Loss of Charter

[Hunt 11]

My point again is that ONCE BSA IS NO LONGER SPONSORED BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, why is it fair to criticize them for having a religious requirement for membership? That same requirement exists for many other groups, including most churches and other ecumenical groups (such as, probably, something like the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, the Gideons, etc.). The extremely non-sectarian nature of BSA is unusual, but it is a difference in degree rather than in kind from something like an ecumenical Christian group.

I guess I can understand how an atheist might feel "denigrated" when somebody says that believing in God makes you a better person. But your criticism is not really of the person or the organization, but of religion itself, and its claims to have the truth and to make people better.

I had a friend who belonged to a Christian denomination that believed nobody could be saved unless they were baptized after reaching the age of responsibility. In other words, according to the doctrine of this sect, all non-Christians are damned, as are all Christians who were baptized only as infants. I confess that I found this doctrine annoying, but would it have been fair to say that it "denigrated" anyone? I don't think so. Although this fellow thought I was damned for all eternity, he didn't dislike me. There was no animus, in other words--only a disagreement.

I think it's fine for Merlyn to continue to criticize certain things that BSA does--for example, I can see why somebody might not like Learning for Life in schools. And I also think it would be fair to criticize BSA if they say mean things about atheists or others. Perhaps the battle over the membership restrictions has generated animus against atheists with BSA (certainly it has against the ACLU), but I still don't think that animus against atheists had anything to do with the religious elements of the BSA program in the first place. So, I think it's fair to criticize evidence of animus, but I don't think it's fair at all to criticize the very idea of a non-sectarian religious organization with a membership restricted to religious people.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed, I merely pointed out that the BSA acted unethically by chartering its private, discriminatory scout units to public schools; I have no interest in trying to explain ethics to you, as you have repeatedly shown that you are unable to learn simple concepts.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Hunt writes:

My point again is that ONCE BSA IS NO LONGER SPONSORED BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, why is it fair to criticize them for having a religious requirement for membership?

 

Why ISN'T it fair to criticize them? People criticize the KKK for advocating racial segregation and denegrating non-whites; I sometimes criticize freemasons for excluding atheists (but since they at least act like a private organization and don't get goverment funds, this usually only happens if I notice a freemason making a derogatory remark about atheists). I'll continue to criticize the BSA for excluding and denegrating atheists - I also have first amendment rights, and I exercise them.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[evmori 11]

I have no problem learning, Merlyn. You just can't explain why what the BSA did was unethical! And unethical to who? You? Me? The Kaiser?

 

Let me ask you a question. If I was to start a private club for atheists that excluded Methodists, would you have a problem with that?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed writes:

I have no problem learning, Merlyn.

 

Yes, you do, Ed. Plenty of people, including me, have tried to explain to you why public schools can't charter BSA units, but you still haven't learned that one.

 

You just can't explain why what the BSA did was unethical!

 

Yes I have, Ed. You just can't understand it, because you can't learn things.

[evmori 11]

The only thing you have explained, Merlyn, is the legal issues. Just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical. They aren't the same. If they are to you then there's the problem!

 

What about my private athiest club that excludes Methodists? Wanna join?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed writes:

The only thing you have explained, Merlyn, is the legal issues.

 

Yes, I've explained the legal issues many times, and you've shown you can't learn, because you keep bringing up the same invalid points over and over again, such as your idiotic claim that NOT chartering BSA units means the school is discriminating against the BSA.

 

Just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical.

 

True, like the BSA's religious discrimination. However, I have no interest in trying to explain anything to you, because YOU CAN'T LEARN. Of course, the worst part about THAT is that you can't even learn that I have no interest in trying to explain anything to you.

[packsaddle 753]

As Rush Limbaugh says, "Words have meaning.." Duh! But before I read jeers from one side and dittos from the other, my view is that 'criticism' should rarely be criticized (returning to Department of Redundancy Department all over again, hee, hee ) for its fairness - because such 'fairness' (but not 'accuracy') is often a matter of perception. I have leveled my share of criticisms and weathered my share of them as well. As far as I am concerned...Fair Enough!

 

I have been criticized for criticizing BSA while being a member ("...go start your own organization...or...let me show you the curb..."). At the same time, if someone offers similar criticism and they AREN'T a member, (whining voice, now) "....it's soooo unfairrrrr!". Big deal! Tough luck!

 

They are only words. Sometimes truth hurts, especially if the recipient is unwilling to admit the truth. I have often observed that the recipients of criticism rarely feel they have been treated fairly. Grow Up!

 

Words don't do much more than communicate ideas and even if the ideas are confused, wrong, miscommunicated, or mean-spirited - until they are associated with .45 Corbons, I don't worry too much about them.

 

If Merlyn or anyone else wants to criticize me, my work, my ideas, BSA, the Pope, or anyone else of adult age, go ahead and knock yourself out! Everyone in this country is free to offer criticism of BSA or any other organization. And if 'fairness' is the only whining response anyone can come up with to that criticism, it is possible that such response is the only one available to defend an otherwise weak or flawed idea. The criticism may be right on target. Good!

(NJ, I know what you're thinking right now, you're thinking 'ditto'. Yuk, yuk. ) Sorry couldn't resist.

 

Edited part: I must add that I also recognize that each of us has the right to whine all we want to. Therefore, carry on. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[LovetoCamp 9]

If any unit located in The People's Republic of Illinois is in danger of losing their Chartered Organization or is seeking out a CO for a new unit, I will be more than happy to make that first phone call and find an American Legion Post or VFW to Charter the unit.

[evmori 11]

Merlyn,

Horse apples! The reason you don't explain is cause you can't! You keep on stating I can't learn! Nice excuse. You use it a lot when you are stuck. You refuse to explain why it is unethical for a public school to charter a BSA unit. You've explained the legal stuff, but when it comes to ethics, well, let's just say your ethics are in question.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed writes:

Horse apples! The reason you don't explain is cause you can't!

 

I can't to you, certainly.

 

You keep on stating I can't learn! Nice excuse. You use it a lot when you are stuck.

 

Stuck because you can't understand simple explanations, yes.

[evmori 11]

Guess you aren't gonna join my atheists only club, huh, Merlyn?

[Novice_Cubmaster 10]

Actually, I can see why it is unethical for a Public School to charter a scout unit.

 

(I'll pause while readers fetch their weapons).

 

Being a chartering organization is not passive support. It is not the same as allowing students to have a prayer session before school at the flagpole. Chartering a scout unit goes beyond simply providing a room for meetings and a place to park the unit trailer. A scout unit is, in effect, a part of the chartering organization. Both in a legal, and ethical sense.

 

As a PUBLIC, taxpayer funded entity, a public school should be religiously neutral. They should not extend more than passive support to any group that has a religious aspect. This includes both the BSA where "any religion is OK", as well as any group espousing or requiring atheism.

 

Many people, especially here in the South, (or those associated with BSA) cannot distinguish between being religiously neutral and being atheist.

 

Now, the other side of the equation. Is it ethical for us to want a publicly funded institution as a CO? Is it ethical for us to expect a public school to endorse our religious views? And perhaps desire that they not endorse other viewpoints?

 

The fact that scouting is a great program, and is of tremendous value doesn't change the fact that by endorsing any sort of religious viewpoint it is unethical for scouting to be embedded in a publicly funded institution. And vice versa.

 

 

Novice Cubmaster

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Good post Novice, or Mr Cubmaster whichever you prefer. The problem is, that some people will continue to deny that governmental units should not be chartering Boy Scout units as your thoughts have been explained multiple times before by multiple people but some cant accept reality.

[ASM59 10]

Good Day,

 

Since this thread has gone off in a totally new direction (as threads tend to do) Ill put in my 2 cents here.

 

The real issue here is a change in societal thinking. Youd be hard pressed to find anyone who would make arguments against an association between Scouts and Schools 50 years ago. There has been a slow change that has infiltrated our society and the way we perceive matters such as this. This change in thinking has taken us to a place (I believe) where the framers of our Constitution never intended. It is supposed to be Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion.

 

This new thinking is so pervasive that those with a more traditional understanding feel backed into a corner. Those who are a part of the new way of thinking seem to perceive the other side as a threat of some sort. Both sides are passionate about their understanding of the way it should be. In my opinion, this is why it is sometimes near impossible to have a civil exchange of ideas regarding these matters.

 

I say this to encourage us all to take the high road and find a way to have a more civil exchange here and hope that we can exchange our thoughts and feelings without feeling the need for personal attacks.

 

Thanks for reading my gripe.

 

ASM59