Please stop homosexual activists and atheists

[Hunt 11]

Merlyn clearly has no defensible answer to why he takes the time to post here--again, it appears to me that it's just to gloat when he perceives a "win." Otherwise he would occasionally try to make some persuasive arguments about why BSA should stop being a "discriminatory private club."

[evmori 11]

Merlyn is to the BSA as Martha Burk is to Augusta!

[Rooster7 11]

Heres the sad thing about this whole dilemma: If I were to somehow obtain the energy and drive to start my own version of Scouting say Roosters Rangers, and cultivate it into a national organization with conservative values - in an effort to distance myself and those like-minded families from the controversy that gays and atheists are attempting to brew in the BSA it would not end there. If Roosters Rangers became a successful reality, some liberal GOOF and his lawyer would try to torpedo it not because it would be unconstitutional, but because it would be a venue where God fearing people could share their values with others. They cant allow such an organization to exist unhinderedthey cannot allow their values their lifestyle to be rejected by anyone. So, they invent inane legal premises that dont exist in the Constitution but only in the heads of liberal judges. These ideologues, or should I say demigods, justify their foolishness because they are intent on changing the world for the better. And in order to make the world better, they feel compelled to stifle any expression of traditional values outside of a church. If that means that they have to twist the Constitution and make jurists do hand stands to make sense of it all, theyll do it!

 

The above being true and Im confident that it is, I say bravo to the BSA for standing firm and not wavering under the pressure of conmen. They should never forget that they are a private organization, which has the right to embrace the values that they have chosen. I hope and pray that they continue the good fight. As long as they do, they will have my respect and admiration for being a first-class, values based organization, which refuses to yield to the feel good politics of the day. God Bless the BSA (if that offends you Merlyn, consider posting elsewhere).(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Twocubdad 665]

Actually Hunt, over time Merlyn has laid out a very thorough case for his point of view. He has provided links to most the pertinent case law relating to Freedom of Religion and usually makes a very rational argument. Of course few people here agree with him.

 

I'm not sure why his motives are important. We don't question the motives of other contrarian members. If he thinks it important to represent his viewpoint to a hostile audience, that's his choice.

 

There are a couple threads going on now about squelching or boycotting posters who some find rude or offensive. Merlyn is neither of those, although an number of folks have done their best to goad him into it. Many of the posters who have argued against squelching or boycotting have done so on the basis of freedom of expression. If we are willing to tolerated the rude baloney some spout in the name of free expression, why aren't we willing to tolerate a well-stated position with which we simply disagree?

[PatBB 10]

Sorry, Bob, on National Office vs. National Council.

I like NJ's post the best, esp. on COs' authority on other issues. The Scouting Tent is big enough for every Troop from those sponsored by Mormon churches who require all members 2B Mormons to very inclusive ones sponsored by City Govts. or Unitarian churches:).

 

My NFL analogy would be the authority of individual teams to set salaries (within the cap, if any), practice hours, discipline on minor matters, & to trade players, i.e. deciding that John Doe shall be out of the Pittsburgh Steelers but still in the NFL.

 

On the Atheist Issue, I agree with Scouts Australia, where juvenile Atheists may be Scouts, but adult Atheists may not be Scouters. Children are not responsible for their religious beliefs & teenagers only partially so, and I respect parents who do not want to brainwash their children into their religion and who allow the kids to join an org. knowing that said org. will offer a counterpoint to the parents' beliefs. Further, I want young "Jason" to have friends of all faiths, not to be excluded & to conclude that 'people who believe in God are such a--holes.'

 

OTOH, I find it contradictory for a youth org. with a purpose of fostering belief in God to give kids an adult leader/role model who explicitly disbelieves in God. Children are more easily confused by such than are adults.

 

Finally, I consider it natural for a Sunday School or Youth Ministry to require adult leaders to belong to its faith, because religion is its main or only purpose. However, I object when a broad-based civic org. such as Scouts, VFW, or a hypothetical Corvette Club excludes atheists just because the leaders think that 'if one is an atheist, he must be an immoral, un-American a--hole.'

 

[LovetoCamp 9]

VFW allows atheists. Merlyn can join my VFW Post anytime. He would just have to have served with Uncle in a combat zone. But come to think of it, Chaplain Charlie was a pretty popular fellow, back when it was raining SCUDS, and I never met an atheist in any foxhole I happened to dive into. Ain't it nice living in a free country?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

For a long time, the VFW membership application had this:

 

I attest that I am a citizen of the United States, that my US Military Service was honorable, that I have never subsequently been discharged under other than honorable conditions, and that I believe in God. I also certify that (1) I am entitled to a campaign ribbon or medal authorized by the US Government based on my overseas service or; (2) I have served overseas in Korea. I further give authority to the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States to verify honorable overseas service entitling me to membership.

 

As recently as mid-2003, it had the "I believe in god" requirement on the membership form on its web page (you can use www.archive.org to see what past web pages looked like).

The most recent one does not:

https://www.vfw.org/mbrship/MailMemberApp.pdf

 

This is such a recent change that the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers has an announcement about it:

http://www.maaf.info

Yes, there are atheists in foxholes.

 

And PatBB, what would you think of an organization that allowed kids of all religions to join, but specifically said no Jews could be adult leaders (though anyone else was allowed); what do you think such an organization is telling the Jewish kids who belong to it?

[dsteele 20]

Merlyn Leroy said:

 

"And PatBB, what would you think of an organization that allowed kids of all religions to join, but specifically said no Jews could be adult leaders (though anyone else was allowed); what do you think such an organization is telling the Jewish kids who belong to it?"

 

I think that is a very offensive statement. It's beneath what I've read of Merlyn Leroy's posts so far in this thread.

 

Atheists have no faith and there is no comparison worthy of note. This is simply an attempt to compare an exclusionary membership policy to historical atrocities commited against a faithful community.

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Uncleguinea writes:

Merlyn Leroy said:

 

"And PatBB, what would you think of an organization that allowed kids of all religions to join, but specifically said no Jews could be adult leaders (though anyone else was allowed); what do you think such an organization is telling the Jewish kids who belong to it?"

 

I think that is a very offensive statement. It's beneath what I've read of Merlyn Leroy's posts so far in this thread.

 

I think it's entirely appropriate; PatBB saw nothing wrong with presenting the identical situation to atheist Scouts in Australia.

 

Atheists have no faith and there is no comparison worthy of note. This is simply an attempt to compare an exclusionary membership policy to historical atrocities commited against a faithful community.

 

No, it's comparing an exclusionary membership policy to a hypothetical but similar policy, to see if people who fail to see the mistreatment of atheists might see it if Jews are the target instead. You simply refuse to see atheists being treated badly.

[PatBB 10]

...for becoming an org. to honor ALL GIs who have fought overseas for Uncle Sam:)! Atheistic veterans did not deserve this dissing of their service & sacrifice.

 

Merlyn, the only org.s which would have any logical reason to have such a no-Jewish-adults rule would be the Future Gentiles of (insert name of State or Country) or the Moderate Nazi Youth ( disagreeing with Hitler's Auschwitz Policy /believing that Jews should be re-educated, not killed.) The message to Jewish children would be, "You don't really want to grow up to be Jews, do you?"

 

OK, Merlyn, how about a youth org. for Everyone but Jehovah's Witnesses? Or Everyone but Hare Krishnas? Or Everyone but Lutherans? etc.

 

In conclusion, I would vote to allow Atheists to be Scouts & Scouters because I believe that Scouting is more about learning to do things that believers would call Duty to God than about believing in God per se. However, I believe that org.s that aim to teach & promote religion do have a right to exist, although I am uncomfortable with an org. to teach Non-Judaism.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

PatBB writes:

Merlyn, the only org.s which would have any logical reason to have such a no-Jewish-adults rule would be the Future Gentiles of (insert name of State or Country) or the Moderate Nazi Youth ( disagreeing with Hitler's Auschwitz Policy /believing that Jews should be re-educated, not killed.) The message to Jewish children would be, "You don't really want to grow up to be Jews, do you?"

 

There used to be a lot of organizations in the US that refused to admit Jews; the typical euphemism was that it was a "restricted club." It would certainly be possible for one such club to "broaden" its rules only partially, resulting in Jewish kids being admitted but not adults.

 

In fact, that appears to be what has happened in Scouting in Australia (and the UK, and probably some other places); instead of excluding atheist kids, they are admitted, only to be kicked out if they try to become adult leaders once they grow up.

 

Such a schizophrenic discrimination policy shows how ridiculous it is.

[Achilleez 10]

"Atheists have no faith and there is no comparison worthy of note. This is simply an attempt to compare an exclusionary membership policy to historical atrocities commited against a faithful community."

 

So you are denying the existence of atheist mistreatment because atheists have no faith? Does that imply that you beleive atheists do not matter enough do be mistreated (such as killing insects with RAID), or that you simply don't see atheist mistreatment as religious discrimination because they have no faith? (which I might add is innaccurate, being as I am an atheist and a great deal of my beleifs come from faith in science and nature)

 

Either way, that IS discriminaion. Dressing it up as an "exclusionary membership policy" does not change anything.(This message has been edited by Achilleez)

[evmori 11]

Either way, that IS discrimination. Dressing it up as an "exclusionary membership policy" does not change anything.

 

Yes it is discrimination. And yes it is an exclusionary membership policy. Girl Scouts has the same thing. You MUST be a GIRL! The I.B.E.W. does, too! You MUST be a REGISTERED ELECTRICIAN!

 

And don't forget, the Supreme Court ruled the BSA was within it's rights to restrict it's membership to whomever it pleased. This makes the discrimination and membership policy legal.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Achilleez 10]

I don't deny the legality of excluding persons based on religion. I also don't deny the legality of adultery.

 

The NHL only accepts qualified, skilled hockey players because if they just admitted anybody, the organization would fall apart because people wouldn't pay to watch unskilled players. The NASA space program won't accept any astronaut who is not physically qualified because it would be dangerous to do so otherwise. These organizations have the right to exclude whomever they want also, but they happen to choose membership based on standards that must be met in order for the organization to function, not based on religion.

 

Now you tell me how excluding people from the BSA based entirely on religion is appropriate. Membership is given only to those with a religion, more specifically those who beleive in God, correct? Does this mean that giving membership to a member of the KKK who beleives fanatically in God is more appropriate than to a peaceful, tolerant atheist?

 

An overly dramatic representation perhaps, but I don't think that an ACLU-hearted Supreme Court Judge has the power to determine right and wrong.

[Laurie 10]

As far as leaders go, it isn't just a religious belief that qualifies one. It is part of a bigger picture. "The applicant must possess the moral, educational, and emotional qualities that the Boy Scouts of America deems necessary to afford positive leadership to youth. The applicant must also be the correct age, and subscribe to the Declaration of Religious Principle, and abide by the Scout Oath or Promise, and the Scout Law." This is printed on the adult leader application.

 

If the religion were removed, what next? Living by the Scout Law would indicate that one be trustworthy, loyal (do we really believe an adulterer is trustworthy and loyal?)helpful, friendly, courteous, kind(how many times are people right here accused of attacking--which is certainly not helpful, friendly, courteous, or kind?), obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, reverent (what happens with this part of the law when religious belief of some sort is not required?).

 

If the religion were removed from the Scout Law, what happens to the Scout Oath? Not only would "do my duty to God" need to be removed, but following that thought, doing my duty "to obey the Scout Law" would also have to be removed.

 

And this is just the beginning, for all of these principles included in the Scout Oath and Scout Law are interwoven through all of what Scouting is. Though religion is not taught, a form of religious belief is interwoven throughout all of the BSA literature as can be seen in the above paragraphs.

 

I personally don't agree with the idea that adulterers, unkind people, etc. have a place in leadership. I don't see how it fits. I do see that if any one part of the Law or Oath were changed, it would begin to unravel what remains.

 

As for Merlyn, though I do not agree with him, not once have I found him to be unkind or unpleasant here toward me. He answers questions, is thorough, and doesn't push the issue. You know what makes it look that way? All the questions asked of him: what is your motive, why do you come here, and the like. Would I want to see Merlyn as a BSA leader? No, but only because he has made it clear that he not in agreement that religious belief is important. Do I get why he posts here of all places? No, but there are people who are Scouters who are just plain rude that I also wonder at their reason for posting here.

 

As for Cradle of Liberty Council: ANY council can lose its charter if it does not abide by the BSA policies. Cradle of Liberty is following BSA policies as stated by National and has not lost its charter.