Calif. Judges Possibly Banned from Scouting Activity

[Rooster7 11]

packsaddle,

 

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.

 

Actually, they are not going against the 1st amendment. If the BSA were a government entity, your statement would be agreeable. However, as a private organization, BSA is fully within its right constitutionally to behave in the manner you just described. There is nothing unconstitutional or unpatriotic about it.

 

And for doing this to a child, I consider them cowardly. Just a personal opinion.

 

The BSA, like any good organization does, defines it criteria for awards and rank advancements so that others know up front what is expected of them. If parents, their children, or leaders ignore these criteria, then they are accepting the associated risks. Consequently, they are responsible for any shedding of tears as well (whether that be the child or the parent).

 

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).

 

While I like Peter and Thomas, and I can empathize with them, I do not seek to be like them. In other words, lack of self-confidence and doubts may be a human tendency, but it not something I accept as a constant or necessary side-affect for embracing Christ. It's is an unnecessary darkness that we can avoid.

 

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.

 

Yes, there is indeed a multitude of faiths, and within each one there is a multitude of personalities presenting different thoughts on each of those faiths. So what? This fact may make one's search for truth more difficult, but it doesn't preclude the fact (or if you prefer, the possibility) that God is a reality. One thing is certain. If all faiths claim to be the exclusive path to God, then only one can be right- if any. Conversely, a faith that proclaims there are multiple paths to God does not make itself any more valid, by virtue of that claim. In short, one should examine the claims of a faith, and judge it's legitimacy by the merits of those claims. If you throw one blanket over all of them and pronounce, "All faiths are false" or "No faith has a right to claim itself as the truth", then I have to ask, why? Is there any logical reason why one of these faiths could not be the truth? There is no rational explanation to flatly reject all faiths, without making an examination. Likewise, to casually accept all faiths as possible truths, without any skepticism, is just as illogical. Fear motivates conclusions such as these. Men cling to darkness because they are afraid of what the light might reveal. Ironically, while many of the godless recognize the value of science (truth as it applies to the physical world), they prefer to deny the existence of the spiritual world. They rather live in spiritual ignorance than probe its realities.

 

I don't mind if they think I am bad for asking questions,

 

As for the ill behavior or bad counsel of individuals who claim to possess a faith, whether or not they know the truth, they stand by themselves. Only God is perfect. Even His children on earth fall short (with the one exception of course). If it were not so, then seeking Him would be a rather futile since you're not perfect yourself (right? - Or am I assuming too much? ).

 

There is nothing wrong with asking questions. I know of no legitimate church that would chastise someone because they wanted to know more. On the other hand, there is a difference between "asking questions" to obtain knowledge, and "asking questions" to make inferences. One should have evidence to support such an inference before making it. Otherwise, it is derisive.

 

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.

 

Anyone who would purposely seek to inflict emotional harm on a child, simply because the child is "in the wrong church", or for any other reason for that matter, is probably in the 'wrong' church themselves. Furthermore, only God knows a man's heart and can judge his soul.

 

I keep trying.

 

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." Matthew 7:7&8

[Rooster7 11]

littlebillie,

 

Apparently my confidence was misplaced. I was hoping that your theatrics was a momentary diversion. For some sick reason, I feel compelled to state, if not for you then for others, that I never compared the United States to Adolph Hitler, but at this point, I'm sure it will fall on deaf ears. Having said this, pretend I never made the supposed comparison and simply acknowledge if you feel the following is true or not: One cannot always render to "Caesar" and remain faithful to his God.

 

I really deserve this. Not because littlebillie is right, but because I didn't speak out earlier to defend kwc57. He faced a similar accusation. I chose not to defend him - not because I didn't understand his example (although I didn't agree with his conclusion) but because I didn't want some old friends to get the wrong impression. In short, I didn't want to pick a fight with OGE and Ed Mori. I figured that I would stay out of that particular fray. It's kind of like that old story about NAZI Germany, first they came for the Jews, then they came forOOOPS, there I go again.

[littlebillie 10]

Rooster7,

 

Apparently MY confidence was misplaced. I was hoping that your apparent lack of clarity was a momentary lapse. My citation of Genesis seems to have been overlooked entirely. My use of the word "if" was intended to demonstrate the consideration of a conditional yet to be proven, and the similarly conditional apology hinged on that proof.

 

And the snotty tone of this post is in response to the characterization of mine as theatrical.

 

OF COURSE I really don't think that YOU think this country could raise a Hitler; please extend to me the courtesy of accepting that I would not accept a Biblical justification of a Hitler's action.

 

Exactly my point - let's not get silly. 'k?

 

 

[littlebillie 10]

Rooster7,

 

"I really deserve this. Not because littlebillie is right, but because I didn't speak out earlier to defend kwc57. He faced a similar accusation. I chose not to defend him - not because I didn't understand his example (although I didn't agree with his conclusion) but because I didn't want some old friends to get the wrong impression"

 

this is funny, because when the flack hit the fan on that one, I almost apologized for having agreed with him. I didn't because he's on one side of a fence, and I on the other, and I figured some of my 'tarnish' could have rubbed off on him. and, I figured, heck, it just might make it worse.

 

not sure if he'd a-wanted one of the pink sympathizers coming to his defense, ya know...

 

:-)

 

ironic, huh?

[pfann 10]

the phrase "oh...never mind" was from Gilda Radner, however it came from her character- RoseAnn RoseAnna Dann, who appeared on SNL news.

 

 

Packsaddle,

 

If I am reading these threads correctly, you seem to be searching, which is not always a bad thing. For a modern treatise on Christianity have you ever read 'Mere Christianity' by C.S. Lewis

 

A very thorough and modern presentation and defense of the faith. Certainly thought provoking.

 

[SR540Beaver 116]

Well gee guys, you make me feel like the kid who was so ugly, his mom had to tie a porkchop around his neck to get the dog to play with him! I don't need defending, I'm a big enough boy to take care of it myself.

 

Rooster, your comment about not defending me so as to not give your friends the wrong impression exactly makes my point. Forget the KKK and lets stick with the BSA. If you are a judge and you hear civil rights cases that may involve gay issues and you are a member of a private organization that openly discriminates against gays........there is an impression that could be drawn. That is the logic behind the California judicial system possibly looking at this issue. You may not agree with it and I know I don't agree with it, but that is the "why" behind it. Justice should be blind and a man who wears judicial robes should be able to put his bias aside while sitting on the bench, but the question can be raised....and will be by some hot shot lawyer. Like it or not, agree with it or not, the thought process isn't without some validity. That is all I ever said. I'm on record as thinking it is PC overkill. But then, I'm not gay so it would never affect me.

 

You don't want to offend your friends and give them the wrong impression. That is noble. Is there anything wrong with a judge taking a good hard look at how his outside activites might impact how he is perceived on the bench? That is a fair question in my opinion.

[Rooster7 11]

littlebillie,

 

'k' - I'm still not sure I understand what your point was concerning Ceasar, but it's not worth belaboring. Perhaps, I'm just slow. Regardless - peace.

 

kwc57,

 

You don't want to offend your friends and give them the wrong impression. That is noble. Is there anything wrong with a judge taking a good hard look at how his outside activities might impact how he is perceived on the bench? That is a fair question in my opinion.,

 

It's fair, if each case is taken separately. That is, for a given trial, a "hot shot" lawyer might be able to make a valid point against a particular judge that he "could be" bias because he belongs to a particular organization. However, to decree that no one who belongs to the BSA is qualified for the judgeship is not only overkill, it's dishonest and a blatant example of partisan politics.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

Rooster7: That is, for a given trial, a "hot shot" lawyer might be able to make a valid point against a particular judge that he "could be" bias because he belongs to a particular organization. However, to decree that no one who belongs to the BSA is qualified for the judgeship is not only overkill, it's dishonest and a blatant example of partisan politics.

 

The partisan politics occurred when a special exemption was added to their nondiscrimination policy to allow judges to be members of "nonprofit youth organizations". Right now, a CA judge can't be a member of a whites-only group - unless it's a "nonprofit youth organization". They can't be members of groups that allow everyone except Jews - unless it's a "nonprofit youth organization". They CAN belong to groups that practice such discrimination only if they are a "nonprofit youth organization". It's a blanket exemption.

 

But it's an exemption without reason; if they really want to guard against even the mere appearance of prejudice or bias, they have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. The exemption has no purpose but to allow memberships which would be prohibited under other circumstances. Why are judges prohibited from being members in an adult organization that discriminates on the basis of race, but it's OK if it's a youth group (presumably teaching youth that racial discrimination is OK by example)?

 

If you like, you can replace race with sexual orientation and Jews with atheists in my above examples, but that doesn't change the principle involved; the ethics rules, as written now, allow all of them. And people are starting to ask why is there an exemption for youth groups, if it's a generally applicable ethics principle.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Pfann,

 

This is something I am certain of, The charactor of Emily Litella started the phrase "Never Mind"

 

Emily was on SNL news and would rant on something she misunderstood, the classic was "whats all this I hear about endangered feces" until Chevy Chase would correct her and say "thats endangered species" to which she would say, "thats something different altogether, nevermind"

 

RosanneRosanne A Dan was also featured on SNL News, she would read letters from "viewers" always a Mr Richard Fahter from New Jersey and she would always say, "you ask a lot of quesitons for somebody from New Jersey"

 

I may be wrong about a lot of things, but this I know

[littlebillie 10]

I remember when she spoke out against the Deaf Penalty...

[packsaddle 753]

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.

 

[Rooster7 11]

packsaddle,

 

Perhaps I am assuming too much about the situation, of which you are referring. What was the controversial issue - are we talking about homosexuality or something else? What church was kicked out of BSA? Somewhere in this thread, I must have lost track of some specifics.

 

Regardless, while I confess that I believe parents and their boys should hold themselves accountable for following established policies and/or criteria, this "transgression" isn't so harsh that I would expect such an outcry. You appear to be of the belief that my comments make me worthy enough to be fitted for a millstone.

 

[SR540Beaver 116]

OGE,

 

Emily Litella was a character done by Lily Tomlin where she dressed as a little girl and sit in a huge chair.

 

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/76/76a.phtml

 

Gilda Radner did Rosanne Rosanna Danna with the nevermind bit.

[packsaddle 753]

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.

[SR540Beaver 116]

Rooster,

 

FYI....I found this thru Google.

 

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