Flag Burning and other disturbing behaviors

[GernBlansten 10]

Ed, I will fight to the death to defend your right to be offended.

[DanKroh 11]

Ed, do you honestly think that Lisa'bob believes that God is a vulgar word? How about those millions of "disrespectful" Jews who choose to write "G-d" instead of "God"? Are they doing it because they think they are writing profanity?

 

Hey Ed, how do you spell "respect", as in "A scout respects the beliefs of others"?

[evmori 11]

Never said I didn't respect Lisa's beliefs. I just think using G-d instead of God is disrespectful.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Trevorum 24]

Many biblical scholars believe that the best (that is, the most linguistically accurate) transliteration of the name is "Yshua".

[GernBlansten 10]

"One nation under Yshua" just doesn't bring up that overwhelmning feeling of patriotism. I'd say we just stick with the "G" word.

[Lisabob 13]

You're welcome to your opinion Ed. I was trying to provide you with a context though, in which a person might use G-d in a way that is intended to be respectful. While you're right that the "dash" has also been used as a written form of a "bleep" to suggest vulgarity, I think context matters a great deal too. I've never met anyone who uses the formulation "G-d" who has meant it in a disrespectful way. On the other hand, I've met (and read comments by) lots of people who use the full word in a variety of disrespectful manners. If nothing else, the use of "G-d" signals to me that someone may have given some minimal consideration to the meaning of the word and how they are using it. Of course, you may infer something different from it if you choose.

 

My only point to you, Ed, would be that by asserting that it is one form! and not the other! (!!!) you risk coming across as someone who has a "my way or the highway" approach to other people's faiths and beliefs. I'm sure that isn't your intent.

 

Lisa'bob

[SSScout 1615]

WOW! Really interesting replies to a small inquery. I leave a note on the board in the morning and come back and...And I had no idea there were so many retired (I know I have a money exchange activity to attend to) scout type people out there.

Scenario: (this is fourth hand to you folks) Cub Scout from family who espouses a religion that will not say the PoA loyally (and I say correctly) does not recite the PoA, as his parents desire. He does know it, can correctly recite it (per the rank requirement) and participates in flag ceremonies (carries it in, posts the colors, etc. But CM has conniption fit. He is ex-military. How should Pcomm or other parents react?

[Trevorum 24]

What kind of "conniption fit" and where? In a Pack meeting, or in a committee meeting, or privately to other adults?

 

Regardless, the CM has no authority in this matter. He can not demand participation in the Pledge from anyone, just as he can not demand participation in a particular prayer.

 

[johndaigler 10]

SSScout, WELCOME!

 

IMHO,

 

The UC and parents should react respectfully, and away from the Cubs. I'm hoping the CM's conniption wasn't public and/or embarrassing to the boy, but even if it was, it would be better if the moment wasn't made larger by an angry public response.

 

The standard for every action a Cub Scout undertakes is "Do Your Best". Given the family's beliefs, the boy is performing fine - perhaps better than that, given peer (and other) pressures.

 

Seems like the CM could use a bit more training.

 

In general, a Scouter needs to show the same level of respect for Scouts as he/she shows to other Scouters.

 

jd

[CalicoPenn 729]

My prefered pledge:

 

I Pledge Allegiance

To the Earth

And to the Life that She Provides

One Planet, Interconnected

With Beauty and Peace for All

 

I rarely pledge allegiance to the flag - my religion is a goddess tradition, not a god tradition. I no longer consider the pledge, as rewritten by, in my opinion, a cynically motivated Congress in the 1950's to delineate the US from the "godless commies" of the Soviet Union, to be a common statement for ALL Americans. Perhaps I would feel differently if the "God" referenced in the Pledge was neutral but too many people in this country insist that the "God" in the Pledge is THEIR God and no one elses. When the spirit moves me to say the pledge, I never say "Under God" (and I might just say, loudly enough for people to hear me "Under Goddess")

 

Back in my Paramedic days, I took an oath when sworn in to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States. I consider that oath to be far more meaningful than the Pledge of Allegiance. After all, the Flag is a symbol of the Constitution and the Pledge indirectly affirms allegiance to the Constitution. My oath to defend the Constitution speaks directly to the importance of the document.

 

As for the vulgarity of God, I consider the word vulgar when it precedes the word Hate, which in this day and age is too common an occurence. Instead of railing against people who spell it G-D out of the sense of respect their religious, or otherwise, traditions call for (protected by the Constitution, by the way), rail against the people who are vulgarizing the word by spouting that God Hates (insert favorite target here).

 

Just my (Constitutionally Protected) 2 cents.

 

CalicoPenn

 

[Novice_Cubmaster 10]

I agree with GernBlansten, the pledge IS better with the "G" word in it. From here on, I will say "One nation under Gern".

 

Lisabob - I truly appreciate your posts. You do a great job making your points (and letting people know your toes were stepped on) without getting nasty. To me, the real purpose of these forums is for us to expose ourselves to a broad range of opinions and customs - not all of which may sit well with some of us. But hopefully, we'll learn something from all of it.

 

PS: Packsaddle - Life of Brian is 27 years old!

 

Good Shabbat to you all.

 

NC

[dan 10]

WOW

This is and older post. But while reading the first page of this thread, when it was still discussing flag burning and relating it to other recent post I am amazed that some posters would think about removing a scout from the unit they are in if they burned the flag in protest, yet in another post when a scout was being a bully, swearing, threatening another scout some posters said that he should not be removed, this just amazes me! Justice for who the bully or the victim! I sometimes think that the Boy Scout stuff will never work! But than I go watch a group of scouts and the world seems a better place.

[CalicoPenn 729]

Dan, You're post about the dichotomy between potential responses to a flag burning scout versus a gun pointing scout got me to think of the issue in another way (excellent point, BTW, Dan).

 

The Scout Oath says a scout will do his duty to his country (which, of course, is the USA). As most have probably figured out from my earlier post, my opinion is that the higherst duty to country is the defense of the Constitution of the United States, which is the underpinning of our whole nation.

 

Flag burning is, like it or not, a constitutionally protected act of free speech and free expression. If a scout were to burn the flag in protest (and has been mentioned in the thread, it's a) rather doubtful that it would happen and b) burning the flag on US soil is a very rare occurrence) on what grounds would the scout merit expulsion? Duty to country would suggest that exercising a free speech right, no matter how extreme and distasteful we might find the speech to be, is an act that is permissible through the Scout Oath. Some might argue it goes against Scout Spirit but the underpinnings of Scout Spitit is the Scout Oath and the Scout Law - and those are not violated by such an act.

 

CalicoPenn

[GernBlansten 10]

I often liked the geographically correct version, "One Nation, Under Canada" but was promptly corrected by a fellow from Detroit.

[BrentAllen 10]

Calico,

By your argument, then ANY speech or expression used by a Scout could be deemed acceptable, since it would be allowed by the First Amendment. Foul language, wearing t-shirts with all kinds of repulsive messages - all that would be allowable, no? Do I need to get graphic to make my point? Just because it is allowed by the Constitution does not mean it is conduct becoming of a Scout.

In my area, if a Scout burned a flag, and was not removed from the unit, most of the leaders would leave. We would either find another unit or start one. The Scout might win on constitutional grounds, but would lose, one way or another, the unit he was part of. Luckily, this is all just talk and will never become a reality, at least where I live.