BSA blog carnival

[CalicoPenn]

I'm torn on this.

 

I'm sympathetic to the folks that are calling for boycotts of the BSA because they discriminate against people. Yeah, yeah - I know the BSA can "legally" discriminate against gays and athiests (and really folks - get a grip - that's about the only connection there is between the two groups in this - they're both being discriminated against). But that also means they could, if they chose to, "legally" discriminate against women, against blacks, against hispanics, against Jews. If it's not morally right to discriminate against them, then it's just not morally right to discriminate against gays and athiests. If your "biblical morality" allows you to ignore one morality for a different morality, then your "biblical morality" isn't worth the paper it's printed on. If you're a Christian and support the death penalty, or war, then frankly, you're not a real Christian - you're a fraud. The Commandment is "Thou Shalt Not Kill" There is no exceptions in that statement. There isn't a sentence that comes after those words that say "except in the case of war or in cases where the state kills people in your name to punish them".

 

However, I'm also sympathetic to the notion that the local Troops and Packs aren't National, they don't set policy, so really, why punish them for National's foibles by boycotting their tree and wreath sales, or pancake breakfasts, etc. I bought quite a few tins of popcorn this year, and pumpkins, and overpaid for car washes to support local Scouting units, because of that notion that local Troops and Packs aren't setting the policy.

 

But I've taken some time to think about that a bit. There is no way for me, or for the person on the street that opposes the BSA's discriminatory practices, to truly affect National Policy. And the local units? They are the public face of the BSA. Is it right to withdraw support from the local folks because doing so will only hurt them and not National? Maybe not - but then again, if units start to struggle to find membership and to raise funds because of the policies, and that in turn starts to affect Councils, which in turn starts to affect National, then maybe so.

 

If you're one of those folks that will only react rather than think about what I'm about to say, save it - I know it may be inflammatory to you folks already, we don't need to hear it - I'm not comparing the BSA to the group I'm about to reference in a hypothetical way - I'm simply using them as an example because they are well known - for the rest of you, just think about it and honestly ask yourself what you would do.

 

Would you be as quick to dismiss boycott calls against a nationwide bunch of local, mostly autonomous, youth groups that don't make National Policy and may not agree with the policies of their national organization if the initials of the national group was KKK rather than BSA?

 

That's why I'm torn on this - my immediate reaction is there is no way I would ever support a local KKK youth group, even if it has never discriminated against anyone, is loaded with kids of all races and religions, and does a lot of great community service projects, and doesn't believe in many of the policies of their national organization.

 

Why, then, with local Boy Scout units in the same, exact situation, should it be any different?

 

(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

[Peregrinator]

If your a Christian and support the death penalty, or war, then frankly, you;re not a real Christian - you're a fraud.

 

How do you figure?

[Eagledad]

>>I'm torn on this

[Sentinel947]

Calico, your argument will be valid if and when the BSA becomes classified as a hate group, and if The BSA starts going around beating up gays and rallying against gay rights, sponsoring politicians who are anti gay, and a whole host of activities the KKK got involved in.

 

You can quite easily argue the BSA's policy is immoral, and plenty of people will agree with you.

 

You call the BSA the KKK, and equate it's members to Klansmen, and you've jumped off the bridge of total nonsense.

[Stosh]

BSA is a great political target for those wishing to promote an agenda.

 

BSA = Anti-gay, but so are many Christian organizations. But to politically take them on will offend more people, so BSA is a better target.

 

BSA = Anti-religious, again the Atheists are the only ones really jumping on this.

 

BSA = Anti-female, but GSA is anti-male, but one doesn't want to upset the female segment of society.

 

What has always amazed me is why there are so many people out there that are anti-scouting when they have no real interest in joining a group that doesn't meet their needs or interests. I don't want to be part of an all-female group, but I don't go out and say things against them. I don't want to be part of a gay group because my goals in life don't match up with theirs. Although atheists are defined in non-believers in God, they in fact believe there is no God which makes them believers in many respects. They really don't have any groups to join, so it becomes a moot point in the long run.

 

When all is said and done, I respect and tolerate the beliefs and agendas of others. Their situation in life is of no concern of mine. I only ask that they allow me the same courtesy. In many respects, courtesy is not much of a dynamic in the American society of today. With all the zero-tolerance policies out there and the promotion of such for our children, I don't see it changing any time soon.

 

Stosh

[perdidochas]

It's not "Thou shalt not kill." That is a mistranslation (St. Jerome did a poor job on that one). The better translation is "Thou shalt not murder."

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Although atheists are defined in non-believers in God, they in fact believe there is no God which makes them believers in many respects.

 

Well no, but I'm sure you don't care about being accurate or anything.

[Peregrinator]

It's not "Thou shalt not kill." That is a mistranslation (St. Jerome did a poor job on that one). The better translation is "Thou shalt not murder."

 

I don't think we can pin this one on St. Jerome (how might we blame him for an English translation anyway?). Exodus 20:13 in the Vulgate is "non occides", and "occides" isn't simply "kill":

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/occides

 

Now "murder" isn't exactly accurate either as it isn't a broad enough term.

[CalicoPenn]

"If you're a Christian and support the death penalty, or war, then frankly, you're not a real Christian - you're a fraud. The Commandment is "Thou Shalt Not Kill" There is no exceptions in that statement. There isn't a sentence that comes after those words that say "except in the case of war or in cases where the state kills people in your name to punish them"."

 

Apparently some folks missed the part that explains my thinking (See above) on why I think if you claim to be a Christian but support war or the death penalty you are a fraud - a Christian in name only. By all means, if I missed the theology that explains how some one can ignore a basic precept in the Ten Commandments and call themselves a true Christian, enlighten me - but see if you can do so in a Christian manner, without attacking someone who believes differently than you do. It's so much easier to just claim that someone is wrong and intolerant than defending one's theology. Defend it - don't just tell me I'm wrong - tell me how I'm wrong. If you can't tell me how I'm wrong, I can only maintain that I am, in fact, correct in my analysis.

 

"It's not "Thou shalt not kill." That is a mistranslation (St. Jerome did a poor job on that one). The better translation is "Thou shalt not murder." "

 

Well, I've heard this argument before - the problem is that the roots of the word "murder" don't go as far back as the old language the Bible was originally written in so the correct translation is still more likely to be "Kill" and the attempts to re-translate it to "Murder" is an attempt to soften the commandment to allow for things such as war or the death penalty. Sorry, I'm not going to buy that argument - if you can re-translate passages of the bible to mean things that they didn't originally mean, or to make it fit your view of what scriptures say, then it makes the Bible nothing but a book of fairy tales.

 

" your argument will be valid if and when the BSA becomes classified as a hate group"

 

Ok, Sentinel, who gets to make the declaration that the BSA is a "hate group"? Or at least whose judgment that they are a hate group will you accept? There are people already out there calling the BSA a hate group. I tend to disagree with them, but it's out there. There are people believing the people who call it a hate group. I wish they wouldn't but there it is. I imagine the folks who are in the KKK are upset that people call them a hate group too.

 

But what's important is you are, despite my warning, thinking I'm comparing the KKK to the BSA - and that's not what I'm doing at all. I'm asking you to think about how something might be the right thing in one instance and is not the right thing in another instance and what made the difference.

 

 

 

[Peregrinator]

By all means, if I missed the theology that explains how some one can ignore a basic precept in the Ten Commandments and call themselves a true Christian

 

You've misunderstood the precept. Probably the best description of it can be found in the old Roman Catechism:

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/TenCommandments-fifth.shtml

 

Your absolutist reading of the Commandment would also rule out killing in self-defense.

[Sentinel947]

Just because some people in society have misappropriated a term doesn't make it the correct term.

 

A hate group is defined as thus:

 

"A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society. According to the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), hate groups' "primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization."[1] The Southern Poverty Law Center's (SPLC) definition of a "hate group" includes those having beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.[2]"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_group

 

Does the BSA advocate and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards gays and atheists? Is the BSA's primary purpose to promote animosity, hostility, and malice?

 

And the people who generally define a Hate Group are the FBI, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti Defamation League. None of these groups have classified the BSA has a hate group yet.

[Eagledad]

>>Well, I've heard this argument before - the problem is that the roots of the word "murder" don't go as far back as the old language the Bible was originally written in so the correct translation is still more likely to be "Kill" and the attempts to re-translate it to "Murder" is an attempt to soften the commandment to allow for things such as war or the death penalty. Sorry, I'm not going to buy that argument - if you can re-translate passages of the bible to mean things that they didn't originally mean, or to make it fit your view of what scriptures say, then it makes the Bible nothing but a book of fairy tales.

[packsaddle]

"... if you can re-translate passages of the bible to mean things that they didn't originally mean, or to make it fit your view of what scriptures say, then it makes the Bible nothing but a book of fairy tales."

Heh, heh, you just reminded me of that quote from Father Reginald Foster, "...these are all nice stories, you know..", lol.

 

You guys are bringing all kinds of smiles to me today, thanks. I even get to quote TheScout again: "The purpose of religion isn't to bring people together." Gotta love him.

[Beavah]

By all means, if I missed the theology that explains how some one can ignore a basic precept in the Ten Commandments and call themselves a true Christian, enlighten me

 

Yah, da Ten Commandments of the Torah are from the Hebrew Scriptures, eh? They're not explicitly Christian, and don't define Christendom. The Jews who transcribed those commandments were not fundamentalists in the way you seem to imply. They weren't bound by the literal word, but valued the Oral Tradition as also having been handed down on Mt. Sinai, and preserved in various forms through Midrash, the Mishnah, and later the Talmud. Study and prayerful commentary on the Torah is valued, with volumes of commentary to help clarify and explore all of the meanings and applications of the commandments in different contexts.

 

Da fundamentalist notion that it's all there in the literal text is a rather odd notion that was a byproduct of da Reformation, when sola scriptura became a rallying cry against da Catholic notion of lockin' up all da oral tradition in a priestly class. Until that time, that sort of biblical literalism was never part of Judaism or Christianity.

 

I'm told by Hebraic scholars, BTW, that "murder" is da closer translation for the original text.

 

From a Christian perspective, da whole of da Law and Prophets is summed up in the commandments to love God with your whole heart, and to love your neighbor as yourself. There is great debate within da Christian community on da morality of war or fighting of any kind. Which neighbor are we to love? Assad who is killing his own people? Or those people who are being killed? Certainly both, eh? If I were harming others and the only way to stop me was to shoot me, would I want someone to do that? Is my love of self limitless, or limited? If I were among da victims, would I wish to be saved, even at da cost of another's life?

 

These are hard questions, eh? Yeh should not judge others based on superficialities when dealin' with such hard questions.

 

Beavah

 

 

 

[Brewmeister]

Faith is difficult.