BSA blog carnival

[Eagle732 27]

There's plenty of people that think the other way too Merlyn.

 

NJ, you even tolerate people with red noses and big shoes?

[Eagle92 110]

Agree with 732. I remember when Scouting for All protested at the council office the national shop I worked at was located. They protested the DALE decision, and the council had a ton of calls. FWIW, A lot of people thought the BSA lost the case until SFA protested the decision.

 

Prior to DALE, one CO completely dropped the unit because they believed the BSA would lose the case.

[Brewmeister 132]

More of the same crap...we don't like the BSA but we're not going to come up with alternative because that would be something positive and, you know, like, actual work. Instead we're going to sit at our keyboards and complain loudly that you should change.

 

It's the ultimate in cowardice.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Looks like some of the BSA's biggest supporters are also the biggest whiners when other people decide to simply stop dealing with the BSA. Seriously, how did you expect people to react?

[Sentinel947 1205]

Considering they regularly contribute to an Atheist Secularist blog, I highly doubt they were really supporting the BSA to begin with.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

And those grapes were probably sour anyway, right?

 

Just ignore all the bloggers who actually were in scouts.

[Sentinel947 1205]

I'll ignore them if I please. They were in Scouts. Glad to hear that. I hope they had a good time and it made them good citizens.

 

They no longer support the BSA, sorry to hear that, glad they have strong convictions, something we want our Scouts and former Scouts to have.

 

Them sitting outside of the organization sniping it with their cute little "boycott" on money that isn't affecting National is as hilarious as it is useless. It's like a bunch of Chihuahua's yapping at a Bear. Noble, and completely useless. I'm sure the 30 or so of you guys on that blog will make great strides against BSA National and lead a groundswell of people to boycotting the local troop and their hate filled Christmas trees.

 

Before you say I'm whining about people pulling their donations, I'm not, I'm merely remarking at the conviction your blogger seems to have that stopping small local donations is going to do anything to BSA National.

 

Furthermore your blogger villifying little children as gay bashers and haters didn't sit well with me.

 

"Because as they are working to build up one part of the community, they are simultaneously working to destroy a sense of community acceptance for others."

 

Perhaps he meant "They" to be the BSA, but since the Boys do Community service, not an organization, I can't help but see it as an attack on children. I'm sure this is the part where you will insult my reading comprehension skills.

 

He can go after National, he can go after the "vehement" Adult Scouters like myself, he should not be attacking children who do not set the policy and don't know what the issue is.

 

Now the Corporate Donors, they might actually make some progress with National. When the CEO of AT&T gets in, I'm hoping for some progress on the issue.

 

Out of sheer curiosity Merlyn, my friend, (I think I can use that term perhaps?) why do you post links like this? Do you expect everyone here to suddenly adopt your viewpoints, or do you merely enjoy arguing with us or getting rises out of SeattlePioneer and some of our more conservative members?

 

Respectfully yours,

Sentinel947

 

(edited for visual clarity)(This message has been edited by Sentinel947)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Sorry, I can't see it as anything other than whining; if pulling their support is useless, why do you even bother commenting about it?

 

It's also hypocritical in my view to complain how such a boycott is an attack on children; the BSA's policy of throwing out atheist children is at least as much of an attack.

 

And I started this thread to illustrate public pushback against the BSA's policies. It's hardly the only example, it's just more recent.

[Sentinel947 1205]

So Merlyn are you saying you should fight a bad policy of discrimination against children by attacking children? When you fight fire with fire, everyone gets burned.

 

Your boycott is not an attack on children. You misunderstand me. Your blogger saying: "Because as they are working to build up one part of the community, they are simultaneously working to destroy a sense of community acceptance for others."

 

That is what I am whining about. And that is an attack on the integrity of the children in the program. Since the word "They" applies to those doing the community service in the previous line, your bloggers statement could read;

 

"The young men of the BSA are working to build up one part of the community, they are simultaneously working to destroy a sense of community acceptance for others."

 

This is simply untrue. Our boys do great community service work for local churches, schools, the elderly and the poor. They have no control or comprehension of the gay ban.

 

Everyone has the right to decide where they donate their hard earned money or scarce time, there's nothing wrong with deciding the BSA isn't worth either because of it's policy.

 

I welcome the pushback against the BSA's misguided policy. More or less you and I are on the same side here Merlyn. The BSA's demonization of gay/atheist children is wrong. Your bloggers demonization of children in Scouts as destroyers of part of the community is equally as wrong.

 

 

Respectfully yours,

Sentinel947.

 

(edited for clarity)(This message has been edited by Sentinel947)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

So Merlyn are you saying you should fight a bad policy of discrimination against children by attacking children? When you fight fire with fire, everyone gets burned.

 

I have no problem with people having nothing to do with the BSA, including not buying trees, popcorn, etc.

 

I welcome the pushback against the BSA's misguided policy. More or less you and I are on the same side here Merlyn. The BSA's demonization of gay/atheist children is wrong. Your bloggers demonization of children in Scouts as destroyers of part of the community is equally as wrong.

 

So write him and tell him. I see SeattlePioneer has been whining on that blog.

[Sentinel947 1205]

Alright, I think I will write a short comment.

 

Thanks,

Sentinel947.

 

 

[Brewmeister 132]

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT!!!

 

Seems to me that recent criticism was leveled in here for lumping the anti-theism and pro-sodomy constituencies together.

 

So...now they are connected?

[skeptic 997]

While there might be a few unfortunate units whose adult leadership overreacts to a kid still searching his way in life, almost always, the real issue is the result of parents and other adults thinking using the kids as pawns for their own agenda is okay. Certainly, most leaders would not "kick a kid out" for legitimate personal searching, especially those that are younger. The average kid will not "personally" be bringing these issues up until after 14 or 15. At that point, it may need to become a point of discussion with unit leaders.

 

But, if the choice is made at that point, then it is part of life to understand that we cannot expect others to simply accept our opinions and change. That is not telling them their opinion is wrong, it is simply helping them live in the real world where choices have consequences.

 

If the parent, who should understand at joining the BSA requirements, makes it an issue, then they are the ones in error, because their children have become pawns in their own personal agendas.

 

I would prefer National make a major redirection regarding the Gay issue, putting it back into the unit as a decision, unless it is pushed by the PC groups into the public. And I actually feel that change will occur sooner than later. The atheist/agnostic issue is not something I see as a problem, as God or similar spiritual incarnations are part and parcel of Scouting, worldwide. Take it out, and you no longer have the same program. Parents need to understand that is the case and simply find other outlets for their kids, or allow the kids to participate while they do their own personal search.

 

Those that attack the kids, as Sentinel says, are completely out of line; and I will tell them so should they do it in front of me. Freedom of "choice" is pretty clear; but it is "your" choice, not mine. And you do not have the right to force it on me or others when you have the option of simply "not choosing to participate". Sorry if that is too simplistic for our more erudite practitioners of political philosophy.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Connected how, brewmeister? Are you unfamiliar with people being opposed to two different forms of discrimination at the same time?

 

skeptic, how about some actual examples of parents using their kids as pawns?

 

Those that attack the kids, as Sentinel says, are completely out of line; and I will tell them so should they do it in front of me. Freedom of "choice" is pretty clear; but it is "your" choice, not mine. And you do not have the right to force it on me or others when you have the option of simply "not choosing to participate". Sorry if that is too simplistic for our more erudite practitioners of political philosophy.

 

THINK of the CHILDREN!!!!!eleven!!!

 

[Brewmeister 132]

My point is that in previous discussions we were admonished for connecting the two.

 

For all the talk of "coexisting," anti-theists sure don't have a lot of tolerance for organizations that do not share their belief system.