when you disagree with policies

[Scoutfish 16]

Let me put it in a more simple way:

I watch tv, but not very much. I have cable so I have around 10 chanels plus all the other PPV and music channels and stuff. I can say I watch about 3 hours a week of tv and do it between 4 channels.

 

I do not care for most of what is on. But here's the real simple part: I don't watch those shows or channels.

 

 

Hmmm? Not sure why the "spin" notice popped up, I didn't do that . Unless I screwed something up.(This message has been edited by scoutfish)

[mikemayer67 10]

I find it interesting that those of us willing to take the time to do careful soul searching and to carefully examine all sides of an issue are called "intellectual cowards" while those who take up one side of an issue and refuse to see that there is any ambiguity to it are somehow brave.

 

By definition, "intellect" is the use of those cells between your ears. So, I'll take being called "intellectual" as a complement. By definition "coward" is someone who doesn't take action out of fear. Yep the fits me all right. I'm refusing to make my opinion known and refusing to stick with it out of fear.... Oh wait, that's not what I'm doing at all... so how again am I a coward?

 

But you know what? Those of us who live in the middle of the road and can see the validity and value in both sides of an issue are pretty used to being vilified by those folks too afraid to allow for the possibility that life is gray and not just white or black.

 

I know I said I would walk away from this topic, but being part of the crowd that was directly attacked, I felt the need to respond so that others don't think I'm running away with my tail between my legs. I would hate to think that someone else might subsequently fear standing up on an issue they feel passionate about.

 

YIS,

mike

[Beavah 205]

And no, no matter how helpful you are, you can't join an actual atheist group that requires atheism (like American Atheists).

 

Yah, too bad, eh? Guess the BSA is a more friendly and welcoming bunch than you atheists are.

 

Nobody in James Dale's or Daryll Lambert's troops wanted them to leave, the national BSA forced them out.

 

James Dale and Daryll Lambert were both adult leaders, not youth members, eh? If yeh read what I and others have written, yeh see there is a distinction in the BSA policy & practice between the two. We want our adult leaders to be examples of our position and values to our youth members; we want our youth members to simply be open to our position and values. Our adult leader application asks adults to subscribe to the DRP, while our youth application mentions that our adult leaders subscribe to the DRP, without askin' the youth to do so.

 

Neither Daryll Lambert nor James Dale were removed while they were youth members. After they became adults, we made a decision that their views weren't compatible with bein' the right example an adult leader should be in a program that teaches personal responsibility to community, nation, and deity.

 

I expect even if your American Atheists group eventually became enlightened enough to welcome da children of Christian parents, yeh still would want the adult leaders and board members of da organization to be atheists. Why should it be any different for us?

 

And I for my part wouldn't mind a lick if da public school sponsored an atheists club if kids wanted one, so long as they were open to sponsoring a Christian club if Christians wanted one. Guess I'm one of those unenlightened furry critters who appreciates diversity and free expression more than you atheist fellows .

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

scoutfish writes:

Daily practice vs formal wriiten policy.

 

So what's the point in having National tell atheist kids they can't join?

 

Here's the deal: You do not agree with BSA and it's policies. Okay, that's your right. But guess what, I do not agree with lots of groups, events, ideas and happenings. What do I do abouit it?

 

WEll, if they do not take place on my property uninvited and I am not forced to attend... I do nothing! It does not hurt me or personally affect me

 

Do you still take that position if, say, these groups had public schools or law enforcement agencies illegally discriminating against everyone who was a member of your religion? Everyone else is welcome, but anyone who belongs to your religion can't join.

 

Oh, but some of them do let you join, as long as you aren't "uppity" or "angry" about it, and as long as nobody ever finds out (like seeing you attend a church that was of the "prohibited" religion) you'd have nothing to worry about, as long as you never, ever revealed your religious views to anyone. Simple, eh? And all done with your public tax money.

 

 

Beavah writes:

And no, no matter how helpful you are, you can't join an actual atheist group that requires atheism (like American Atheists).

 

Yah, too bad, eh? Guess the BSA is a more friendly and welcoming bunch than you atheists are.

 

Nope. AA is honest and not hypocritical. They say they are an organization of atheists, and they really are.

 

The BSA still dishonestly charters units to "law enforcement agencies," even after they said they wouldn't.

 

Nobody in James Dale's or Daryll Lambert's troops wanted them to leave, the national BSA forced them out.

 

James Dale and Daryll Lambert were both adult leaders, not youth members, eh?

 

So what? That wasn't a caveat before. However, I don't know of anyone outside of National who wanted to throw out the Randall twins, either. But since that screws up your imaginary situation, feel free to ignore it.

[Scoutfish 16]

Dumb ole double post!(This message has been edited by scoutfish)

[Scoutfish 16]

Merlyn,

Please, please tell me you do not have the audacity to try and tell me that a school or law enforcement agency discriminated agaisnt an athiest for the sake of being an athiest.

 

Now, if a Catholic school did not allow an athiest, well, who would honestly be surprised? It is a CATHOLIC school after all.

 

As for law enforcement, was an athiest arrested or at the minimum removed for interuppting or disrupting a public meeting to the point of causing chaos.But that isn't limited to athiests, that is anybody that does that including the local preacher of a church ( yep, seen it done myself!)

 

 

 

 

Well, if the school was letting the local chapter of American Athiests use the gymnasium for a meeting or dinner, then I would not expect to be welcome or allowed in if I showed up with a box of bibles while dressed as Jesus. Being that it was (basically) an anti religion function, then yes I would still take that position. Why? Because the school allowing your group (as taxpayers) to use the school is not a sign of support, endorsement or approval of your groups ideals. It is only a sign of allowing equal use by all groups.

 

Now, I get that as an athiest, you pretty much lump all religions as just being a religion, but it doesn't work that way. Religions have more diversity and differences than music genres or types of foods .

 

Or look at it as car entghusiasts: This groups likes Corvettes, another only likes 69 Stingrays. Another cannot fathom how anybody likes anything other than BMW's.

 

A boat fanatic might lump car lovers into one group, but he;d be wrong.

 

Such is the same as religion. You yourself ought to know more wars have been started because of differences in religions.

 

So what is my point about that?

Law Enforcement is not a religion. Neither is school. Neither is government, but by allowing religious groups to conduct meetings or whatever they do.. they are allowing more diversity than you realize.

 

But at the same time, they are not endorsing, demanding participation in, or "respecting one religion" over others.

 

They are simply allowing the many different cultures of taxpaying citizens ( who are garanteed protection and representation under the Constitution) - both religious and non - to use a citizen's tax funded building.

Meaning all those religios peole paid their share of taxes that created the schools and pays the law enforcements salaries.

 

So let me be point blamk: If you as at taxpayer want to use a school or have police help you hold a athiest function...have at it. I don't care. You pay the taxes, then you have the right as far as I am concerned.

 

But notice one difference between you and I :

I being the evil religious guy - I do not have any problem with you usoimng anything I paid taxes to support or that is government tax funded/ supported or whatever you want to call it. I have no problem with you living your life or speaking your mind,. I do not have any issue with your vies or beliefes.

 

Yet you, cannot stand to sit and let me, as an equal tax paying citizen enjoy one of my liberties as garanteed by the Constitution

of the United States.

We are both granted equal rights, yet you want to squash mine and deny me the resources that we both pay for.

 

Personally, I wonder how you guys get the idea religion is so bad when it is you who wants to stop us, and not the other way around.

 

Nobody, law or government said you couldn't start your own athiest scouting group. So instead of trying to destroy a group who's beliefs you don't like...why not create your own?

 

 

BSA never said you could not be athiest, it only said that BSA is a scouting club for people who happen to believe in God.

 

BSA will not try to stop you from having your own club.

 

So it ia apparan6t to me that AA would rather see everybody unhappy instead of just trying to do their own thing .

 

Make everybody conform to one ideal. Wait, didn't Stalin try that?

 

 

Sorry Lisabob, it digressed into which you did not want!

[Scoutfish 16]

Merlyn,

 

Another simple observation on my part:

 

You claim to be disrciminated against, yet from what I see here on this site, your only complaint is that a groups of people who happen to believe in God are not letting non believers lead in their club. Believeing in God is a part of what makes up scouting.

It is one of the MANy things that makes BSA what it is.

 

So you do not meet ALL of the requirements to be in this club? So? This is not the only club there is.

 

BSA never said that the government should outlaw athiesm , nor ban athiests from schools, public parks, or any place that uses tax money (even though athiests pay taxes too) .

 

Yet you fight tooth and nail and all you guys do all the time is try to stop people who have a beliefe from doing the same as you.

 

Why do you fight against people who have religion so much?

 

Is it because you are predjudices against us? Is it discrimination? By what your guidlines are, I'd say so!

 

We do not set up websites to fight you. We do not go to athiest meetings, clubs and websites to question your every move. (Although I have no doubt you get your share of nuts doing so- but hey, I'm not implying anything!)

 

So where does this leave us?

 

The discriminator is the one who cries descrimination!

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

scoutfish writes:

Merlyn,

Please, please tell me you do not have the audacity to try and tell me that a school or law enforcement agency discriminated agaisnt an athiest for the sake of being an athiest.

 

When they charter a BSA unit, the BSA expects them to do just that.

 

I've posted on this before; check the 2nd entry on this page:

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=73389&p=4

 

Some of the links have broken, but here's an example of a public school chartering a Venture crew, and I personally contacted the BSA to ask if atheists could join this crew chartered by a public school. The BSA said no.

[Scoutfish 16]

 

 

When they charter a unit...WHO expects it?

 

Did you say BSA?

 

They EXPECT, not demand it?

 

Did you say BSA?

 

You mean the club made up of people who belive in God expects it? NO WAY!(dripping with sarcasm)

 

But did the school expect or demand it?

 

 

 

Broken links? Why not a poll of your neighbors too?

And you contacted BSA , not the school. What did the school say? Or did you bother to ask? No, you contacted the group that gave you the answer you already knew which says and proves NOTHING about the school.

 

Suppose I ask farmers if you have to be a farmer to join FFA or maybe I could ask a church if you have to be a xchristian to be on the FCA? Their answers are great, but their answers do not speak for the school!

 

I could ask BSA if BSA should be allowed in school and guess what answer I'ds get? I could ask you the same thing, guess what answer I'd get?

 

Then I really ought to ask the school if I want to know the schools policy on it.

 

Again, Merlyn.. the only reason you can give for not having BSA units is because you are against BA and cannot agree that any groups has it's rights to have it's own beliefs followed to be in that group.

 

Just like AA does not want God beleiving folks in its groups.

 

The difference is that I know you are worthy of equal time in places where you pay taxes.

 

Seems like I have the tolerance you do not. You are discriminating aginst others based on personal belief while I am not.

[Beavah 205]

Ah, Scoutfish, he sucked us both in, eh?

 

Now it's another "all about Merlyn" thread. A whole mess of pages about how real scouters and even some real BSA officials handle da policy in a balanced, compassionate way and for some reason that makes us cowards and hypocrites. Sometimes yeh just can't win. Too bad, I thought Lisabob had some interestin' thoughts, though I disagreed with 'em in someways.

 

Thanks to Lisabob for movin' this to I&P anyways, so that the other poster could get some real answers.

 

Beavah

 

[Scoutfish 16]

Well Beavah...

I admit to arguing for the sake of agueing. There really wasn't much more going on in the other forums, so it was a time killer.

I agree, I think Lisa had some grat thoughts to, though I might have worded them slightly different:

 

In my experience, people will state others are arrogant AND ignorant just because they cannot get somebody to agree with them. It is beyond their comprehension that somebody might completely understand the idea or thought, but still not agree!

[Scoutfish 16]

Well Beavah...

I admit to arguing for the sake of agueing. There really wasn't much more going on in the other forums, so it was a time killer.

I agree, I think Lisa had some grat thoughts to, though I might have worded them slightly different:

 

In my experience, people will state others are arrogant AND ignorant just because they cannot get somebody to agree with them. It is beyond their comprehension that somebody might completely understand the idea or thought, but still not agree!

 

Kinda a "If you do not agree with me, it's because you are stupid" arguement! They never look in the mirror first!

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

No comments on clearly dishonest actions on the part of the BSA? Why am not surprised?

[CA_Scouter 11]

I would guess that the posters here disagree with your policy of using the term 'dishonest'.

 

 

[Gunny2862 11]

I am finding it very interesting that all of these folks Merlyn mentions as being dis-accomodated by the BSA are Eagle Scouts.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_v._Orange_County_Council "As a sidebar, the Randalls reached the rank of Eagle Scout before being expelled from the BSA as a result of court prohibiting further actions by the BSA regarding their expulsion until the case was resolved."

 

And both Dale and Lambert, were Eagles as youths.

 

Maybe Atheist Scouts do "get" Scouting. Maybe extremism based in no matter what school of thought could be the real issue in play...

 

And just in case someone has an issue with quoting Wikipedia, "Hello, peer review is better?".

 

http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/randalls-top.html - "On March 15, 1998, a special Eagle Board, made up of three parents and three Boy Scout executives, voted unanimously to award Michael and William Randall their Eagle Scout Awards. While the decision was subject to final approval by the National Council of the Boy Scouts of America, there are no known instances in Scouting's history where the National Council has refused to confirm the award once an Eagle Board has approved it."

So, while William and Michael were eventually expelled from Scouting, they at least are Eagle Scouts."