packsaddle

Yes, KWC57, I agree but my eyes deceived me. At my initial look I thought your first god was listed as 'Bubba'! Lots of those around here. I'm with you littlebillie.

I always thought that scouting was a place where boys from diverse backgrounds, any background, could join to learn teamwork and leadership and to have fun...without debating whose morality is superior. At age 11, few boys have a solid idea of what their beliefs are and those who do are likely to change as they age. I still think that's the way it should be (capturing the flag, not searching for the Holy Grail). Reverent is not the ONLY point in the law.

Only one boy in our troop is actually from the chartering church. This has been the case for at least 8 years. Why do you suppose that is? (Hint, many of the church members forget to turn off their left turn signal) This troop would not survive without that diversity. And which boy would that be good for? I'm conservative too, in the true sense, always striving for personal freedom and paying my debts (like a good Presbyterian), and striving to leave my children with liberties intact without huge debt burdens. Thrifty, yes, that's the one I'm thinking of.

There also now seems to be a preoccupation with Wiccans. If they are not atheistic (they're not) and had not already chosen to form their own youth group, they would have been OK with BSA, right? Philosophically they're not very different from native Americans. But I suppose after the rough treatment they received from Christianity, Native Americans might well have their own youth organization as well.

If not exactly for the same reasons, I agree about the judges. Perhaps I don't fully understand why they should not be permitted in but until then I feel they should be allowed in. I don't buy the contention that morality can only be derived from a religious source. Some like to have morals dictated to them but they should not conclude that that is how it should be for everyone. I suppose that if a moral code is derived, say, from physical laws (it's easy to do, by the way), someone would then just argue that the physical laws amount to a religion. Oh well. Rooster will contradict anything I say.

I agree that BSA is a private organization just like August National or a "white-flight" private school. As a member I still have the right to express my views if I disagree (and I do). And BSA should stop whining and bellyaching about losing public funding, etc. as a result.

As a matter of fact it would be more seemly for us to be more open about our exclusive policies. We should be proud enough to take these to the public in a prominent manner, and the parents in particular. Don't wait for 'Dale' to make the point, stop the whispering and make the policy clear during recruitment. Make it clear at all public forums. It should cause families to flock in! I doubt we'll see such an honest forthcoming, though. Until then, I argue my points and continue to work with the youth, and if necessary, provide a living example of someone who is willing to speak up with an unpopular view.

Thanks Pfann and littlebillie, Interesting stuff. I think I am a little less confused about Girl Scouts now...perhaps...maybe...I think.

Ed, I would have to agree with you. BSA is correct to pursue what it thinks is right. However, persons or groups who disagree ought to be allowed to express themselves. BSA should not punish someone for exercising their constitutional right to such expression.

There is another way to view this, though. Why shouldn't individual communities (i.e., churches) have the freedom to interpret scouting principles their way? Why shouldn't local community standards be allowed? Why must we have a centralized government (BSA) to decide what is right for everyone? Except for their position, what makes them correct and others incorrect in the interpretation? What did the Protestants protest?

OGE, Thanks for understanding the way I feel. Your first example, I think, is not exactly the same. The boys' achievements would still be recognized by BSA even during the transition. And most of the burden of the transition should fall on the leaders. As for disruption, these things happen frequently (our scout hut was destroyed recently) but I would try to live up to the motto.

The second example, although interesting, doesn't really apply to this case. Although the UUA probably would very much like for BSA to change its policy, all UUA did was express their disagreement. Obviously, for BSA to allow units to set their own standards (perhaps left for each chartering organization) would take power away from BSA in setting such standards. Would you not trust a Methodist Church? BSA could provide some oversight to take care of those pesky Unitarians. There is no way to know how such would affect unit enrollment though. The Girl Scouts are also chartered by congress. However, the Girl Scouts do not have the same sort of policies towards homosexuals in their organization. Have they, as a result, had units leave because of it?

Pfann, Thanks for your observation. I looked into my old standby, a huge unabridged monster, and it agreed with my characterization. I then toured my collection of various abridged dictionaries and indeed there is a more general definition in some of them which describes the term as (I paraphrase), "worldwide in range or applicability" and synonymous with 'universal'. For a less rigorous discovery, I searched the term on the internet. All of the top matches were orthodox Christian sites some of them in Cyrillic or Greek. Entering 'ecumenicism' returned similar results. [i found a nice little letter by Lt. Col. Henry T. Cook, USMC (Ret.) on a page called "Ecumenicism in a small town".] Your point is well taken that BSA could have been using the the term in the manner you describe. If so, strictly speaking, my argument would fail. However, it seems that common usage of the term mostly occurs among Christians.

Littlebillie also makes a good point. Regardless of interpretation, both alternatives are still unsavory because both support a contention that BSA is not true to its self-proclaimed (and worthy) philosophy.

I don't hold UUA as innocent in all this either. But it was BSA that decided to take action that affected the boys. You can make all the arguments you want about the events leading up to the end but at that time they acted. They placed boys in a position less important than their pride. That crossed the line for me.

ScoutParent, the resolution states their position and asks for BSA no longer to refer to the UUA as a chartered organization as a result. BSA isn't FORCED to do anything. But it is good that you included the letter by BSA. In that letter BSA states that it is an "ecumenical" organization as opposed to "secular". 'Ecumenical' is a category that has no relevance to Judaeism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and others... as it is specific to Christianity. This a clear admission by BSA itself that it gives preference to and is dominated by one religion.

kwc57, I am fairly sure that UU boys are still accepted by BSA as Scouts, although considering BSA's intent, I don't see why . The UUA (true to their heritage) encourages boys who earn the religious award to go ahead and wear it on their uniforms anyway, perhaps their initiation into civil protest. Right on.

I seem to remember an earlier thread where a troop was 'dumped' because either the leadership or the sponsor openly disagreed with policy. Does anyone remember what that was all about? For that matter, I wonder how many of us would be retained if BSA found out about our disagreement with policy. Maybe, a la Seinfeld, BSA has become the 'faith Nazi'..."no more scouts for you!"

Collateral damage.

Rooster we are simply going to disagree on this. You would defend BSA over anything. If I granted all your points for the sake of argument, it would still leave my primary objection...BSA, in a fervor that you evidently understand fully, chose an act to the detriment of the youth. No hand was forced.

The KKK, in their fervor to be true to their principles, bombed churches - nevermind the unfortunate children that got in the way. Their toadies, somewhere, probably still defend them.

I take some solace, though, in knowing that for at least a couple of pages here, we've diverted you from your preoccupation with, you know, the 'b' word.

Absolutely right, NJ! I now answer the question I have occasionally heard from ScoutParent, "why don't we leave and create our own organization?"

Years ago when I was cubmaster, the last time we allowed a 'professional scouter' to speak, that same night my pack experienced a significant decline in family membership. They didn't even want to discuss it for a couple of years. Once they did my conclusion was, families join scouting for reasons other than fear or hate toward homosexuals and atheists...they further don't much enjoy rants about it either. Word of that speech filtered into the community like the hyphae of a fungal disease. I wonder if we will ever recover, it has become legendary. I sought help from BSA for years to try to help to no avail.

I continue to work with the boys because I have concluded that the spirit of scouting resides primarily with the volunteer side, not the professional side. I consider the volunteer side to be the repository of the true spirit, the professional side is tainted by big organization and big money lust, or worse. On reflection, outside the camps and some truly shoddy clerical tasks, I am not sure what those guys do. We can't trust their records (some of our boys routinely disappear) and often we have to clarify advancement status for THEM. I have never seen an organization that so desperately wanted to be like the military, and failed so miserably at it. Outside funding and numbers, I currently doubt BSA cares about much else. Which leaves those of us who remember...what it was like, and what it could be for the boys today. To me, that is the primary motivation. And that is why, ScoutParent, I stick with it. I don't know what dark thing it is that now holds BSA but I can at least keep it from the boys I know and maybe leave them with some memories similar to mine.

The boys are ALLOWED to wear it on anything they like, including their Sunday go-to-meeting clothes. Any boy (or girl, for that matter) can earn the religious award outside of scouting (they don't have to be a scout). It would exist if there was no BSA. It is a major award. When I earned it, after my Eagle, I was told that it was comparable to Eagle in difficulty and prestige. Considering the uncountable hours and years it took me, I would tend to agree.

The UUA exercises their right to speak because they are true to their beliefs and because, importantly, BSA IS homophobic (they would just like to stay in the closet about it).

scoutldr, You are correct. It is the policy unless I have read the regulations incorrectly. You'll find more info at the usscout.org site. I only wish our district was as organized as yours and had its own list. As it is troops more or less fend for themselves and this leads to great disparities in MB quality.

Rooster,

Read the material that KWC57 identified carefully. I quote from BSA, "Although religious emblems are not Scouting awards, the Boy Scouts of America encourages its members to participate in religious emblem programs..."

1. It is not a scouting award

2. BSA made a demand and the UUA did modify their literature to meet BSA demands.

3. BSA rescinded their action and then reinstated it because UUA was still exercising their 1st amendment right but in a manner not associated with the award.

BSA elsewhere states, "Scouting supports the spiritual view of life that underlies the teaching of all denominations and faiths." (a lie) and, "Scouting encourages boys and leaders, according to their own convictions, to participate in the program of their church, temple, synagogue, mosque, or other religious organization. Scouts are expected to fulfill their religious obligations and respect the beliefs of others." that is, unless those 'others' disagree.

BSA didn't HAVE to do anything, UUA bent over backwards to accomodate them, short of recanting their beliefs. BSA chose to take the action anyway. Bernardo Gui would be proud. I stand by what I said. Hypocritical, un-American, and I should add, un-Scoutlike.

Rooster,

At least no-one can accuse me of holding back. Thomas took a break during that one. I confess a special sensitivity regarding children, all of them. The issue was indeed homosexuality and the church was the Unitarian Universalists. The decision has pretty much stopped participation by their youth as far as I can tell, not that they were a major presence anyway. I suspect that BSA chose them because they are such a small denomination - a nice object lesson for other (more important) denominations that otherwise might join in the arguments (keepa ya mouths shut or ya programs sleep wid da fishes). I was trying not to aim my comments specifically at you, rather at a broader target of persons who are more interested in the organization than the boys.

Rooster,

I tend to defend the underdog and when that happens to be a child, the offender should prepare to pick their ear up off the ground. I have seen children in hopeless situations around the world and those are painful visions. But what BSA does is needless and hateful and the self-righteous indignance of its defenders makes them hypocritical as well.

Here is what happened:

BSA adopted a policy that was controversial. People and organizations spoke out against it, fair enough. Some put their objections in print. One church said that they disagreed. BSA, seeing that they could not silence the church, had several options. One option was for BSA to show how big they were and shrug it off, to ignore it. Instead, BSA chose to get at the church in the only way they could...to terminate recognition of achievements for Boy Scouts belonging to that church. No-one can convince me this was to the benefit of those boys. I further believe that anyone who chooses to ignore the Constitution whenever it suits their purpose IS un-American, courts not withstanding, and if that offends anyone, tough luck!

The second of your responses was callous, Rooster (or should I say Pilate?), and the Serpent slithered across my screen and made the other responses unimportant. What a facile way to walk away from the situation, not to mention the boys! I would never willingly turn my back on a child, no matter who they are. I agree with what Jesus said (Matthew 25:35-46), an excerpt, "...Verily I say unto you. Inasmuch as ye did it not to the least of these, you did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment..." BSA and others can wash their hands all they want, legally, but I am satisfied with the above judgement. They and their defenders should save their responses and instead tell it to the children, and their own prayers.

littlebillie,

I think, ahem, it might have been Gilda Radner.

kwc57, I have no problem with what you say or your beliefs unless you or any other believer becomes judgemental as a result (as I feel BSA has become). Your beliefs (and mine) are not superior to those of anyone else. Otherwise I tend to defend the underdog. I seek proof in neither religion nor science as neither is capable, as you say, of providing it (proof). One of the reasons I like science, though, is that it is neutral in these matters and, in itself, does not cause harm to others. At its best, the same can be said of religion. However, I do delight in the occasional conundrum emerging from scientific investigation. I know there are persons who, not understanding science, use it to support destructive ideas (racial and other prejudices, for example) and I question those as strongly.

Thanks to all for all these great responses. I see a lot of variety, maybe some of you are picking up new ideas as well. My troop has no problems with fund-raising. But there is a wide range of economic status between the families. The uniform is great at leveling the status and we can finesse many of the more modest outings. I want ALL the boys to have access to the big ones as well and that is my motivation. Keep the ideas coming and Thanks.

evmori,

When BSA refuses recognition of significant legitimate achievement by a boy (God and Country), simply because his church publicly disagrees with BSA policy, it goes against the 1st Amendment. And for doing this to a child, I consider them cowardly. Just a personal opinion.

Rooster,

One answer is that they don't proclaim the truth because they lack self-confidence and I sympathize with them. My favorite disciple is Peter (well-meaning but prone to error) but I also have great affection for Thomas (because of his doubt and skepticism).

Almost every church I have ever visited in nearly every faith (20-30 or so) has claimed the truth as theirs. The few that are willing to admit possibilities are viewed in the pejorative by most of the others (kind of the way I usually feel). The rest are confident of the truth. They just don't happen to agree. Some of them are well-meaning but don't offer explanations, they just require agreement. Some are openly prejudiced or anti-intellectual. Some are snobbish and quite mean-spirited towards the others (you know, the old "a Methodist is a Baptist who can read" thing). If I picked one, the choice could only be based on my personal preference, as I have no other basis for judging one faith against the others. I don't mind if they think I am bad for asking questions, but I know children who are occasionally in tears because they are told they are 'going to hell' simply because they are in the 'wrong' church, and this bothers me.

I must confess though, my first visit to one church was a delightful surprise to me (I didn't know they were snake-handlers). But I didn't assume, a priori, that they were nose-picking bozos. I listened to their services (keeping a safe distance) and found them fascinating...though I didn't understand. Thankfully I didn't have to perform any 1st aid. The snakes were cool, though. I keep trying.

Gammon, the only time I ever fail to carry a pocketknife is during air travel (lately), in foreign countries (local police in Mexico tried to extort money out of me because of it once, accusing me of supplying arms to rebels, it was pretty bad) and when I know I am going into a secure area (court, military, government offices). I try to plan ahead rather than lose my favorite Kabar. Regarding the zero-tolerance rules often encountered at schools (zero thought, zero judgement) I sympathize with the students to a great extent. However, remembering what we did with pocketknives when I was in school, I think it best to leave them home and avoid some of those first-hand lessons. My children have them but not at school (high school). They are really not needed for a learning environment.

Everyone, unpaid advertisement!

While we're having all this fun, please try to divert some attention to a topic I just started in the Open Discussion forum. The topic is: funding for low-income boys. I really need your ideas and experience on this. And boys may actually benefit from your help. Carry on.

Help! I need help with ideas on how to discreetly fund low-income boys. I would like to do this without calling attention to them personally, to single them out, or to do anything that may humiliate them. I would like to know best how to assist them in order to allow access to costly programs and outings (SeaBase, travel to other countries, etc.). If anyone out there has experience with this I am ready to learn from it.

Rooster,

No, not surprised. I was just trying to learn a few things. I am still curious, though...If a Hindu quotes from the OT, do you consider this invalid? I just happen to have come from a background based on the Christian bible (King James version, I was taught that all others were less valid because they had special agendas). But if I had used instead, say, Buddhist religious texts, would I automatically be examined as a Buddhist or ignored because I am not a Buddhist? Why not examine the idea rather than the person? And incidentally, I have no aversion to the OT or the rest of the Christian bible, only to the hypocritical way some persons selectively employ these and selected other passages to justify their prejudices. Sorry for the digression.

I have no problems with questions but I can't answer them all. Rather, I am fascinated by those who feel they possess the truth. And I am ready to receive truth from them if they can explain it in terms I understand. Like I said, I keep trying.

evmori, Yes of course, the Oath and Law. I, for one, would also like to pay some attention to our Constitution.

ITD, interesting article. My read is that those organizations still exist, they just aren't recognized by the universities. BSA does the same thing, it must be OK.

Hello Littlebillie, Perhaps the choice of terms is just a matter of preference. I agree with you on children with adoptive gay parents. A loving and supportive family is always good.

A note to all, though, animal behavior is terribly difficult to study and our understanding of it is more questionable than our understanding in 'harder' sciences. Reaching behavioral conclusions about humans is the most difficult of all. I suppose it's fun to speculate and argue but, for now at least, the nature vs nurture questions being argued here have not been answered definitively. Might as well move on. The question of rights is a much clearer topic, perhaps more relevant. I think the judges should be allowed in. This is just an opinion without any legal sophistication.

ScoutParent, when a person asks for studies to provide proof of one thing or another it indicates a profound misunderstanding of science. However, (and trying to interpret your confusing statements) I think you should be careful comparing traits determined by a single gene versus those determined by multiple genes. I am not sure what your point was, though.

Rooster, I understand and respect that some feel the need to openly proclaim their faith. I believe, however, that this is not required of everyone. I repeat...I believe that a person's faith is deeply personal. I think it is good to discuss ideas but I consider personal faith to be 'off the table' for everyone. If a person believes during the discussion of an idea, that their faith is being questioned, that is unfortunate. I try not to ask for confessions of faith from others (sometimes I get it anyway) and I don't make such on my behalf whether requested by individuals or the BSA. It is simply none of their business. I hope you understand.

evmori, On the Caesar thing, I had to look at that carefully too. I think littlebillie is trying to point out that if our states specify rights for gays and lesbians, then religions (outside their own organizations) can't restrict those rights. Is this a fair rendition littlebillie? If so, then by a simple extension, the BSA policy indicates that the organization is largely under control of their dominant religious faction, the LDS church. Would this be a shock to anyone's intuition?

Rooster, you obviously have a much stronger understanding of all this than I do. As a scientist I am bound to try for simplicity first and this is getting very complex. But I'll keep trying. And yes, I forgot about crabs. I like them too, shrimp as well, but (at the risk of offending NewEnglanders) I can take or leave lobsters. Something that requires melted butter for flavor is just not worth that price...just give me a platter of crayfish and I'll...oops, almost made a poor choice of words.

Hello Rooster, Thanks for the explanation. Even many homosexuals agree with me that homosexuality is evolutionarily maladapted. But I try not to judge things I don't understand (homosexuality in this case), especially if I am not affected by them. I view God with love, not fear of His hate or jealousy. Just a difference in point-of-view. But unless my eyes deceive me, my KJV Bible says:

Leviticus 18:22

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

and later in 20:13,

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

And getting back to diet,

Leviticus 11:10, "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11, They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

12, Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."

My read of the OT shows promiscuous use of the word 'abomination', probably more than 100 times here and there but mainly in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. You may be right that all abominations are not equal but it seems that nearly all the ones you think are most important are punishable by death. Maybe we have different versions (mine has different NT text from yours as well). Your Romans passages also mention that transgressors 'deserve death'. Is this what you would advocate for homosexuals? The likes of Falwell and Robertson employ this and related texts extensively for their positions but they are the same guys that said we 'deserved' the 9/11 attacks (see the 'deserve death' similarity?). Do you agree with that as well? I consider their views as the perversion and as an abomination.

As for being set free from certain of the laws, I will take your word for that as I don't remember where it occurs and I am probably already at risk of a good stoning. Maryland oystermen can breathe easy for now.