tjhammer

Clearly it is a "don't tell" policy... as I mentioned in the other thread, the BSA seems to be happy if a person indicates a belief in something... anything... that the same person considers to be "supreme"... it doesn't matter if it's God, a group of gods, a sycamore tree, a big rock or a '67 Chevy Chevette, it seems. And then they want the person to just shut up about their beliefs, in case they aren't "conventional"... so we definitely have the "don't tell" aspect.

It seems in this case in particular, the Council Scout Executive sought out the person to specifically "ask" him about his beliefs. So I don't think we have a "don't ask" policy. (Sure, the CSE probably did it after he got report from the district Scout leader with who Mr. Lambert had the disagreement.)

Take it a step further, and refer to the Supreme Court case transcripts over the gay issue, and you'll find the BSA actually argues that ANY person who ADVOCATES that homosexuality (in that case) is not inherently immoral and does so in front of any boys (either Scouts or of the age to be Scouts), they too fall under a rather broad definition of "avowed". See, in the BSA's view, you don't actually have to be a homosexual to be unworthy of membership. You just have to believe that homosexuals should be capable of being members. I wonder if that same broad definition extends to the atheist issue? Probably (it's pretty much up the BSA to enforce their rules however they want, we mostly all agree, regardless of whether we agree that those rules should exist in the first place).

So it's really a bastardization of the word "avowed" that's implied by BSA policy. It seems to mean someone who acknowledges, particularly within earshot of any boy, a contrary opinion to BSA.

It also seems that BSA would be quite content to allow Mr. Lambert to stay in Scouting and continue to say the Scout Oath, etc, AND continue to be an atheist. Just as long as he doesn't tell anyone that he's an atheist. And it's just fine with BSA if members who are gay stay in the organization, just as long as they are never honest with anyone about their sexuality.

BSA's position seems awfully disingenuous to me, and the addition of the word "avowed" to their exclusionary criteria only seems to make the policies even more disingenuous than if the word was left off.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

littlebille --- Before I submitted this post I noticed yours... I almost didn't post mine... you did an excellent job of articulating my opinion, and I really should just say "Ditto".

But, since it's already written ...

I do not agree with Merlyn's religious perspective (though sometimes I think I have about as much in common with his perspective as I do some of the diametrically opposing views expressed on this board).

When he first started posting here, I thought he was doing so for no reason other than to agitate. However, over the months, I have come to recognize his arguments to be consistent, and really quite basic. I have also recognized that he seems to be "more Scoutlike" in his debate than many others who argue against him (I rarely recall him twisting words, calling names, attempting to chase opponents off, or ignoring a person or part of the debate just because he wants to... while I'm sure he's not without sin on some of these -- interesting choice of words -- I find he is much less guilty of this than many others on the board).

What does he hope to accomplish? Well, I suppose he wishes to inform and be informed. I doubt he believes convincing BobWhite to accept atheists in Scouting will immediately institute such a national policy (that's right, isn't it BobWhite?)... but I imagine he thinks arguing his point here, where thousands of Scout leaders contribute and read, might have some marginal effect in informing, and maybe even influencing, how those Scout leaders view his issue.

I have been one of the strongest proponents that the BSA is flat wrong in it's policy to ban gay Scouts and Scout leaders. I've used this forum to articulate my perspective, refine my arguments against some articulate responses, learn about the varying perspectives on this issue, and maybe even influence a few people to think differently about this issue (or at the very least, to think about it at all).

I have also said along the way that I believe in God, and believe that a Scout's Duty to God is an important part of raising a healthy, quality person and citizen. I also believe questioning one's faith and growing into one's faith is a fundamentally honest and logical exercise.

In the beginning, I admitted to this forum that while I thought the determination of the worth of a member and quality of their character should be left up to those people closest to them (parents, unit committee, chartering partner), I also (somewhat hypocritically) believed that the issue of atheists being banned from Scouting should remain a national policy.

Over the past several months I have watched Merlyn debate. And I must admit that I have been influenced, in a small way, by his perspective. This does not mean that I share his religious beliefs. Honestly, the attitude of some of Merlyn's staunchest opponents on this board has done more to push me away from their point of view than any "pulling" that Merlyn has done.

I have no disagreement with him in one area... public institutions should not be sponsoring BSA units. And they clearly do today... less than a few years ago, and I doubt that they will for much longer. However, I also agree with BobWhite, forcing public institutions out of the CO business will have little to no effect on the BSA membership... parents groups can (and should) easily unite to sponsor a unit when a military base or public school backs out. I also believe that Scouts (as others) should continue to have access to public facilities and accommodations, which is an entirely different issue.

As for whether an atheist can be a Scout or Scout leader... I admit, my thinking on this has evolved over the past several months. I'm no longer prepared to make the blanket statement "atheists are impossible of having the character to be Scouts or Scout leaders". I think I prefer to make that determination on a person by person basis, as I meet them.

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

So, in light of the evidence, I pose the question again:

When did Scouting become a "faith-based organization"?

From the original article on page one of this thread...But, said Mark Hunter, a spokesman for Chief Seattle Council, "We recognize as a faith-based organization that to be the best kind of citizen we need to recognize a higher being."

Nothing is preventing these folks from starting their own organization, but this means work on their part to do it.Except, of course, a congressionally issued charter, federal and judicial protection and exclusive right to operate any program based on or closely resembling B-P's game of Scouting within the United States. You see, many people have tried to start other Scouting programs in the United States, dating as far back as 1910 when the BSA was being founded. That's why the BSA got the Congressional Charter in the first place... to eliminate any competitive organizations and get exclusive rights to be the "boy scouts" in this country. Add that to the fact that the vast majority of members of this board advocating any "change" in current BSA policy (on any issue) are long time Scouts and Scout leaders who have invested much of their lives into THIS organization, and perhaps you can see why it's not just as simple as "go start your own organization"?

At want point did BSA choose to define itself as a "faith-based organization", which now seems to be the primary way some are choosing to define us? It certainly was not defined as such in the Congressional Charter. Nor was it defined as such by B-P or any of the founders. In fact, I'm not sure I can find any use of such a definition in any of the Scouting handbooks in my library (which includes every edition, or course ;-)). Of course, a Scout's Duty to God has always been a principle, and I personally support the concept that a faith in God is an important aspect of a good person. But contrary to popular opinion that the BSA is under assault from the left and being drug in that direction, I tend to believe that the a small but powerful faction of the Christian majority is dragging our organization in their direction, to a place we have never been... being defined primarily as a "faith-based organization".(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

The issue of how many public schools (not parent groups) and other government institutions sponsor traditional Scouting units has already been documented in different debates on SCOUTER.com.

What a shame that hot heads and closed minds seem to be prevailing both on this thread and most likely in the situation surrounding this young man. And that's an indictment of both sides of the opinion... I suspect the Council Scout Executive is over reacting to Darrell Lambert who is over reacting, and everyone around them are jumping to one side or the other, preparing to do battle.

Doesn't the whole thing just seem artificial and contrived? Doesn't it seem a bit absurd (and "flimsy") that the CSE is essentially waiting for this kids just to say something, anything, closely resembling an acknowledgement in God? Is "Mother Nature" (which apparently qualifies) all that different than "Uncle Science"? Isn't it troubling that the BSA is basically saying "You must believe in God. We'll let you define what God is, though. So basically, if you want to believe God is a '67 Chevy Chevette, as long as you profess a belief in the Chevette, you qualify." The whole thing seems so watered down as to not really be an issue worth the BSA's fighting for any longer (I'm sure that will elicit some opinion). It seems to me, instead of blanket policies made of straw, the BSA would be taken more seriously if it simply decided to judge the worth of its members by the quality of their character, and allow those closest to the local level make those decisions. Shouldn't it be up to the parents and Chartering Org to determine the quality of character of their members and leaders?

I don't want to question Mr. Lambert's commitment to his belief, or whether he has truly considered all the aspects of it. But I would wonder what the results of a calm, personal conversation with him would be if presented in this way:

Belief in God, or a Supreme Being, as defined so loosely by the BSA, is really more of a statement of the importance for Scouts to recognize that there is a higher power than self, that they should look external to themselves. I think religion is really nothing more than this theory, buried in various flavors of dogma and detail.

He sounds like he is a good kid, and he certainly sounds like he would acknowledge the importance of selflessness and that there is a greater power than lies solely within him (nature? humanity?). His respect for the things of nature, not unlike most Scouts, is probably one of awe. His respect for mankind probably far exceeds just the accountability of man's laws and rules. And while he doesn't want to put a name on this (God), he probably wouldn't have any trouble acknowledging the underlying beliefs are there, nonetheless.

ScoutParent says: Does it mean that I would harm another with different view points? No. Does it mean that I would interfere with how a family raises it's children? No.As NjCubScouter has observed... let's try to relate this back to Scouting. ScoutParent, your zeal is respectable, but you hardly mask your contempt for anyone that fails to share your point of view. Because you believe that all homosexuals are immoral, and because you believe that people who accept evolution to be both true and consistent with God have simply "lost their way"... are we really to expect that you would not interfere with how a family raises it's children? Scouting, and Scout leaders, are often tools used by families in the rearing of their kids.

In your role as a Scout leader, can we really expect someone with your demonstrable zeal to refrain from "saving" the children in your care who are "lost" because they believe in evolution? How about if a 16 year old Scout in your troop reveals that he is gay? Would you feel compelled to "interfere with how that family is raising it's children"?

Better still... as a role model/Scout leader, could you even refrain from making your rather strong opinions on these subjects known to the kids?(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

DeMann -- no one has made the claim that the majority of the UMC opposes the BSA. I said that divisions of that church, the second largest sponsor of BSA units, strongly disagree on the matter. I believe you can find this outlined on their own web site, or at least you once could. This is an excerpt from a post I made a long time ago regarding this issue...I realize the division is not felt equally throughout Scouting - it is felt more in some areas than others. It is obvious to anyone, I believe, that there is no uniform view among religions on the morality of homosexuality.

Amicus briefs filed before the Supreme Court by Scouting's chartering religious denominations are revealing.

The National Catholic Committee on Scouting, the General Commission on United Methodist Men of the United Methodist Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and Agudath Israel of America, were among those who submitted or joined a brief in favor of the BSA policy.

Amicus briefs in opposition to the BSA policy were submitted or joined by the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, The Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and the Unitarian Universalist Association. One brief noted that even some individual churches within the Southern Baptist Convention have ordained gay clergy.

So really a larger issue that we now face is an inconsistency between this policy and our policy to teach a boy Duty to God. If a boy's religion happens to be one that does not believe homosexuality to be immoral, then we are REQUIRING him to choose between allegiance to the BSA policy and his Duty to God.

Nearly everyone who takes a strong position bases it upon their understanding of morality as defined by their religious convictions. All Scouters have religious convictions because all of us agree that the Duty to God is a pillar of what Scouting is about.

But in defining what we mean by "Duty to God," we have - after long and hard thought - said it is not narrow, it is not Baptist, Presbyterian, Mormon, Episcopalian, Catholic, or even Judeo-Christian. It encompasses many views of God, including the full range of Judeo-Christian beliefs, Eastern religions, and Islam, to name a few.

your hypothetical "gay" scoutRegrettably, this is hardly hypothetical. I've already related the story of one very close to me personally who, after making Scouting the most important thing in his young life, wrestled with the fact that he was being labeled an aberration, unworthy of membership. This in part contributed to a very dangerous and foolish breakdown and crisis in his life. And many others, not known personally to me, have already made headlines... take, for example, the 16-year-old camp staff member who was dismissed from staff because his Camp Director asked him if he was gay (not correctly enforcing the BSA's "don't ask, don't tell" type policy... the boy was later reinstated after the council realized the jeopardy they were in. This is hardly a hypothetical situation... and perhaps worse than the stories that make the headlines, are the boys we drive away in silent agony.would not be allowed to join his UMC troop? On what basis?He'd be able to join. But if he also happened to be a member of a Gay Student Alliance in the school, the BSA policy, argued before the Supreme Court, would be that this boy was advocating homosexuality and would be unsuitable for membership... and if the local Council Executive saw fit, he could send this person a letter revoking their membership... doubtful that this will happen with a boy, just because it's too politically charged, but the silent exclusion is just as effective with boys as the formal letter of exclusion is with adults. Can you please provide all of us with the scientific citation to support the implicit claim you make that boys "know" that they are "gay" before they are done going through puberty? After all, only boys age 11-17 can join a troop.Are you suggesting that boys of that age don't realize their sexuality, gay or straight? Wow, do a little reading... you won't have to search far for the answer to this question.Isn't the main argument (oops, I mean discussion) in this about the BSA policy regarding registered adult leadership? not a non-existent policy about the sexuality of youth members?Yes, that's the main argument. (However, if you read the transcripts of the Supreme Court arguments the BSA put forward... which may be the closest thing to a full articulation of the BSA position... you'll find that the policy is not narrow and does not apply just to adults. In fact, the policy extends to heterosexual boys and adults who publicly disagree with the BSA and advocate that there is not immorality in homosexuality... in other words, BSA could expel me right now just for having this discussion... that's the "policy".)This statement seems, at least to me, to show that a study was done, and that either actual numbers of respondents or percentages thereof are available to support the statement that a 'large portion' of the membership of the United Methodist Church publicly disagree with the stance of the BSA. Where can I obtain a copy of this finding?You can find that the UMC had different factions filing opposing briefs before the Supreme Court and that this church, which is the second largest sponsor of Scouting units, has internal division of the BSA's stance.

By the way, I just discovered this site, which seems to be a well organized gathering of commentary, news releases and legal briefs on the BSA's position...

http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/

I have not spent more than a few minutes on the site yet, but it seems well thought out.

If a town has only one troop and that troop is sponsored by a Methodist church and they want to serve the eligible members of their church then the only kids in town who will get boy scouting are Methodist boys ages 11 to 18 who meet the value standards of the BSA.Excellent observation (though in my expereince only one Church/Religion seems to accept only members of their own faith into their Scout units).

Oddly enough, if a town has a troop sponsored by the United Methodist Church (a large portion of which publicly disagreed with the BSA before the Supreme Court), that troop, that chartering org, those parents and that town has no option for allowing a gay Scout to be a member. Regardless of their own local perspective and beliefs, the BSA still tells them "not in my organization!". And the question is, why does BSA the organization have such authority to do something that Scouting the Movement would not?

It may just be easier to be complicit in discrimination when you believe the people your affecting are neither innocent nor a part of your mandate/mission, it must be a bit harder for some who now realize that to be untrue.In addition to this observation I made earlier, I would also like to observe how another important point revealed in the survey... a large part of the gay population have coupled and formed families and are raising kids... an even larger part of the gay population indicates a desire to do that. This is a remarkably different view of gay life than what some of the defenders of the BSA position have portrayed on this board in the past... I think it's easier to believe that gays are incapable of being good role models when you believe they are all deviants tearing apart society. Does the reality that many, if not most, are either in stable families or seek to form stable families change some perspectives at all?(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

Now, BobWhite, don't back away... certainly what you and NJCub are saying are different things... he, I suspect rather tongue in cheek, opened the door for you to a possible explanation of your comments (suggesting rather cheekily that all you meant was age requirements could preclude membership for a child). You took that as cover for your opinions, and then appended "there are also behavioral, moral and religious conditions that would restrict membership". (Certainly what you say is true, as a matter of fact, but the interpretation of what "behavior" or what "immorality" or what "religions" should be excluded, when left to you, is narrow indeed.)

I'm not misrepresenting you... without going back through all your posts, I can recall at least a couple of occasions where you were quick to "kick a boy out" of Scouting so we could focus our attention on the other members that actually "behaved" (like the boy who harassed the younger boy at the lake, mentioned in a previous thread, where your earliest position was that he would be booted from your unit).

No, this is not a personal attack, BobWhite, just an observation about how we differ in our views of Scouting, its purpose and its obligation to be open to as many as possible, without bigotry, apathy or fear.

And lest this become just a flame war (I really don't wish to attack you BobWhite, just using your position, which is hardly rare, as an example of the larger issue at hand)... the real issue is still whether Scouting should be for all kids, or just some kids. And the underlying question that prompts this issue, is whether we're failing to reach out to a large population of kids (or soon will be as they come of age), because of our close-minded opinion that their parents are unfit.

I say again: The BSA may just not be for all kids, but Scouting damn well is. And in the USA, you can't do Scouting unless you do it through the BSA... a congressional charter guarantees that.

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

I won't get too far into the debate over whether the numbers are correct or not -- mostly because it is irrelevant -- other than to point out that this survey was conducted for business purposes to measure the value and size of a particular market, and rarely, if ever, would those commissioning such a study seek "inflated" results... theyre trying to decide whether money should be spent to pursue a market segment, and it seems pretty logical that they would want fairly reliable information upon which to base such a decision. I also think it's absurd to suggest (as the BSA's own top executive has done) that ours (BSA) is a position that would sway if the numbers were against us (BSA); to such an extent, this policy is wrong regardless of whether it affects one family or millions. It is, however, interesting to note the rather muted response to this particular line of thought... perhaps several of the more ardent defenders of the BSA position had not until now considered the question from this perspective or with this number of affected people? It may just be easier to be complicit in discrimination when you believe the people your affecting are neither innocent nor a part of your mandate/mission, it must be a bit harder for some who now realize that to be untrue.

BobWhite... I called your previous post mostly "hogwash" because of this: I can not, for a moment, see Baden-Powell, Bill Hillcourt, or even my own Scoutmaster saying "some kids just aren't worth our time and effort" or "some kids Scouting just can't help" or "some kids we should ignore just because we disagree with their parents and church on one highly politicized issue"... your cavalier attitude (and you've made this point several times before about how Scouting doesnt have to serve all kids) is elitist, arrogant and completely contradictory to the principles of Scouting.

I wonder, using your logic, if one of your own children were to refuse to follow your rules or believe the same as you, would they, too, be not worthy of membership in your family? Just how far does your "not all kids are worth my time" attitude carry? If your own son revealed to you that he was gay, would he eventually be booted from the family if he refused to "change his mind"?

The BSA may just not be for all kids, but Scouting damn well is. And in the USA, you can't do Scouting unless you do it through the BSA... a congressional charter guarantees that.

B-P founded an organization specifically as a response to what at the time was becoming a plague of young boys -- hoodlums if you will -- that were starting to populate in large numbers and terrorize the streets of England. B-P was specifically commissioned to find a useful purpose for these packs of boys, and the plan he came up with involved teaching the boys about character, leadership and citizenship through a unique game of Scouting. It's insulting to his memory, and the memory of millions of wonderful adult volunteers over the decades, to now flippantly suggest that some kids are disposable and just not worth the effort.

OGE your post was eloquent and right on the mark.

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

Does the total number or percentage really matter?On this one sentence I find complete agreement with BobWhite... we shouldn't be any more outraged over the message we're sending 3 million kids than if it was just one family. Of course, I find the rest of his message to be hogwash.

Associated Press

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. -- Little League Baseball will require all its managers, coaches and volunteers to be checked against their state's list of convicted sex offenders.

Little League officials said their group is the first national youth sports organization to have such a requirement.

"We want to let anyone who would prey upon kids in the Little League program know that they're not welcome and we're going to do what we can to keep them out,'' said Stephen D. Keener, president of Little League Baseball Inc.

Little League has recommended that local leagues do background checks on volunteers since 1996, when USA Baseball suggested that all youth baseball organizations adopt such voluntary policies.

Keener said the high-profile sex-abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church and the ready availability of sex-offender registries convinced Little League that such checks should be made mandatory.

"The fact that the Catholic Church has been through what the Catholic Church has been through has certainly increased the public awareness and attention, as well,'' Keener said. "When you combine all of those factors, we felt this was the right time to do this.'' In 43 states and the District of Columbia, that information already can be obtained free over the Internet or from local law enforcement agencies. Local Little Leagues would be responsible for the fees for criminal background checks in the seven remaining states -- Connecticut, Maine, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania and South Dakota.

For those that believe Scouting should continue to ignore these families...

Tuesday, October 8, 2002

A new survey shows that more than 3 million children live with gay and lesbian parents in the United States.

The survey, for Witeck-Combs Communications, a gay marketing company, says that 2 million gay and lesbian couples have children, and that by 2004, there will be 3.4 million children in gay homes.

In the 1990s, gay men and lesbians spawned a "gayby" boom when they began starting families through adoption and childbirth. A recent survey found that nearly half of childless gays and lesbians express strong interest in having children.

This "gayby" boom has created a new audience for marketers of children's products, Witeck-Combs says. Gay and lesbian parents are projected to spend over $22 billion on items for their children in 2002.

"Parenting has added a new dimension to the gay and lesbian market," said Don Montuori, acquisitions editor for Packaged Facts, which cosponsored the survey.

Hmmm... anyone ever seen one of the different Federal Tax filings the BSA makes (reporting with multiple TAX IDs as a few separate entities at the national level, which certainly makes it difficult to research and know the true financial statements of the "organization")? Since this "non-profit's" tax statements (all of them) should be available from the IRS (and for that matter, offered up by the "organization"), can someone find a copy of the recent ones?

Two points... several more to come later, if necessary...

1 BSA is in the merchandising business... their catalog, which supplies far more than just uniforms and patches, is operated as a profit center, with profits going to the BSA professional retirement fund. And it goes far beyond the souvenir shop analogy mentioned before. The supply division business is predatory, protective and competitive with other businesses.

2. BSA retirement funds contained so much money a few years ago, and were drawing so much profit in the strong markets, that the BSA was compelled by the IRS (under threat of losing their non-profit status on that business) to introduce an early retirement program. (Recall three or four years ago when this was implemented? Many people cheered the BSA for what seemed like good employee management, making room in the ranks for young, up-and-coming staff by clearing out older, near retirement folks.) They, like a lot of forward thinking corporations offered very lucrative early retirement packages, but in reality they were compelled to do so because of the profitability of the retirement funds).

Bob White, in typical matter of fact style, says this is an old argument that's been debunked by the courts already... not really, and the argument's never been brought armed with inside, detailed information.

Well, my position on this underlying issue should be consistent and clear to all readers by now, but just to recap: 1) I love Scouting and 2) I support the Supreme Court decision and 3) I deplore Scouting's homophobic position (in other words, I think we should change the policy, but we should do it on our own terms instead of being compelled by outside forces to do so).

That being said, the distinction I alluded to in the post that spun this thread ( thanks OGE) is how fortunate (at least fortunate for those running BSA that support the policy, and probably fortunate for Scouting as a whole) that it was that the lawyers that sued BSA (and the activist groups who continue to attack BSA) brought (bring) a weak argument, and overlook a better position which most likely would hold more merit.

BSA was being sued in Dale v BSA and the argument put forth was that the BSA was a "place of public accommodation", similar to a park. I always thought that was a bit absurd, and showed the naivete of those bringing the suit. Of course BSA could easily defend against that position... they successfully argued that they were in fact a private organization, not a "park" or "public accommodation". The only real evidence that the Dale side (and when saying Dale, I'm really referring to most of the different cases that have been brought and just summarizing them as one) tried to bring to the court to "prove" their "public accommodation" position were things like the BSA's charter from Congress and the fact that BSA units were meeting in public places (schools, firehouses, etc). I thought at the time it was a weak argument at best.

But instead of arguing to the courts that BSA should be measured not as a "private organization" but a "place of public accommodation", how do you believe the rulings (and resulting instructions to the BSA) would have differed if those bringing the suit framed the argument differently. What if they had argued that the BSA is a "business"... a business not at all dissimilar to a local diner, or a convenience store, or a tire warehouse?

It was the individual's right to free association that was protected by the Supreme Court in the BSA v Dale case... the "organization" is merely an association of individuals with rights. And because membership in the BSA is optional and not state sponsored (unlike, for example, taxed citizenship in a community), it was argued that there wasn't a violation of the Bill of Rights in the BSA's exclusionary and discriminatory practices. (Now, as many of you know, I am a supporter of the Supreme Court decision, and an even stronger supporter of the fact that the BSA now needs to change it's exclusionary policy... but a whole new thread on the "gay issue" really could be started where I would argue that the real way for someone to beat the BSA in court on this issue would have been to successfully argue that the BSA is a business, not an organization. If anyone wants to explore that discussion, I'm game.)

NJCub.... I'm back, Mortimer.

Actually, I never left, but I did drift back into that great silent majority for a while. But thanks for thinking of me.

The concept that "people" and "communities" and "groups" and "minorities" and "majorities" have rights is still the biggest stumbling block in this debate, for some. As has been correctly pointed out already, only individuals are granted rights (either through the Bill of Rights, natural law, human rights or the hand of God). Once individuals start to form a group, their rights don't just pool together to suddenly be worth more collectively than they were independently. Collectively, their will and their influence may be mightier, but not their rights.

Here's an exercise, that may make the process of understanding this a bit easier... instead of focusing this debate on just one of the rights granted by the Bill of Rights (freedom of/from religion)... pick another one of the rights from those amendments. Let's say it's freedom of speech... do those of you who argue that a community should be able to vote, and by majority decide to post a religious decree on the walls of city hall, also believe that same community, by majority vote, should have the ability to suppress or squelch an individual from speaking his mind?

(I anticipate one response will be that my example is about denying a right to an individual, whereas the previous debate was not intended to be that... eye of the beholder.)

... and see, I just thought I was being cool with an abreviation. OGE, your post had me ROFL2.

littlebillie asks: Rooster7, how would you feel if a Hindu leader invoked one of the Hindu trinity at a group prayer? You would happily grin and bear it, with love and understanding?Actually, an even better question is how would you feel if that Hindu leader did so, regularly, in front of your eight year old Cub Scout that you sent off to Day Camp, and did so without your knowledge and permission?

Rooster, you're right, most folks will not be offended and will also have the capacity to "filter" your message out. But can an eight year old boy? (This is at the heart of the SCOTUS rulings on prayer lead by principals in schools... SCOTUS is much more liberal in allowing religion to be broadcast to adults (ex: opening the legislative sessions with prayer) because they recognize adults have the ability to not be offended or swayed by simple religious expressions from others. SCOTUS believes it is unlikely for kids to have that same ability.

Leading a prayer, and adding specific elements of a specific religion, is evangelizing, when it is targeted toward young children in the absence of their parents and own religious leaders and done by a person of authority or respect (Scout leader Rooster).(This message has been edited by tjhammer)