Judge rules for boy in Boy Scouts case

[evmori 11]

I was born & raised Catholic and now am a Presbyterian. Same with my wife. The thing I never liked about the Catholic faith was they prayed to statues & for the dead. Prayer can do neither any good. I was a Presbyterian before I became a Christian. I for one am glad I switched for the Catholic faith.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

[KoreaScouter 13]

I don't mean to get too cerebral here, but I'd like to make an observation. Although I'm sure it wasn't Merlyn's intent to Balkanize this thread, that's exactly what seems to have happened and we're getting involved in a serious exercise in fractal analysis. Fractal analysis is the offshoot of chaos theory that, among other things, focuses in on minute details, hoping to find definite differences, limits, and boundaries. A snowflake's a perfect example -- one is the same as another to the naked eye. Apply fractal analysis to a finite enough level, and the differences will emerge. To (over)simplify this, we're all snowflakes, but we're too busy analyzing the fractals to see it.

 

While it's certainly true that the Reformation was caused in part by Church corruption, I'd also assert that it should be of no relative importance in our lives now, except for historical purposes, as much fun as that is.

 

As far as the history of the Church of England, it's hardly urban legend, DD. I think you may be either confusing the events surrounding the formation of the Church of England with Martin Luther's leadership of the German reformation, or mistakenly equating correlation with causation. The first references to the reformation I'm aware of were John Wyckliffe's declarations in the 14th century that resulted in the Bible being translated into English in 1382. While it's true that Martin Luther's activities in Germany predated the formation of the Church of England, and may have given it (and all other European reformation movements in that period) some impetus, they are really two independent events that you seemed to slap together when you replied to OGE's post -- the German reformation did not cause the formation of the Church of England. There are many historians who believe the reformation was as much a result of the Rennaissance as it was of Church corruption. In other words, it would have happened anyway, just taken longer. For particulars, here's Compton's Encyclopedia: "By 1527 Henry had made up his mind to get rid of his wife (Catherine of Aragon). The only one of Catherine's six chileren who survived infancy was a sickly girl, the Princess Mary, and it was doubtful whether a woman could succeed to the English throne. Then too, Henry had fallen in love with a lady of the court, Anne Boleyn. When Pope Clement VII would not annul his marriage, Henry turned against Cardinal Wolsey, deprived him of his office of chancellor, and had him arrested on a charge of treason. He then obtained a divorce through Thomas Cranmer, whom he had made archbishop of Canterbury, and it was soon announced that he had married Anne Boleyn. The pope was thus defied. All ties that bound the English church to Rome were broken. Appeals to the pope's court were forbidden, all payments to Rome were stopped, and the pope's authority in England was abolished. In 1534 the Act of Supremacy declared Henry himself to be Supreme Head of the Church of England." Compton's goes on to say: "Before his divorce he had opposed the teachings of Martin Luther in a book that had gained for him from the pope the title Defender of the Faith -- a title the monarch of England still bears." A little irony, too; you gotta love it!

 

It also happened centuries ago, and that fact shouldn't be used to castigate Anglicans now, or argue that Anglicans are Anglicans only so the can get easy divorces. That would be preposterous. Yet, we seem to be collectively zeroing in on bad behavior from 600 years ago to throw stones at each other. Two words: who cares?

 

I had the opportunity (although I didn't necessarily see it that way at the time) to visit the Dachau concentration camp outside Munich and the Catechombs in Rome within a couple of weeks of each other. Those two places were a stark reminder of what a terrible and real thing persecution can be. And, it wasn't just Jews who were imprisoned, although they were of course the overwhelming majority. It was just about anybody who didn't "fit the mold". Look in BSA literature and see how many different denominations can earn a religious medal. Beyond "duty to God" and "A Scout is Reverent", what's the mold?

 

Maybe it's time to take a step back and just watch the Super Bowl...

[slontwovvy 10]

I would like to point out, however, for the sake of history, that one of the reasons the Pope did not grant the divorce was because Catherine of Aragon was the daughter of the King of Aragon (part of modern-day Spain), a major supporter of Catholicism. Granting the divorce would not have been the smartest move.

[Glenn 10]

 

I know I said I would not get in a religious debate on a Scouter forum. However, anytime the Catholic Church is slighted, I will respond.

 

Evmori, I feel sorry for you that you did not learn the Catholic faith as it is truly taught. I know I was confused until 2 years ago when I decided to truly investigate the Catholic Church (even after 12 years of Catholic schooling).

 

In any case, I have never prayed to a statue. I do pray to the person whom the statue represents in hope they will intercede on my behalf with God. I also pray directly to God. If a person is in Heaven with God, what is wrong with asking for them to intercede. Have you ever asked a friend to pray for you? If so, what is the difference? Also, do you not have pictures of friends and relatives to remind you of them? The same with the statues we Catholics have.

 

Lastly, Jesus talked to the dead (remember Moses and Elijah in Matt. 17:3). And He asked us to act like Him in all ways.

 

[Dedicated Dad 10]

KS, since this will be my first communication to you I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude for your service to our country and more distinctively while youre posted on the border of the Axis of Evil. I think you may be either confusing the events surrounding the formation of the Church of England with Martin Luther's leadership of the German reformation, or mistakenly equating correlation with causation.

I dont think so, they are not independent of one or the another. Martin Luther's influence extended far beyond the limits of Germany even though it is no secret that Henry VIII and Martin Luther disliked each other. In the 1520s the reformation in Europe was well underway in Switzerland, The Netherlands and even extended into France with the Huguenots. The influence was there. The formation of the C of E may have occurred during the events surrounding Henrys intent for a divorce, but without the Reformation Parliament passing the Submission of the Clergy," a law which placed the clergy completely under Henry's control, the C of E couldnt have been established. Let me ask a question. Do you think the Parliament could have, would have passed such a law if there was no reformation movement going on in Europe? Further, after the Split with Rome, many of the things that Luther said should happen, did happen in England. Henry VIII ordered Bibles to be published in English and took much money and land from the church. The first references to the reformation I'm aware of were John Wyckliffe's declarations in the 14th century that resulted in the Bible being translated into English in 1382.

Ill concede this to be the very beginning of the reformation movement but it was ML who made it happen.

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

[KoreaScouter writes]

...

"I had the opportunity (although I didn't necessarily see it that way at the time) to visit the Dachau concentration camp outside Munich and the Catechombs in Rome within a couple of weeks of each other. Those two places were a stark reminder of what a terrible and real thing persecution can be. And, it wasn't just Jews who were imprisoned, although they were of course the overwhelming majority. It was just about anybody who didn't "fit the mold". Look in BSA literature and see how many different denominations can earn a religious medal. Beyond "duty to God" and "A Scout is Reverent", what's the mold?"

 

You should check into what denominations' religious awards *aren't* recognized by the BSA:

 

Unitarian-Universalists:

http://www.uua.org/news/scouts/

 

Wiccans:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=31618A88.2626%40cog.org

 

The BSA isn't just prejudiced against atheists.

[KoreaScouter 13]

DD;

 

Thanks for the kind words; it means a lot to know we're appreciated!

 

I wasn't implying the Reformation and and founding of the Church of England were unrelated. I'm only cautioning against confusing correlation with causation. I think Henry would have done what he did regardless of anything Martin Luther did. If anything, I think Martin Luther may have given Henry some impetus, but that's all...my opinion, I could be wrong.

 

I can't begin to guess what Parliament would have voted for absent a Reformation movement. However, I would guess that with Henry's power and his predisposition toward beheading people who crossed him, they would have given him anything he wanted.

 

John Wyckliffe translated the Bible into English in 1382, well before Henry and Martin Luther came along.

 

The seizure of monasteries and church land was a power consolidation move, plain and simple. Henry took them himself, and redistributed these assets to people who supported him and his policies...very altruistic, huh? I love England and British culture; I even like British food (which is seen as an oxymoron by many). Having said that, one visit to the Tower of London or the British Museum, and you'll see that the Brits loved to loot and plunder in the heyday of the Empire; that's what filled those places with their treasures...although it is convenient to be able to see great examples of the world's antiquities in just one place...and no admission fee! Point is, Henry's conduct toward the Church's assets was right in line with British thought at the time..."If I can make off with it, it's mine."

 

I'm not trying to trivialize Martin Luther's role in the Reformation, but I stand by my earlier post: the Rennaissance had as much if not more influence on the Reformation than did any one individual, even one as well known as Martin Luther.

[slontwovvy 10]

The Unitarian Universalists may be "sleighted" by the BSA, but that does not stop a Unitarian Universalist minister that I know from being a Scoutmaster, Commissioner, District Committee Member, and camp staffer.

[Rooster7 11]

"And, of course, this illustrates the problems I've mentioned with god-based morals. You say god prohibits polygamy; a Muslim would say god permits it. It doesn't look like god-belief settles the question at all."

 

Getting back on point with Merlyn, I think he and many others on this board are missing the point of BSA's religious requirement. It is not a litmus test for moral behavior. Recognizing the reality of God, and respecting Him (i.e., being reverent) is in itself a trait that BSA is promoting (above and beyond moralistic behavior). Obviously, BSA recognizes that different faiths believe in different precepts. However, regardless of these differences, all of these faiths recognize, respect, and worship God.

 

As to the differences between the Roman Catholic Church and Protestants, it goes way beyond church corruption. Martin Luther was primary opposed to the Catholic Church for doctrinal reasons. Having said this, I love and appreciate my Catholic brothers, but we do have disagreements.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

...

"Getting back on point with Merlyn, I think he and many others on this board are missing the point of BSA's religious requirement."

 

I don't CARE what the BSA's reasons are; I care that the BSA continues to dishonestly charter units to government agencies that obviously can't enforce the BSA's religious requirements, and that the BSA continues to push for in-school recruiting. Did you realize that, in the Portland case, the BSA actually paid for the public school's legal bills? The judge cited that as being prejudicial to Remington's case, as the school is supposed to be neutral.

 

You seem to miss the point of how the government has to avoid religious discrimination.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

A big scouting thank you to Rooster and Merlyn for getting this thread back on track

 

 

 

[Rooster7 11]

"I don't CARE what the BSA's reasons are; I care that the BSA continues to dishonestly charter units to government agencies that obviously can't enforce the BSA's religious requirements, and that the BSA continues to push for in-school recruiting."

 

Merlyn,

 

You seem to be under the impression that it's BSA's duty to interpret Constitutional law and enact polices that would constrain it as an organization based upon those interpretations. First, BSA is duty bound to its members. They are a Scouting organization, not a law firm. Second, it's the Chartering Organization that may or may not be within it's Constitutional right. Third, while the organization (Chartering Organization and BSA) should be following the laws of the land, I do not expect them to make decisions based upon the possible outcome of a future court ruling, especially decisions that would hinder or change the program. Fourth, BSA and many schools are apparently willing to wait and see (i.e., let the court's decide). Fifth, BSA and many schools are willing to let the courts decide. This is NOT dishonest. Perhaps it's the people fighting to change this policy that are being dishonest.

 

Screaming religious discrimination does not make it so. By your definition, all organizations that want God to be a part of their program are discriminatory. My guess is; you will not be happy until all references to God are banned from public forums. In fact, your claim that BSA is dishonest seems dishonest and self-serving to me. You have yet to show to me the Constitutional grounds for a Supreme Court ruling that would prohibit public agencies from declaring that God exists. Until then, I stand firm in my belief. The day the Supreme Court rules in your favor, I will spend my time fighting that decision. If you want a Scouting organization that does not include God in their program, you should start your own.

 

[Bob Russell 10]

"I don't CARE what the BSA's reasons are; I care that the BSA continues to dishonestly charter units to government agencies that obviously can't enforce the BSA's religious requirements, and that the BSA continues to push for in-school recruiting."

 

I believe that I stated earlier that I agree that it is probably impermissible for government agencies to sponsor a Boy Scout troop because of the religion requirement. I say "probably" because I'm not sure where the case law will eventually settle out, if it ever does. As we all know, court rulings change - remember when "separate but equal" was blessed by the US Supreme Court. The issue of religious discrimination has also been changing. Is it freedom from religion or freedom of religion? Might not the term "establishment of religion" be more strictly interpreted in the future? As Rooster says, it is not dishonest to wait to see what the courts decide.

 

As to your problem with in-school recruiting, we disagree here. If other groups are allowed to recruit in schools, and they often do, then to ban scout groups from doing the same type of recruiting is discrimination on account of religion. If all groups are banned, then there is no discrimination. But you are not arguing nondiscrimination here, you are demanding a total ban on activities upon public property, solely on account of religious belief.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

...

"You seem to be under the impression that it's BSA's duty to interpret Constitutional law and enact polices that would constrain it as an organization based upon those interpretations."

 

It's the BSA's duty to KNOW the laws, and considering that a judge in Michigan found that both the school and the BSA violated the civil rights of an atheist student, they'd better start learning fast.

 

...

"Screaming religious discrimination does not make it so. By your definition, all organizations that want God to be a part of their program are discriminatory."

 

All organizations that exclude people based on whether they are theists or not are practicing religious discrimination.

 

...

"My guess is; you will not be happy until all references to God are banned from public forums."

 

Your guess is worth about what your uninformed opinion is worth. Typically, someone like yourself who wants government agencies to promote your pet god has to paint his opponents as wanting ALL god references removed, instead of what they're advocating: removing god references from government agencies. You can promote your god all you want with your own time & money.

 

...

"In fact, your claim that BSA is dishonest seems dishonest and self-serving to me."

 

Gee, too bad for you, huh?

 

...

"You have yet to show to me the Constitutional grounds for a Supreme Court ruling that would prohibit public agencies from declaring that God exists."

 

I have; either you didn't read them, or you didn't understand them.

 

...

"If you want a Scouting organization that does not include God in their program, you should start your own."

 

It's impossible for anyone in the US to start another official WOSM organization or use the word "scouts", as the BSA has a monopoly on it. An atheist Scout in Switzerland, were he to move to the US, would be unable to join, due solely to the BSA's religious discrimination.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

...

"As to your problem with in-school recruiting, we disagree here. If other groups are allowed to recruit in schools, and they often do, then to ban scout groups from doing the same type of recruiting is discrimination on account of religion."

 

But that wasn't the case in Portland; there, the Scouts got special access that other groups didn't get.

 

The BSA should get the same access as other discriminatory groups.

 

...

"If all groups are banned, then there is no discrimination. But you are not arguing nondiscrimination here, you are demanding a total ban on activities upon public property, solely on account of religious belief."

 

No, I'm not; stop misrepresenting my position. The BSA has the same rights as a youth group that excludes Jews. Both groups can e.g. use public facilities (on an equal basis; no freebies for the BSA if others have to pay). As I've said before, the BSA is in the process of losing SPECIAL access.