1985 Boy Scout commercial with a (now) non-supporter

[mdlscouting 10]

I'm probably as in touch with conservative politics as anyone on this board, constantly reading magazines, editorials, blogs, etc. about politics... I've never even heard of the Institute for American Values or David Blankenhorn.

[BSA24 10]

Seattle,

 

It's all about goals. There's some who might want the policy reversed to silence noisy liberals, and in that case, you're right. There will always be someone holding a placard screaming for us to eliminate all traces of religion from the face of the Earth.

 

However, my goal is not to silence the noisy. My goal is simply to be a good scout on the issue. I have gay friends. I have atheist friends. They are good people. I believe it is ignorance and prejudice that lead to their exclusion - almost all of which is based on beliefs in fundamentalist religion - not mainstream religious belief.

 

I don't think that excluding people for any generalized label or assumption is scout like. I want the policy reversed so that our membership practices are in line with the Scout Law - they are friendly, brotherly, and helpful to all.

 

I don't care if anyone is still noisy about how we do it. At least then we will have the moral high ground. They can join us, and say what we say, and are welcome to do their best and learn to respect the beliefs of others, even if their beliefs are a lack of beliefs.

 

Leave "God" in the oath. They can promise to do their best to God. Leave "reverent" in the Law. They can respect the beliefs of others and be faithful in their religious duties (if they have them).

 

I wouldn't mind if they removed "God" from the pledge. It was only added in the 1950's. The pledge has been modified four or five times during the 20th Century. During WWII, we said this:

 

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

 

We also used to not put our hands over our hearts the way we do today.

 

http://www.hlswatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/children-flag-salute-1930s.jpg

 

Things change over time. We changed it recently to have "under God" during the McCarthy era when godless atheist communists were all around us trying to undermine our capitalist way of life. We can probably let go of that now.(This message has been edited by BSA24)

[Tampa Turtle 1011]

I second the need for a "Faith and Chaplaincy" forum area.

[Peregrinator 85]

Even if true, how does that justify excluding all atheists?

 

Hey, some black steal; certainly that's justification to exclude all blacks, right?

 

Belief is an act of the will, skin color is not. Nevertheless if a private organization wished to exclude blacks (or whites), then why not? Perhaps atheists ought to form their own scouting organization(s).

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Moosetracker says:

 

But, BSA has verbally stated a "Don't ask, Don't tell" and the policy is because they want the sexual discussions at home (and somehow if an adult knows your gay, that means your discussing being a homosexual with the kids).

 

That raises the question (again) of exactly what the BSA means by an "open or avowed homosexual." (Up until the latest BSA press release it was just "avowed", now its "open or avowed"... but I don't think that changes the meaning.) I have always assumed (and we know what happens when you assume) that it means the same thing as "openly gay", which means that a person has basically "announced to world" that they are gay, so it is a matter of common knowledge, at least in their "community." This does not mean that if there is a local option, sexuality would be discussed in the "Scout setting" -- I think everybody agrees that this should not happen.

 

But if, hypothetically, one adult "knows" that a person is gay, that doesn't necessarily mean the person is "openly gay." So I think we need to be careful in our suppositions of who exactly is subject to this policy.

[SeattlePioneer 144]

>

 

 

There are certainly loads of atheists and homosexuals in Scouting now. They merely need to accept the values of Scouting as it is in order to get along.

 

Should BSA decide to change current principles because it is determined to be the right thing to do, I would expect to support that.

 

The real bottom line is that you are NEVER going to make everyone happy. Choose the best values and practices you can and let the chips fall where they may.

 

Frankly, atheists have a responsibility to respect the beliefs of others too. If a short prayer is being said, be respectful and listen even if you don't believe. Respect works both ways.

[BSA24 10]

> There are certainly loads of atheists and homosexuals in

> Scouting now. They merely need to accept the values of

> Scouting as it is in order to get along.

 

"The Values of Scouting" = The Membership Policy, apparently. I do not believe that there are any Scouting Values that have anything to do with sexuality or belief in God.

 

To follow the membership policy, you wish for them to comply with the don't ask don't tell practice, which means they should maximize secrecy and not tell anyone what they are up to, but continue to support us in our many leadership positions.

 

> Should BSA decide to change current principles

> because it is determined to be the right thing

> to do, I would expect to support that.

 

I don't let the national executive board determine what is morally right for me. The Oath and Law are vague enough that any person can follow them to become a better person within a a wide range of human cultures and beliefs about how the world works.

 

> The real bottom line is that you are NEVER going to

> make everyone happy.

 

No. That is not the bottom line. In fact, that's entirely irrelevant. We shouldn't do things to make others happy. We should do what's right so our consciences rest easy.

 

> atheists have a responsibility to respect the

> beliefs of others too.

 

Yes, I wrote that above. I wrote, "Leave "reverent" in the Law. They can respect the beliefs of others and be faithful in their religious duties (if they have them)."

 

And apparently those atheists are already doing that, because they are in the Scouts today, and I see no internal movement to disrespect prayer time or otherwise trample on the beliefs of others. However, I do sometimes see Jews and Muslims looking aghast as a prayer is led "In the name of Jesus" by a leader with sinister intentions to let us all know what he thinks real religion is and who has zero respect for the beliefs of others.

 

I asked an atheist who is a microbiologist once a long time ago when I was on the other side of this argument how he could say the Scout Oath and consider himself trustworthy. He said, "My God is the Truth. I use science as my religious study of it." He reminded me that BSA policy says that they do not define what someone's higher power or God means to them. He said nature itself is his higher power. During prayers, he contemplates the expanse of the universe and his place in it.

 

The problem with this discussion is the broad generalization of atheists and gays as screaming college kids in the street with tears running down their faces as they run around in nothing but body paint. The reality is that gays and atheists are just as diverse as anyone else, and we are afraid of some stereotype we imagine and what we imagine they will do.

 

This is just like the civil rights era and all the same arguments people made against integrating with minorities. It is exactly the same. Fictional imaginings and paranoia and fear.

[moosetracker 132]

Well BSA24 don't be too hard on SP.. This last post of his, shows an ability to start opening up to a possibility, rather then an attitude, of "never could/should/would happen."..

 

I saw alot of positive hope in SP's statements.

[BSA24 10]

Sorry. I was not trying to be hard on SP. My apologies, SP, if that's how it comes across. I was attempting to address each point with either logic or my own perspective. I just viewed it as a lively test of opinions. I'm curious if I learn something when mine don't hold up, and also hopeful sometimes someone else sees some value in my position.

 

It's funny how it sounds all good-natured and fun in your own mind while writing, but someone else will read it in an angry, mean voice.

 

That is not my intent. That is a failure of my poor education and inadequate writing skills.(This message has been edited by BSA24)

[SeattlePioneer 144]

No problem.

 

 

 

[DeanRx 69]

Realy,

 

You're going to compare homosexuals to drug dealers and pedophiles... you're gonna stick with that argument are you? Sheesh!

 

Good for Mr. Zulu... he was once a BSA supporter and an SM, now he leads his life. Too bad those two aspects have a mutual exclusivity. Ironic, the mutual exclusivity is on the part of BSA and not the homosexual community... being that we are loyal, friendly, curteous, kind, etc....

 

Oh yeah, forgot that the BSA law only applies to non-faggot bible thumpers. Don't have to extend those points of the scout law to those we distain.

[Eagledad 2779]

>>I don't think that excluding people for any generalized label or assumption is scout like.

[Trevorum 24]

Barry,

If I were asked, I'm not sure I would automatically disqualify a mom from being CM just because she worked as a stripper. It would rather depend on how she presented herself to her neighbors and most importantly, to the youth. While in grad school, I knew a colleague who supported herself by working as a stripper on the weekends. She was a fine person and neither her classmates nor her fiance had a problem with it. OTOH, I have no doubt that some strippers are real skanks. My point is that the character of each person needs to be evaluated on their own merits and not by merely slapping a label on them.

[BSA24 10]

> How about the SM who got caught by his

> wife being unfaithful with the ASM?

 

I'd want to know more details about what happened as their COR to make a call on that. I'd conduct a thorough investigation before rendering a decision on who needed to leave and if they needed to leave depending on what I learned - not one sentence in a forum. It is never as black and white as reported.

 

> Or the child porn film maker who wanted to be a SM.

 

Probably BSA will reject the application. As the COR, I would refuse to sign it. Then I would call the cops.

 

> There is the stripper who wanted to be a CM.

 

I'd want to talk with her and see what "a stripper" means and at what point in her life she did that. I'd investigate to find out who knew what, and make a determination to see if she was a threat to the youth or undermined the respect for Scouting that anyone in the unit would feel as a result.

 

I'd make these judgements one at a time based on the individual and the full facts as I investigated. I would not make them based on broad-brush policies.

 

> Scouts will be confronted with generalizations of

> behavior for the rest of their lives, are you suggesting

> that we teach them that all behaviors should be

> acceptable to our community?

 

Thank you, thank you, thank you for bringing this up. Because I think this is the most important point in the entire debate to surface: police behavior and not thoughts.

 

I would handle behaviors in my unit as a COR. I'd let an atheist join. If he chose not to pray, I would say nothing. If he spoke during prayers, I'd talk to him about it. If he denounced others' beliefs, I'd warn him, then dismiss him.

 

I'd let a gay man be CM. If he came to a meeting dressed as a woman, I'd dismiss him. If his background check failed, I would not allow him to join. If he was french kissing his boyfriend in front of the pack at a pack meeting, I'd warn him once and dismiss him the next time.

 

I'd let my neighbor be a CM. If he tried to tell other people that Jesus is Lord, I'd tell him to stop it, and if he kept doing it, I'd dismiss him. If he french kissed his wife at a pack meeting, I'd warn him once and dismiss him the next time he did it.

 

> The values of scouting are unconditional unselfish

> acts toward others to be fair and just

 

All of this can be handled in a just in fair method by learning to take each person as an individual, and not to declare an entire group of people "bad" and then exclude them based on only one quality of their person.

 

Just like everyone was ranting that "poor" does not make someone bad. "Black" does not make someone bad. "Gay" does not make someone bad. "Atheist" does not make someone bad.

 

That's what bigotry and prejudice are: Us judging people based on something other than their behavior and individuality.

 

 

[AZMike 173]

>>I wouldn't mind if they removed "God" from the pledge. It was only added in the 1950's. The pledge has been modified four or five times during the 20th Century. During WWII, we said this:

 

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

 

We also used to not put our hands over our hearts the way we do today.

 

http://www.hlswatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/children-flag-salute-1930s.jpg

 

Things change over time. We changed it recently to have "under God" during the McCarthy era when godless atheist communists were all around us trying to undermine our capitalist way of life. We can probably let go of that now.