrary, the BSA has explicitly stated that it is nonsectarian in matters of religion. In other words, the BSA will not impose the prevailing view on everybody else. Perhaps a less "charged" example is partisan politics. I suspect that a majority of adult BSA members, nationwide, voted for our current president (of the USA) and probably believe he is doing a good job. That may not be the prevailing view in certain states, but because of the nationwide demographics of the BSA, it is fairly safe to say that this is the "prevailing view" in the organization nationwide. Again, however, the BSA does not impose this "prevailing view" on its members; to the contrary, there are explicit prohibitions against the use of Scouting for partisan political ends. So, saying that the exclusion of gays is the "prevailing view" is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the non-sectarian nature of the BSA prevents its current national leadership from imposing that "prevailing" religious viewpoint on the membership as a whole. And when the current, temporary national leadership violates that principle, I don't think there is anything wrong with "we" members of the BSA speaking up about it in the manner of our choosing.

So there I was, reading what I thought was a new thread until I got to the mostly-pleasant exchange between BobWhite and Ed, which caused me to glance at the dates on the posts. Is this a new "moderator thing," bumping three-year-old threads up to the top? (I realize Acco's post was a lot more recent but it is still an old thread.) I'm not criticizing, it seems like a good idea for threads that are deemed to be of continuing value. I do find some aspects of the statements in this thread to be somewhat ironic, but other than what I have already said, it's probably better if I keep the explanation of that to myself.

Rooster says: Lastly, I dont see all differences as being something to celebrate. For example, when a man takes another man into his bed (to put it in the most benign and inoffensive wording), I see no reason to rejoice and/or to seek their inclusion. Perversity does not equate to diversity. Rooster, you are entitled to your opinions about who is to be included or excluded and what "perversity" is, and you are entitled to your own personal likes and dislikes regarding other peoples' behavior. The problem occurs when the BSA takes your opinions, personal likes and dislikes, etc. -- which may be shared by a majority but are not shared by a significant minority -- and makes them the policy of the entire organization with no room for local choice. What should be your own business -- who and what you like and dislike -- now intrudes into my life because now I am, at least in theory, complicit in the exclusion of people I don't think should be excluded. I just wish you and people who think like you would just run your own lives and stop running mine.

Wow, glad to hear nobody was hurt. If it will help fulfill a "three" you can use the car accident that I had in March, though I suppose that is stretching things a bit. My car was totaled, I was ok, and the other driver's insurance co. took full responsibility. (Without going into all the details, the police report contained a line I will remember for the rest of my life because it is completely ludicrous, regardless of whether it is true. And why would a driver make this up? The other driver told the police, "I was reaching for a tissue and accidentally shifted the vehicle into reverse." This was at about 60 mph on a rain-slicked interstate highway.)

OGE, I think your posts have a few factual problems: 1. He didn't say Republicans are "all" white Christian men. 2. Either in the same statement or one shortly thereafter, Dean pointed out that he himself is a white Christian male. 3. You say: Why did Trent Lott's comment generate so much juice and Howard Dean's isnt a blip? Not a blip? I have been hearing about it for days. I have heard it on right-wing talk radio, I have heard it on left-leaning "The Daily Show" (Comedy Central), I have now heard about it in this forum. That's a lot more than a blip. I have heard a lot of outrage. Of course, his statement was silly. But most of the "outrage" lacks credibility, to me. It is just politics. What Lott said about Strom Thurmond is in a whole other league. It was outrageous in light of the history of segregation and discrimination and all the other bad things that Strom Thurmond promoted. I don't think Howard Dean's comments hurt anybody. Let's face it, white Christians make up a majority not only of the Republican Party, but the Democratic Party as well. Nevertheless, I do think Dean will be gone soon, because he can't seem to restrain his careless comments.

Cubs says (to me): 2) I posit that your hypothetical scout is incapable of making this decision, due to his physically immature brain. For him to insist that there is no God is merely a reflection of his parents' position. So then I assume in the situation of the atheist parents and the atheist Scout, you disagree with the BSA policy of removing the Scout. How could it be fair to do so when his opinion is "merely a reflection of his parents' position" and he had no role whatsoever in forming that opinion. (Just so it's clear, I believe this hypothetical Scout did have a role in forming his opinion, and in the past I have said I do not oppose the BSA policy on atheists, though I am become less and less convinced as time goes on that the best interests of the organization are well-served by removing them or denying them advancement.) 3) Scouting rewards scouts to reinforce behaviors that their parents want reinforced - heroism, duty towards God & country, honesty, etc. Yes, the beliefs and behaviors were taught to them by their parents, what's wrong with that? Nothing's necessarily wrong with it... unless one draws the conclusions from that article that you seem to draw, which is that the young person who is "caught" early enough by their parents has no role in what they themselves believe. I think what we are honoring and rewarding in children who behave "correctly" is that they have learned how to make decisions and have made the correct decisions -- not that they are functioning well as mindless robots.

Good point SA. The FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice are quite "welcoming" when it comes to potential defendants.

I have only skimmed the article so far, but here are a few observations: 1. I don't think our brains are ever ready to "decide on the existence of God" whether at age 14 or 40 or 80. It is not something we decide. And, although I know a lot of people disagree with this, it is not something we can really know. It is just something we believe. 2. If a 14 year old's brain is not ready to form an opinion on the existence of God, how can we penalize him for forming the "wrong" opinion? In particular, if a boy's parents are atheists, and instilled this belief in their son, then it really seems unfair to penalize him for being an atheist, since according to you he himself had nothing whatsoever to do with the decision. 3. At the same time, why do we "reward" youths who merely repeat the teachings of their parents when it comes to religion? (Which is what you appear to be suggesting parents should strive for.) By reward, I simply mean we praise their reverence and their devotion to their duty to God. But is it really theirs, or is it their parents'? 4. What I say in #2 and #3 do not necessarily reflect my opinions on BSA policy. What they really reflect is my belief that CubsRGr8 is drawing conclusions from the article that the reasearch in question doesn't necessarily support and that the scientist quoted in the article might disagree with.