Cub Scouts to Boot Atheist

[ethics]

The Chief Seattle Council of the Boy Scouts has given Eagle Scout Darrell Lambert about a week to decide "in his heart" if he's truly an atheist. If he insists on sticking to his belief that there is no God, the Council will terminate his membership.
"No way" is he going to change his beliefs, says Lambert, who has been in scouting since he was 9 years old. "It'd be like me asking them to change their belief. It's not going to happen."

His beliefs, if unchanged, give the Scouts no choice, says Brad Farmer, council's Scout executive in Seattle.

In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Boy Scouts' right as a private organization to ban certain members. The Scouts exclude atheists and gays.

What the...

<a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134564883_boyscout29m.html">This article points out</a> that The 19-year-old has earned 37 merit badges, been a quartermaster and three-time senior patrol leader, and now he's an assistant Scoutmaster and a field leader in training as part of the Search and Rescue Program. In his senior year in high school, he racked up more than 1,000 hours of community service.

He doesn't believe in smoking or taking illegal drugs. His mom offered to take him out for a drink when he turns 21. But he doesn't believe in drinking alcohol.

And he doesn't believe in God — not since the ninth grade.

Can a person be a Scout if they believe in a gay God?

Needless to say, if I am Daryll, I snip my good, well merited association with that paramilitary group! ;)

[Misu]

Being it is a private organization, they can exclude whoever they want, as long as they don't violate civil rights. Last time I checked, athiests were not protected under the civil right's act.

Sucks how that whole 'freedom of religion' thing seems to disappear, however.

[jamming]

Freedom of Religion, seems many think it reads "freedom from religion." Go Scouts!

[ShinyTop]

I am not a believer but back the Scouts right to require belief. Private organization should have the right to determine their own membership requirements.

[FrankF]

[i]...In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Boy Scouts' right as a private organization to ban certain members. The Scouts exclude atheists and gays.

The Boy Scouts are and always have been an organization that is closely aligned with the Christian church's beliefs. Christians (especially the ones on the far right) believe that homosexuality is _________ (fill in the blank). And no Christian is an aetheist.

As a private organization, they are allowed to exclude non-Christians and homosexuals, and anybody they choose as long as they don't violate any civil rights laws.

[fritzmp]

Scouts are not a right of inclusion and have rights as well. Your choice in life if it excludes you from the intent and guidelines of the organization, and are in conflict, and you choose to proceed and not be honest to your self and the organization, you are living a lie. To demand the organization to brake or bend fundamental founding princeables is also wrong. The two do neither any good. I am sure the Scouts feel that though Daryll may not believe in God, God believes in him and was a recipient of the moral foundation that he inherited as a Scout.

He must go his way, if he is to be true to him self.

[ShinyTop]

Their rights to determine their membership do not mean we cannot choose to not contribute and/or not particpate as adult counselors, etc. That is the proper way to object to their policies.

[ethics]

Originally posted by ShinyTop
Their rights to determine their membership do not mean we cannot choose to not contribute and/or not particpate as adult counselors, etc. That is the proper way to object to their policies.

Precisely.

And Jamming, any belief in a higher deity?

The Eagle Scout award isn't just a checkbox item, it's the BSA's highest honor. To think that you would qualify for such an honor without living up to the basic membership criteria of the organization implies a massive failure... either to communicate or to understand expectations. Perhaps both.

But I agree, Darryl should abide by the rules.

Darryl, pick Thor! You can be at the forefront of the upcoming Norse God revival!

Let's practice together, shall we...

When someone sneezes, you say "Thor bless you."

When something bad happens, you say "Oh, Thor, not again."

When you're angry at something, you say "Thor damn it!"

Plus you can carry a huge hammer anywhere you want under the pretense of practicing your religion.


Pathetic rule, folks, whether legal or not, it's pretty pathetic.

[fritzmp]

Just as Protestants are not running over to the Catholic Parish to drop a check in their plate or going to confession, true.

[fritzmp]

Originally posted by ethics

Pathetic rule, folks, whether legal or not, it's pretty pathetic.

No it's not. You may be by American Standards A good citizen living in the world, you may even get a Nobel prize, but you don't get Social Security check if your an Irishman from Ireland.

Believe it or not people are entitled to their belief and to demand the organization to bend to pressure of inclusion directly in conflict to it's principals is just as intolerent.

[ethics]

Originally posted by fritzmp
No it's not. You may be by American Standards A good citizen living in the world, you may even get a Nobel prize, but you don't get Social Security check if your an Irishman from Ireland.

I am not arguing the legalities of this. For all I care, the BSA can remain the primitive dogma organization that they are till the day I die.

What I question is the morals of this. The guy has to believe in God in order to be good enough to belong to BSA?

Incidently, South Park had an episode regarding the gays in BSA. Ironically, Big Gay Al, who talks with a lisp, wears bright clothes, and does not hide his homosexuality, was booted from the BSA because they thought he was going to molest little kids.

They bring this Patton wannabe who drills the kids and in the meantime takes pictures of them in the buff.

Moral of the story? It's not your sexual preference that makes you a pedophile, it's individuals who are sick.

Gays and atheists are none of the above.

[fritzmp]

The Scouts don't want to have to placate the fears of the parents and it's not their job. I was a Scout and was at summer camp ware a scout leader from another troop hung him self wile waiting for the police to arrive after being busted for molesting a kid. Sorry ethics the Scouts don't even want the inference of danger to children and it's not their job to educate parents. Trying to, the result wold be the troops would die and the good work they do would die with it.

Striate people out number Gays 9 to 1 and parents reasoning of Gays wanting to do such work leads to confusion on the minds of strait people.

[Coot]

As an atheist, I don't have a problem with the BSA doing whatever they hell they want. Truth be told, the BSA does a lot of good in the community.

Kicking out a 19 year old Eagle Scout over his religious stand werks for me. I was a Boy Scout..quit it around 14 or 15 because it was beginning to interfere in my fun. My son was also a Boy Scout, and he stayed with it until he was 17 and an Eagle Scout. That was purely his choice.

The article specifically says he's a Boy Scout, and not an Explorer Scout. 19 and still in the Boy Scouts is enough reason to send him on his way IMHO.

What I really have a hard time fathoming is how any atheist can take offense at the petty and ridiculous demands of any religiously oriented organization with which they choose to affiliate. Atheism is not some moral or ethical stance that has to be defended...if you're truly an atheist, it defends itself in your own logic. Now if the government should declare apostasy a crime, I'd still be inclined to keep my mouth shut...provided I wasn't compelled to set foot in a house of worship and pantomime obeissance.

[RRedline]

Originally posted by jamming
Freedom of Religion, seems many think it reads "freedom from religion." Go Scouts! Think about how silly that statement really is.

They claim that they will accept ANY deity? Yeah, right. That is a bunch of PC bullshit. How about he decided to believe in an omnipotent space alien named Mr. Bojangles? Then would they accept him? Or does he have to believe in one of the gods on the Boy Scouts' list? And just where is that list? I would LOVE to see it.

What I would like to know is why isn't this guy telling the Boy Scouts to shove their Christian, anti-homosexual club us their asses? I certainly would if I were in his position.

And even if he said, "Oh, you're all right...I do believe in God after all. What was I thinking? Yeah, that's right...I believe in God now." Then would those asshats be okay with him? It sounds to me that they don't really want him to BELIEVE in God. They just want him to ENDORSE God.

Where's that middle finger smiley, ethics? :(

[RRedline]

Originally posted by ethics
Precisely.

And Jamming, any belief in a higher deity?

The Eagle Scout award isn't just a checkbox item, it's the BSA's highest honor. To think that you would qualify for such an honor without living up to the basic membership criteria of the organization implies a massive failure... either to communicate or to understand expectations. Perhaps both.

But I agree, Darryl should abide by the rules.

Darryl, pick Thor! You can be at the forefront of the upcoming Norse God revival!

Let's practice together, shall we...

When someone sneezes, you say "Thor bless you."

When something bad happens, you say "Oh, Thor, not again."

When you're angry at something, you say "Thor damn it!"

Plus you can carry a huge hammer anywhere you want under the pretense of practicing your religion.


Pathetic rule, folks, whether legal or not, it's pretty pathetic.
I agree with you completely. I suggested an omnipotent space alien, but Thor, Ra, Athena, etc., those would all be wonderful choices. They would then counter with a list of gods from which to choose from. Of course, they would love to just say, "You have to be Christian," but even they have to be PC. Unfortunately, atheists are regarded as scumbags by most of the world, so nobody cares when they get shunned.

I understand that what the BSA are doing may be legal, but they are no different from the KKK, in my opinion. They preach INTOLERANCE, just in a different form. "Atheists aren't good enough for our stupid ass club."

This guy should make up his own god or use a mythological one. Then when they say he can't do that(and they will), he should tell them that their STUPID ASS club is not good enough for HIM! It's their loss because this guy must be pretty decent to have been selected for the honor.

They just want an endorsement. If they truly wanted him to actualyl BELIEVE in a god, they would just kick him out and not bother asking any questions. Nobody goes from being an atheist to having devout faith in a religion over night. So what if he just tells them he believes in God? They can't prove that he doesn't.

[Steve]

I was in the Boy Scouts and the organization only requires belief in a higher power; there were Hindus, Muslims, Jews, etc. All services were pretty non-denominational...not that a bunch of teenage boys paid much attention.

Freedom OF religions means that the beliefs or non-beliefs of others cannot be forced upon private individuals, or private organizations.

It does NOT mean, as the American public so often misconstrues the phrase, that the practice of religion is prohibited except in churches.

Jews are not allowed to Knights of Columbus; Hindus cannot be Masons; athiests cannot be Boy Scouts; schools may not teach religious doctrines. These are all part and parcel of our society and represent the broad extent of freedoms granted us.

The issues are not with this young man's accomplishments as a Boy Scout; the sole issue lies with his professed athiesm, which is anathema to the Boy Scouts' codes of conduct. As a private organization, they excercise the right to freedom of religion no less than each one us does, including the young fellow who practices no religion at all.

[ethics]

Stevent, no one is saying anything about legalities. I believe we all agree that as a private organization, they can do what they want.

What gets us, however, is how exclusive BAS is towards certain American children.

[Sunriser13]

The legality of what the BSA is doing is not in question.

The crime to me is that with all the complaints we have with our youth today, this young man is an exemplary example of so many of the values we hold dear: citizenship, intelligence, perseverence, charity, honesty, and leadership. It's a shame he can't be allowed to remain to teach others these qualities...

[fritzmp]

Start a fork organization.

The guidelines are the guidelines. I don't tell Organized Religion how to run their affairs nor do I attend. No crime no foul. You agree or you don't. Get on with your life.

[ethics]

Originally posted by fritzmp
The guidelines are the guidelines. I don't tell Organized Religion how to run their affairs nor do I attend. No crime no foul. You agree or you don't. Get on with your life.

Fritz, for the 3rd time, no one is challenging the laws of BAS.
Yes, they are the guidelines, but the guidelines stinky-poo.


The gripes are coming from the morality point of view.

[drslash]

Originally posted by RRedline
I understand that what the BSA are doing may be legal, but they are no different from the KKK, in my opinion. They preach INTOLERANCE, just in a different form. "Atheists aren't good enough for our stupid ass club." Well...glad to see we have an authority on what the Boy Scouts are and do. What you don't know about the Boy Scouts is a lot.

I have been involved with Boy Scouts for 5 years. We do things like collect food for the local food bank, camp out, learn fire safety, learn safe swimming, test our athletic ability, learn about our governments and good citizenship, learn first aid, learn naturalism and conservation of our world's precious resources, race pinewood derby cars, put on skits, entertain the community with a haunted trail, play games, and make bird feeders to just name a few.

The Scouts offer Religious Emblems for the following faiths. These are neither mandatory or encouraged. If a parent and Scout decide to do the work in the Scout book to receive the emblem, it is by their own choosing.
Armenian: Diocese of the Armenian Church of America
Association of Unity Churches
Baha'i
Baptist
Buddhist
Christian Church (Disciple of Christ)
Churches of Christ
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS)
Eastern Orthodox
Eastern-Rite Catholic Churches
Episcopal
First Church of Christ, Scientist
Hindu
Islamic
Jewish
Lutheran
Meher Baba
Polish National Catholic
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Protestant (Available to any Christian denomination)
Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Roman Catholic
The Salvation Army
United Church of Christ
United Methodist

[Steve]

My sentiments, exactly, fritzmp. Martin Luther, when faced with the corruption of the Catholic Church, didn't scream about his rights being violated. He started his own religion.

Exclusivity is a simple fact of life. We all practice it to some extent or another, whether consciously or not. There exist innumerable organizations and causes to which I am not eligible for membership.

I make no stink about it.

In point of fact, our very educational system, which I must point out is an entitlement and cannot be denied to any child for any reason, is exclusive, depending on the tax base and location of the school.

The underlying message lesson this young man needs to learn is that life isn't fair. We can phrase it using any number of platitudes and bromades, but it's a simple, universal truth and one that it's a shame has taken him 19 years to figure out.

[fritzmp]

Originally posted by ethics
Fritz, for the 3rd time, no one is challenging the laws of BAS.
Yes, they are the guidelines, but the guidelines stinky-poo.


The gripes are coming from the morality point of view.

Who's to say they are wrong? You. They are right in their mind. They mite be right. I am open minded enough to give them the right to see it their way. I am not right in all aspects of what the Most High stands on, on any given subject, but I 'm sure I'll find out one day.

[mikeky]

Of course the Boy Scouts goal is not to evangelize, but I wonder if being around others of good character, etc., that have faith might have caused him to reconsider his beliefs. Perhaps the fear is that he would negatively influence others in their belief?

[Steve]

I wouldn't say "fear" is exactly the concern. Quite frankly, I would imagine the Boy Scouts are sorry to lose an apparently fine member who only fails on one issue. In fact, the personal belief system he described in the article could probably fit into the Boy Scout structure, except that he qualifies it by explicitly stating he doesn't believe in a higher power.

[ethics]

Originally posted by fritzmp
Who's to say they are wrong? You. They are right in their mind. They mite be right. I am open minded enough to give them the right to see it their way. I am not right in all aspects of what the Most High stands on, on any given subject, but I 'm sure I'll find out one day.

Perhaps I am wrong, but we aren't speaking of politics in which certain things are black and white--isn't that ironic?

TO exclude gays and atheists shows me more about this organization that I wasn't aware of before. For that reason, I am no longer monetarily supporting it in any way shape or form.

If I find out Girl Scouts of America are doing the same thing, out goes the brownies from my funding also.

I honestly do not think it has anything to do with rights and wrongs, it's a question of taste and morals. It goes against mine but they mend in with yours.

[Techie2000]

I am pissed. I am an atheist, and a former boy scout. In fact I am having urges to burn all my badges and my uniform. The Boy Scouts I will admit they do good things, however the fact of the matter is that they are racists! Would you accept help from the KKK?

[drslash]

Oooh...another hissy fit.

Racism is the last thing you will find in the Boy Scouts.

Another reference to the KKK. You and Rredline only wish the Boy Scouts were like the KKK. That would justify your ignorance and hatred.

[Sunriser13]

Slightly OT, but a little ironic, nonetheless...

The parents were crowded into a back room in the basement of a chapel at the Washington Veterans' Home in Retsil, Kitsap County, while their children celebrated Halloween.

This discussion occurred in a chapel while the children celebrated Halloween, a pagan holiday...

[drslash]

Originally posted by ethics
...I am no longer monetarily supporting it in any way shape or form. Well, you better cut off funding for your local United Way Chapter as well. Most United Way's still support the Boy Scouts. Some chapters found out how much money they would lose if they quit funding the Boy Scouts and quickly reinstated funding.

[ethics]

Originally posted by drslash
Well, you better cut off funding for your local United Way Chapter as well. Most United Way's still support the Boy Scouts. Some chapters found out how much money they would lose if they quit funding the Boy Scouts and quickly reinstated funding.

On it. Actually, my company supports UW every year. Time to wake up the populace. :)

[Steve]

You know ethics, your approach is correct. You disagree with their policy, so you disavow all support and association with them. That is your right, as it is their right to set such policies.

Now, if we could just get a certain 19-year-old man to understand that...

[jamming]

My Comment had nothing to do with how some are thinking about it. If you want to get technical the Consitution is not so much about freedom of religion or freedom from religion it is about the Government establishing one religion of its own.

However there is as any of these rights, limits are placed upon Religion, you can not sacrifice your firstborn to show your dedication to Divine Being and other such things. Maybe if people would learn to respect others rights to practice their own religion or lack thereof and freedom to associate. Why would someone have to let someone who advocates child molestation in their group such as NAMBA Advocate? Everyone should have the freedom to associate without regard to being inclusive.

Look if you don't like what the Scouts do start your own Club, but picking on them because they offend your sensibilities, is not the way. You do the same thing that upsets you about people picking on gays, your like the Al Sharpton of Gays with that rhetoric.

[Kangaroo]

OT. How does one 'believe in' or 'not believe in' taking drugs, smoking, drinking, sex? These are not things which require faith, they are simply behaviors which exists as observable fact. It is like saying "I don't believe in guns" as if they cannot harm you if you don't believe in them really hard. Sorry, this form of speech has always bothered me.

[ethics]

Some of you have brought on some points, some of them I disagree with and some of what we, the atheists supporters (although I am neither an Atheist nor Gay), are trying to project as to our feelings.

So here's another attempt.

I favor religion to those people that want it, or need it. I think getting on with life makes things a lot easier when you have faith in a higher being. There's no argument that someone from a scientific background, who thinks that this is just an animals' life will have a tougher time living, and tougher time accepting death than someone who has been praying and believing that every action he/she takes will be judged at the end.

Does this make either of the people above more moral, ethical, better, more "good" rather than evil? It would be simplistic to say yes.

Just as it is rather insulting for anyone who is an Atheist and/or Gay to believe that everyone in BAS rejects them because of what? They are less moral, ethical, less of a human being? Weren't all people created equal in the eye of the God in his own image? Or has this evolved over the years in to Orwellian [u]all people are equal, some people just happen to be more equal than others[u]?

Stevent, you brought up a good point that our entire society is set up that way. Our society was also set up to have slaves at one point and for women not to have voting rights. Was it right because it was accepted that way? It sure was legal though and to many--even today-- right.

It is also true that public schools do not allow prayers. But that's not a true comparison since it does allow kids with all religious backgrounds.

[RRedline]

Originally posted by drslash
Well...glad to see we have an authority on what the Boy Scouts are and do. What you don't know about the Boy Scouts is a lot.

I have been involved with Boy Scouts for 5 years. We do things like collect food for the local food bank, camp out, learn fire safety, learn safe swimming, test our athletic ability, learn about our governments and good citizenship, learn first aid, learn naturalism and conservation of our world's precious resources, race pinewood derby cars, put on skits, entertain the community with a haunted trail, play games, and make bird feeders to just name a few. So if the KKK started food drives, did fire safety seminars, taught people how to swim and all about first aid, etc., etc., they would suddenly be ethical in your opinion? If Hitler was nice to kittens, should we stop referring to him as a bad guy? The fact of this matter is that the BSA do not like people who don't worship their god, and they don't like nor do they want people like me in their organization because my sexuality makes me unfit in their eyes.

That's fine with me if they want to be jerks, but don't expect me to overlook their discriminating practices just because they happen to do many positive things for children and the communities. I will neither support the BSA not will I speak highly of them. And when they get all pissy about not being able to use publicly funded buildings like schools, don't be surprised when I tell them to "move on" and to "get over it."

I just want to reinforce what ethics has already pointed out. I do not question their authority to discriminate. After all, black people are not permitted in the KKK, and atheists are not permitted to become priests. I just don't understand why I couldn't be a positive role model for young men? I happen to be homosexual AND an atheist, and I am pretty sure that I am a nicer, more helpful, more caring, more intelligent, more you-name-it person than a lot of the people that the BSA embraces and accepts into their organization. I wish this guy would just tell them to go fuck themselves because I sure would.

[RRedline]

Originally posted by drslash
Oooh...another hissy fit.

Racism is the last thing you will find in the Boy Scouts.

Another reference to the KKK. You and Rredline only wish the Boy Scouts were like the KKK. That would justify your ignorance and hatred. No offense drslash, but you are the one showing ignorance - not me. Your whole argument thus far has been, "They can do it because they do really good things for the community." So what??? The KKK believes in their values the same as the BSA believes that homosexuals and atheists are not good enough for them. How am I ignorant and full of hatred? THEY hate ME - not the other way around. I know that the KKK is worse than the BSA when it comes to discrimination. I used the analogy to make a point.

So if the KKK sold KKK cookies, would you buy them? How about if the proceeds went to needy children(of all races)?

[fritzmp]

I don't think there is a single organization that does 100% that is in tow to my beliefs, but some demonstrate good works and deeds fare beyond the norm. The BSA is one of them. To align the BSA with the KKK is ludicrous and does not help your case.

If a kid that comes to my door from the CYA is working to get new uniforms for their team I will give him 5 bucks. Not because I agree with the Pope, but because I believe in peoples good works and the kid would like a new uniform.

You all need to fight more pressing matters and chose your battles better. The BSA is not learning how to fly planes into sky scrapers.

[Techie2000]

It's not me being ignorant. It is them. Although the boy scouts do good things for the community, I feel that these ideals that the organization holds as a whole are flawed, and in recent years, ever since the gay scout thing, it has become too politicized. Although the national parent organization has been doing all this stuff, in the end most of the control is with the Troop leaders. Something that I feel will in the end serve to benefit the organization. The negative comments I only direct to the people at the top, not at the individual troop leaders, and parents who work hard to support their local troop and their efforts.

[drslash]

Originally posted by RRedline
I happen to be homosexual AND an atheist, and I am pretty sure that I am a nicer, more helpful, more caring, more intelligent, more you-name-it person than a lot of the people that the BSA embraces and accepts into their organization. I wish this guy would just tell them to go fuck themselves because I sure would. That filthy mouth of yours makes you sound like a nice person.:rolleyes:

[drslash]

Originally posted by RRedline
No offense drslash, but you are the one showing ignorance - not me. Your whole argument thus far has been, "They can do it because they do really good things for the community." So what??? The KKK believes in their values the same as the BSA believes that homosexuals and atheists are not good enough for them. How am I ignorant and full of hatred? THEY hate ME - not the other way around. I know that the KKK is worse than the BSA when it comes to discrimination. I used the analogy to make a point.

So if the KKK sold KKK cookies, would you buy them? How about if the proceeds went to needy children(of all races)? My point was to show what the Scouts don't do by showing what they do. I'll spell it out more clearly for you, the Scouts do not preach hatred for anyone, they do not pray at den meetings, they do not use vulgar language around the Scouts, the Scouts don't have a political agenda, and the leaders do not smoke or drink alcohol around the Scouts, to name a few.

I certainly don't hate you and I don't think the Scouting organization hates you. They just don't want you to be a Scout leader. I, for one, would have no problem with a gay man being a Scout leader if he left his sexual practices at home. I feel the same way about a heterosexual man that likes to watch pornography. If he leaves that at home, no problem. I would have a problem with either Scout leader if they were doing something they weren't suppose to be doing, say for instance, they were showing their tattoos to the Scouts and telling them how cool it is to have a tattoo. I would take that up directly with the person. I would consider this leader not up to the standards expressed in the Scout charter.

IMO the Boy Scouts are one of the most benign organizations around who's sole interest is to get parents to spend some time with their kids and pass on the traditions of scouting to young boys and young men.

[jamming]

Originally posted by RRedline
BSA believes that homosexuals and atheists are not good enough for them. How am I ignorant and full of hatred? THEY hate ME - not the other way around.

This is where you go way wrong, they don't HATE you, they just don't want you in a leadership position in their private organization. If they hate you they would be out there getting their, "Shoot the Fag!" Merit Badge.

Why does the desire that some people have not to have you in a leadership position, equal hate. Does any one that doesn't want to have something with Gay People equal hate? I think not, but evidently you do. If I don't want to have anything to do with red headed people, does that mean I hate them or does that mean that every time I see them I think of CarrotTop commercials. (This is a fictional For Instance)

Dislike or avoidance does not always equal HATE.

[Coot]

If identification or scouting is of paramount importance to anyone feeling adversely affected by the BSA stated principles, they are free to establish the Gay Scouts of America or the Atheist Scouts of America. The GSA, would of course cause much confusion and no small amount of derision. ;)

[RRedline]

Originally posted by jamming
Look if you don't like what the Scouts do start your own Club, but picking on them because they offend your sensibilities, is not the way. You do the same thing that upsets you about people picking on gays, your like the Al Sharpton of Gays with that rhetoric. I'm not really picking on them. If they want to have a no-gays/no-atheists club, they are free to do it. I am not suggesting we force them to allow someone in their organization. I am just suggesting that I don't like how they exclude certain groups. If you think I am like Al Sharpton, then you are sadly mistaken. There is nothing frivolous about speaking your mind. Al Sharpton does more than just that - he goes so far as digging up racism where even other blacks can not. Look at the recent crap he and Jesse Jackson pulled over the movie <i>Barbershop</i>. I am not crusading to get laws changed to force homosexuals and atheists into the BSA. I don't see how comparing me to Al Sharpton is very fair at all.

All I'm saying is SCREW THEM. I wish this 19 year old had the sensibilities to say the same thing. It truly is their loss.

[ethics]

Originally posted by RRedline
I'm not really picking on them. If they want to have a no-gays/no-atheists club, they are free to do it. I am not suggesting we force them to allow someone in their organization. I am just suggesting that I don't like how they exclude certain groups.

I think this is the only point you, myself, and techie(among others) have stated.

I am not sure why everyone is getting overly defensive about it. I am not threatening to go to courts to admit Atheists and Gays, we are just pointing out that BSA's policy is a little weak.

[jamming]

So there is no one you would ever exclude as a group from a group that you hang out with?

[RRedline]

Originally posted by fritzmp
I don't think there is a single organization that does 100% that is in tow to my beliefs, but some demonstrate good works and deeds fare beyond the norm. The BSA is one of them. To align the BSA with the KKK is ludicrous and does not help your case. I am not comparing the BSA to the KKK! I am simply applying some other posters' logic in defending the BSA to another group of people(KKK). Drslash defended them by listing a bunch of positive things that the BSA does for the community. Nobody is disputing that at all. I KNOW the BSA does wonderful things for out young men and our communities. However, I can't overlook how they discriminate against gays and atheists just because of the nice things they do. I simply separated the BSA from the argument to try to simplify my own personal logical approach to the issue. Most people hate the KKK because they are racist assholes. Since most people do not like racism(many do support discriminating against gays and atheists), I thought it would be a perfect example. If they started doing all the good things that the BSA does, and they continued to spread hatred and racism on the weekends, would we all overlook the bad and focus only on the good they do? Of course not! So why do the same thing with the BSA? Of course, I just assumed that people would be against excluding homosexuals and atheists from an organization designed to build character in our young men, but I guess maybe I was wrong.

Please, everyone stop accusing me of "comparing" the BSA to the KKK. I simply argued that I would not overlook bad things that the KKK does, so why should I overlook things the BSA does that I don't agree with? That's all. I don't care if they have bake sales and visit the elderly in nursing homes. Their stance is that I am not fit to guide their young members, so FUCK THEM. What they are doing is perfectly legal, but still I say, FUCK THEM. Fuck them, fuck them, fuck them. That is a brief summary of how I look at this. I am not trying to break up their club or force them to allow me in it. F U C K T H E M .

Oh yeah, and I say the same thing to the KKK. :happy:

[ethics]

Originally posted by jamming
So there is no one you would ever exclude as a group from a group that you hang out with?

Based on their beliefs or lack of religion? Or even gender preferences in bed?

I tend to exclude assholes, it's a fine method. ;)

[RRedline]

Originally posted by ethics
I think this is the only point you, myself, and techie(among others) have stated.

I am not sure why everyone is getting overly defensive about it. I am not threatening to go to courts to admit Atheists and Gays, we are just pointing out that BSA's policy is a little weak. Thank you for understanding my point! I wish the 19 year old would just flip them the bird and move on.

Comparing me to Al Sharpton is insane! I am not suggesting a lawsuit or trying to extort money from the BSA. I am just suggesting that people like the guy in the article tell them where to go and move on. I don't agree with their stupid rules, and I am glad that they have been kicked out of public establishments. I understand how that can make people reading this very angry with me because I know that the BSA probably meant a lot to some in here.

I am still waiting for someone to give me a rational explanation for why they exclude homosexuals and atheists, by the way. So far all have read is, "because they can," and, "because they do a lot of really good things for people."

[drslash]

Originally posted by ethics
I think this is the only point you, myself, and techie(among others) have stated.

I am not sure why everyone is getting overly defensive about it. I am not threatening to go to courts to admit Atheists and Gays, we are just pointing out that BSA's policy is a little weak. I'll certainly defend something that I value. When I hear the BSA called haters and racists, you'll find me defending the BSA in any way that I can.

[ethics]

Originally posted by drslash
I'll certainly defend something that I value. When I hear the BSA called haters and racists, you'll find me defending the BSA in any way that I can.

How would you describe them then when they are discriminating (which is what it really is) based on religion (or lack of) and sexual orientation?

Or as Rredline has stated: I am still waiting for someone to give me a rational explanation for why they exclude homosexuals and atheists, by the way. So far all have read is, "because they can," and, "because they do a lot of really good things for people."

[jamming]

Originally posted by ethics
Based on their beliefs or lack of religion? Or even gender preferences in bed?

I tend to exclude assholes, it's a fine method. ;)

I thought we weren't going into gender preferences ;)

See there are things that you are uncomfortable with, now about children are you more or less concerned about what you are comfortable with them? Look one day the BSA may change their stand on this issue, when it is more culturally acceptable. Why does the BSA have to be on the cutting edge of this controversy? Why not let them be what they are representing the mainstream, why do children have to be used by people to deal with this?

When Jefferson didn't free his slaves everyone thinks of how evil he is compared to others who freed them on their deaths. But yet except for this one issue, he did some remarkable things. We hold everyone to a standard of perfection that is ridiculous, are all gays law abiding citizens? What standard will you be found wanting in the future or present? RRedline overreacts with hate and make comparison to the KKK. Robert E. Lee was a Great American, not for all the things he did and believed but for some of what he thought and believed. Martin Luthur King Jr. Had many extramarital affairs, but that doesn't diminish what he did as a Civil Rights Leader. Life has contradictory issues in situations where there is no right answer, but some people keep hammering on about perfection.

Think about a young american man, who goes into Afghanistan in the early 1980's and meets Osama Bin Laden. Did he do something to confirm this madman's beliefs about Americans? Should he realized the rhetoric was aimed at western ideas in general. Could he walk away from brave men and their families which would die, if they didn't have protection from an invading military's assault helicopters. What would you do?

What the heck do you think this is, what if the Scouts pulled their objection and they suffered massive membership losses because of it? How many of the scouting support staff would lose their jobs and what about all the young men that might never have a mostly positive experience in their life. You think that this is a single issue, where all these issues are linked. That the answer is simple and without complication. Lincoln said if he could keep slavery and save the Union he would do so, early on in his presidency. Yet when presented the opportunity to free the slaves in southern states, he seized it. Your arguments are mostly idealistic and thereby unrealistic, change comes but when it is forced upon people there is resistance and more hate.

[drslash]

Originally posted by RRedline
I am still waiting for someone to give me a rational explanation for why they exclude homosexuals and atheists, by the way. So far all have read is, "because they can," and, "because they do a lot of really good things for people." The people that make up the BSA want to carry on an organization that is god fearing and adheres to moral principles (as well as having a structure for young boys and young men to do the traditional scouting activities). Atheism and homosexuality do not, in the opinion of the BSA, and in my opinion, promote spiritual growth and strong moral character developement. The parents of Boy Scouts place much trust in the Scout Leaders. I think it is rational for parents, who share the values of the BSA, to expect the Scout leaders to be god fearing and have strong moral principles. I see the BSA no differently than I would see any other organization that has membership requirements. Isn't it rational to compare the private organization of the BSA to, say for instance, with MENSA? If I don't meet their membership requirements, I can't join.

[Sunriser13]

Ah, but they say the mere acceptance of a higher power, <i>any</i> higher power, would meet their criteria. Apparently a confirmed satanist would be more acceptable than an admitted atheist if one were to read this literally...

The young man's moral principles appear golden.

<small>Edited for spelling error</small>

[ethics]

Originally posted by jamming
[B]
What the heck do you think this is, what if the Scouts pulled their objection and they suffered massive membership losses because of it? How many of the scouting support staff would lose their jobs and what about all the young men that might never have a mostly positive experience in their life.


Whoa there. First of all, the "children" span from 4 to 19, I believe, and a lot older than that. So it's not just about children.

Secondly, if BSA falls because of letting Atheists in, then heck, it had a weak base to begin with if the strongest foundation of BSA was believing in the higher diety.

You, as well as I, know that BSA would not fail, they would adjust just like any other successful organization.

[ethics]

Originally posted by drslash
Isn't it rational to compare the private organization of the BSA to, say for instance, with MENSA? If I don't meet their membership requirements, I can't join.

MENSA is based on merit, a standardized test. BSA membership is whether you fear God (and why should anyone fear Him since he loves everyone?) or not.

I don't think the two are comparable.

[drslash]

Originally posted by ethics
MENSA is based on merit, a standardized test. BSA membership is whether you fear God (and why should anyone fear Him since he loves everyone?) or not.

I don't think the two are comparable. Come on, think about it, you're smart enough...probably smart enough to be able to join MENSA. :)

MENSA will not let someone join using their own definition of intelligence or someone who wants the test score requirement to be overlooked.

Those who have been excluded from the BSA want their definition of character to be used or want a requirement to be overlooked.

I think you know what "fearing God" means. http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=fear

[Coot]

Originally posted by ethics
How would you describe them then when they are discriminating (which is what it really is) based on religion (or lack of) and sexual orientation?

Or as Rredline has stated:

I am still waiting for someone to give me a rational explanation for why they exclude homosexuals and atheists, by the way. So far all have read is, "because they can," and, "because they do a lot of really good things for people."
This is one helluva lot about nothing. The BSA is a private organization that does quite a bit of good. They're also a repressive PRIVATE organization. In answer to the question posed...because they can is a good enough answer. I'm an atheist and what they do has no affect on me. It doesn't cause me to be incensed, feel excluded, feel disenfranchised, sell my first born child or anything else. Since when in the hell did being an atheist, a homosexual, pro plankton, anti Jesus or anything else entitle one to special dispensation with respect to common sense? And that's really what most of this crap is about...common sense.

To be sure, special interests with respect to disaffected 'minorities' is headline news and courtroom drama, but I ask again, how far south of common sense do we need to travel?

RRedline, we agree on a lot of thigs, but why in the hell is it so important for homosexuals to be Boy Scouts? As a white heterosexual middle aged male, I can't be a Girl Scout leader..somehow this doesn't bother me. And don't give me this crap about being male somehow disqualifies me from being a Girl Scout. The point is, why would anyone specifically disqualified from belonging to a private organization raise such hell about such..said..same?

I believe that most churches are nothing more than a gathering place for agenda driven narrow minded tight asses. I have no plans to lobby or demonstrate against them because I think they're morally corrupt and discriminate against atheists. Fact is, on a purely moral level, they do quite a bit of good...as do the Boy Scouts, and I'm perfectly okay with that.

As far as I'm concerned, this debate has turned into another example of a faction demanding tolerance, while the furthest thing from their mind is actually having to give any.

[ethics]

Originally posted by Coot
In answer to the question posed...because they can is a good enough answer.

Perhaps for you, Coot, it doesn't fly by me. Because they can?

How much you want to make a bet that if I start a private organization that excludes Muslims, I would be closed down within a week. Because BSA has enough clout in the government is the real difference between Leon's Scouts of America and BSA.


As far as I'm concerned, this debate has turned into another example of a faction demanding tolerance, while the furthest thing from their mind is actually having to give any. [/B]

Couldn't be further from the truth. Rredline and myself has been saying ad-nauseum that it's not about legaly having what BSA has. It's about taste, morals, and what's right to us. BSA's rules aren't. I am not crying, selling my first born, or losing any sleep. I am airing my opinion in a forum.

[drslash]

Originally posted by ethics
Because BSA has enough clout in the government is the real difference between Leon's Scouts of America and BSA. This has nothing to do with whether the BSA can legally discriminate. The PC view to allow gays in the BSA is rampant in the governament establishment. True, the judicial branch of government permits the BSA rules of free association. That ruling wasn't the result of lobbying. Bill Clinton rejected his title of Honorary BSA President. And to just throw some more fuel on the fire, the Boy Scouts were spat upon at the 2000 democrat national presidential convention. I don't see where the BSA has any clout with the government.

[Steve]

How about "because it is their right"?

It's my right to write a racist novel in which minorities are lynched.

It's my right to march down the street screaming that everyone who doesn't find Jesus will burn in Hell.

It's my right to view pornography and masturbate until my arm falls off.

It's my right to go to the place of worship I choose.

It's my fundamental, "don't screw with me because one of my other rights is to own a gun", "none of anyone's business why and if they don't like too damn bad", right to associate with whomever I choose for any reason I choose.

The BSA has made a decision, based on the history of their organization as being founded in a male-dominated, Christian society, to NOT ASSOCIATE with athiests because it is their RIGHT.

Before condemning the BSA for their choice, we need to closely examine the implications of abrogating those rights.

The wonderful, exasperating dichotomy of the American Constitution is that so much that is good can also encompass, allow, and even encourage so much that our larger society finds reprehensible.

[pupowski]

Originally posted by ethics
For all I care, the BSA can remain the primitive dogma organization that they are till the day I die. They don't see their spiritual and moral beliefs as primitive dogma, nor do I. It is a private group that reflects the wishes of it's sponsors and members, and the philosophy of it's founders. Those that don't like it can join other groups, or go pound sand.

[ethics]

Originally posted by pupowski
It is a private group that reflects the wishes of it's sponsors and members, and the philosophy of it's founders.

Set up in 1903 by?

Back then, everyone was on the primitive dogma, whether you want to admit that or not.

[drslash]

Originally posted by ethics
Set up in 1903 by?

Back then, everyone was on the primitive dogma, whether you want to admit that or not. Glad to hear that you know everything about everyone's beliefs from 100 years ago. Next time I need to know what Gandhi was thinking 100 years ago, I'll ask you.:rolleyes:

[ethics]

Originally posted by drslash
Glad to hear that you know everything about everyone's beliefs from 100 years ago.

Sorry, I should have used "most" instead of everyone.

Baden-Powell founded scouting at the turn of the 20th century. BSA was founded by 1910 not 1903.
I was off by 7 years but not too badly.

This was several decades after Marx procalimed religion as an opiate, and a couple decades after Nietzsche announced the death of God. This was more than 100 years into the history of secular government. Baden-Powell didn't worry that there was too much religion, but too little. He was well aware of secularism... he opposed it.

One of the mistakes we often make when we look at history is that we tend to project current trends backwards. Thus, whatever problems we have now were worse 100 years ago and twice as bad 200 years ago.

Religion is one of those things that doesn't progress in a linear fashion. The dawn of the 20th century was a far more enlightened time than our own in many ways. Women couldn't vote... but our government wasn't in the business of legislating private morality either.

[jamming]

Primitive Dogma is IMHO Atheism, it is what is necessary for one that has no imagination. The first man without any imagination was probably an Atheist. :thumbsup:

[ethics]

Originally posted by jamming
Primitive Dogma is IMHO Atheism, it is what is necessary for one that has no imagination. The first man without any imagination was probably an Atheist. :thumbsup:

While I am not an Atheist, I'd rather be one without so called imagination than a Scientologist with plenty of it. rofl

[jamming]

You mean an Atheist, like Joe Stalin? :_

[RRedline]

Originally posted by drslash
The people that make up the BSA want to carry on an organization that is god fearing and adheres to moral principles (as well as having a structure for young boys and young men to do the traditional scouting activities). Atheism and homosexuality do not, in the opinion of the BSA, and in my opinion, promote spiritual growth and strong moral character developement. Wow, thanks a lot, drslash. I can understand the part about spiritual development, but strong moral character development? Because I don't believe in god or because I am gay, I can not encourage young men to help out their fellow man? I try to follow the Golden Rule(yes, I know it's from the Bible), and back when I was a high school teacher, I tried to impose that on my students. Not once did I ever try to guide young men or women into the homosexual lifestyle, and not once did I discuss religion or spirituality.

If you think that one requires faith in a god and a sexual atraction to the opposite sex to promote strong moral character development, then there is no way that I am going to swing your opinion on this issue. The BSA has every LEGAL right to exclude the people they choose, and I have every right to say that I don't like them for it. I have never thought of the BSA as a "religious" organization until this recent BS that they've started pulling. If they truly have always been a religious organization, then I guess my views towards them has been way off for many years. I will now view them the same way that I view other religious organizations with regards to separation of church and state and their motives for excluding people like me.

Do the BSA teach boys about God, Jesus, etc.? If so, do they pray and have church services? Is there a religion badge? I am curious.

[drslash]

For everyone seeking an alternative to BSA and those who want to redirect their financial resources: SpiralScouts (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200210\CUL20021031b.ht ml)

[RRedline]

Originally posted by Coot
This is one helluva lot about nothing. The BSA is a private RRedline, we agree on a lot of thigs, but why in the hell is it so important for homosexuals to be Boy Scouts? As a white heterosexual middle aged male, I can't be a Girl Scout leader..somehow this doesn't bother me. And don't give me this crap about being male somehow disqualifies me from being a Girl Scout. The point is, why would anyone specifically disqualified from belonging to a private organization raise such hell about such..said..same? Why is it so important for a heterosexual to be a boy scout leader? Why would a homosexual's desires be any different from a heterosexual's? You ask, "Why would they want to be a member," and I ask, "Why wouldn't the BSA want them as members?"

I am still waiting for an answer to my question from many a post ago. The best asnswer that I have gotten so far is that they truly are a religious(Christian?) organization, so they feel that atheists and homosexuals are leading immoral lives and are therefore unfit to be role models for our youth. Is this true?

Again, Iam not suggestnig that they be forced to do anything they don't want to do. I just want to know what their problem is with me?

[ethics]

Originally posted by drslash
For everyone seeking an alternative to BSA and those who want to redirect their financial resources: SpiralScouts (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200210\CUL20021031b.ht ml)

Which really proves that not all religions are invited. :)

[RRedline]

Originally posted by drslash
This has nothing to do with whether the BSA can legally discriminate. The PC view to allow gays in the BSA is rampant in the governament establishment. True, the judicial branch of government permits the BSA rules of free association. That ruling wasn't the result of lobbying. Bill Clinton rejected his title of Honorary BSA President. And to just throw some more fuel on the fire, the Boy Scouts were spat upon at the 2000 democrat national presidential convention. I don't see where the BSA has any clout with the government. Every example you listed dealt with liberal democrats. I could easily make the same argument that government is hostile towards homosexuals. Many republicans in office are vocal about their distaste for equal rights for gay people. In fact, Bill Clinton, a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT, signed the "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996 which gives each state the right NOT to recognize gay unions.

The BSA may not be at the top of the democrats' priority list, but I'm sure there are lots of republicans who embrace them.

Ethics is right...if he started a club that excluded Muslims, he would be sued left and right. But isn't it his legal right to exclude?

[ethics]

Originally posted by RRedline

Ethics is right...if he started a club that excluded Muslims, he would be sued left and right. But isn't it his legal right to exclude?

I could imagine the uproar regarding companies like United Way supporting LSA. Can you imagine how many companies would support me? Non, zilch, nada, zippo, all of them would be too scared to even touch me.

Now atheists and gays? Bah, who the hell are they?

The government and this whole private organization foundings and protection thereof reeks of hypocrisy.

[drslash]

Originally posted by RRedline
Do the BSA teach boys about God, Jesus, etc.? If so, do they pray and have church services? Is there a religion badge? I am curious. There is no teaching about God or Jesus. In a Scout book there are a couple pages about duties to God and what those may entail such as attending the church of your choice, talking to your church leader about your faith, praying as taught by your family or church, and performing acts of service to others.The only time that prayers are said are at a mealtime gathering of Scouts.

There are no official BSA worship services but many local churches have an annual Scout Recognition day. If the Scouts and their parents chose they can be recognized during this service and can have the religious badge awarded to the Scout if they have earned it.

Refer to one of my previous posts about the religion badge. This badge is owned by the organization that awards it and is paid for by the Scout or the parents and not paid for by the BSA.

[RRedline]

Originally posted by jamming
Primitive Dogma is IMHO Atheism, it is what is necessary for one that has no imagination. The first man without any imagination was probably an Atheist. :thumbsup: Atheism is primitive dogma? Well assuming you are Christian, how do you view the other religions? Let's use Islam as an example since it is much more popular on a global scale. Is Islam "primitive dogma?" Any "good" Christian must know that the Bible is the only word of God, so what does that make the Qu'ran? Is it primitive dogma? I'm sure you will come up with some sort of reason to avoid heavy criticism by calling other religions primitive dogma, but how can any religion except the "right one" be anything BUT primitive?

Perhaps all religious beliefs/nonbeliefs could be considered dogma, but primitive?

By the way, thanks for using the term <i>imagination</i>. Does that mean that you view religions as the works of imaginative people? I can't believe that you set yourself up like that. :happy:

[drslash]

Originally posted by ethics
Which really proves that not all religions are invited. :)
He encouraged any Wiccan group that would like to charter a troop in their community to submit an application to their local BSA council for consideration.
Sorry, they're included.

[ethics]

Why the hoopla then? Frustrated by an unsuccessful campaign to achieve religious recognition from the Boy Scouts of America, a Seattle-based Wicca church has launched its own youth program, which is based on tolerance for different beliefs, including differences in sexual orientation.

[Steve]

RRedline, may I offer some constructive criticism?

Your evident dislike of all things religious is preventing you from discussing the issue. All you seem to be doing is rebutting statements made by others with ones of your own that only prove your point.

I think we all understand your point.

Try to listen and understand what we are saying.

There will still be disagreement, but at least there will be dialog, as well.

[Steve]

Originally posted by ethics
... including differences in sexual orientation.
[/i] Sound like that could be the crux of the matter, not the fact that the group practices Wicca.

[Coot]

Originally posted by RRedline
Why is it so important for a heterosexual to be a boy scout leader? Why would a homosexual's desires be any different from a heterosexual's? You ask, "Why would they want to be a member," and I ask, "Why wouldn't the BSA want them as members?"

I am still waiting for an answer to my question from many a post ago. The best asnswer that I have gotten so far is that they truly are a religious(Christian?) organization, so they feel that atheists and homosexuals are leading immoral lives and are therefore unfit to be role models for our youth. Is this true?

Again, Iam not suggestnig that they be forced to do anything they don't want to do. I just want to know what their problem is with me? Yes, that's the crux of it. The BSA believes you to be, by virtue of your sexual preference, immoral. Likewise, they believe me, by virtue of my unimaginative refusal to believe in a deity to be immoral.

The BSA has heard of secular humanism, but they want to truck with it...and that is their perogative as a private organization.

[ShinyTop]

Atheists have no imagination. I would have thought it took more imagination to question what you are taught than to blindly follow. Now where's that flame proof suit.

[Steve]

Ah, Shiny, I can't tell which way you're leaning on this one, but you do go straight to the point.

Athiests are so certain there is no God, or gods, that their minds are closed to any further exploration of the subject.

Most persons of faith I've ever known are open to all possibilities, including the possible non-existence of God, or gods; we've just decided to settle on one form of worship as a practical matter.

The quest for knowledge must never be limited to "scientific inquiry" alone. Without internal quests for knowledge, including the exploration of the existence of a higher power, the world would be a far bleaker one in which to live.

[RRedline]

Originally posted by stevent
RRedline, may I offer some constructive criticism?

Your evident dislike of all things religious is preventing you from discussing the issue. All you seem to be doing is rebutting statements made by others with ones of your own that only prove your point. I seriously had no idea that the BSA had a single thing to do with God or any religion. If this is in fact the case, then I was ignorant, and I admit it. If it is a Christian organization, then I can also see why they would have a problem with homosexuals. In my opinion, the Bible spells it out very easily to understand in Leviticus. Anyone who follows the Bible and interprets the passages in Leviticus to mean anything other than "homosexuality is sin" is really walking on thin ice. If anybody can interpret that another way, then they might as well throw out the Bible and just make up their own book. Of course, then THAT book can be interpreted any number of ways... I just find it odd that a book filled with such bias and inconsistencies is taken seriously by anyone. Oh well, I guess I am in the minority with regards to religion.

I still never got a direct answer, so I will ask those of you who are opposed to my views to please clear this up for me. Is the real reason that the BSA excludes atheists and homosexuals due to the group's religious beliefs? If not, then I am having a very, very difficult time understanding them.

[Steve]

You're doing it again, but I will attempt to answer your question:

I don't know why they oppose homosexuals and athiests. It's quite irrelevant, really.

ethics brought up this case to illustrate that he, also, was not aware that they opposed membership for such people and that he thought it was wrong. Fine. He can withdraw support, via United Way, and other ways. That's his right.

The only point I, or anyone else, really, have been arguing, is that the young man in question should simply do the same. How tragic for him, after all, to be forced, by way of membership in the Scouts, to associate with people whose beliefs are different from his.

Do you see how it cuts both ways?

One cannot argue for the nonexistence of God and simultaneously demand that those who believe in God's existence allow you to play with them.

The word is "hypocrisy". He is a hypocrite, especially as he has know his entire life what the Scout code requires.

In a very real sense, he has been living a lie, for whatever his motives may be. That lie, in my opinion, is grounds enough for the Scouts to terminate his membership. Lying isn't a very good indicator of moral behavior, is it?

They could be opposed to the color red and it could be his favorite color. The particulars of the matter are irrelevant.

The hypocrisy, however, is quite real.

[RRedline]

Originally posted by stevent
Athiests are so certain there is no God, or gods, that their minds are closed to any further exploration of the subject.That is completely untrue. I struggled for YEARS with my beliefs! I grew up believing in God, Jesus, Heaven, Hell...you name it. It was my own independent, OPEN-MINDED thinking that led me to the belief that there most-likely is no such thing as "God." Do I preach it from the mountain tops? Ummm...no. Do I exclude religious people from my list of friends? Nope. Do I form organizations that exclude them because they are immoral according to my own beliefs? Hell no.

I call myself an atheist because I think there probably is no God - certainly not one that is the exact same God that is spoken of in the Bible or any other earthly book.


Originally posted by stevent
Most persons of faith I've ever known are open to all possibilities, including the possible non-existence of God, or gods; we've just decided to settle on one form of worship as a practical matter.Really? I certainly can't say the same. Most religious people I know(admittedly all Christians) tell me that you must believe that Jesus is your savior, and you must believe in God - THE God. In my opinion, any Christian who is open-minded to the possibility that there is no God is not really a believer.


Originally posted by stevent
The quest for knowledge must never be limited to "scientific inquiry" alone. Without internal quests for knowledge, including the exploration of the existence of a higher power, the world would be a far bleaker one in which to live. And how would you propose we explore the presence of a higher power without using any scientific means? I'm sorry, but "I believe this," or "My ancestors believed this," are not proof of any higher power. If science leads us to God, then so be it. If science leads us to favor creationism over evolution, so be it. Until then, I go with what makes sense to me, and the "Invisible Man Upstairs Theory" just doesn't hold up.

[Steve]

Well, I'm sorry that you seem to view religion solely through the narrow confines of the Bible. I wish you luck on your journey.

[RRedline]

Originally posted by stevent
You're doing it again, but I will attempt to answer your question:
... I agree with you completely. If you go back and read my other posts in this thread, you'll see that I have suggested many times that this man should tell the BSA where to stick their club. Also, I have never suggested that the BSA be forced to admit anyone into their organization. I am simply questioning why they exclude whom they do. If it is religious beliefs, then I can't argue with them. After all, why can't women be Catholic priests? I am not about to dictate to them that they must allow women in the priesthood, but I will encourage women to tell the Catholic where to stick their religion.

It's not so much that I disagree with you or anyone else in here. I think it's more just my taking offense that a group doesn't view me as fit to be a role model for our youth. The popularity and support for the group only makes it more insulting. Does that make sense to you?

[Steve]

Please forgive me for misunderstanding your position. I can understand fully why you would take offense. It makes perfect sense.

As far as I know, the BSA unofficially has adopted a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. After all, it's ridiculous to believe that there are no gay men or athiests in the Scouts. They are practical people, after all (must be the Lutheran influence :) )

I don't know for a fact that the exclusions are based on religious principles, although that's the only thing that makes any sense.

[RRedline]

Originally posted by stevent
Well, I'm sorry that you seem to view religion solely through the narrow confines of the Bible. I wish you luck on your journey. What would you suggest? That Christians, whose beliefs are structured around the Holy Bible, use sources other than the Bible? Are you suggesting heresy? Don't they go to Hell too?

I find it absolutely amusing how such a large number of people claim to be Christian, or more specifically Catholic, Protestant, Lutheran, etc., but then they add a list of exceptions to their beliefs. I know many Catholics who don't believe in confession and certainly don't believe in keeping the Sabbath holy. They don't like going to church, so they make another exception. Some don't believe in Baptism. Some don't even believe in Hell! It's becoming more and more that people just mix and match all the things they like about religion, yet they continue to refer to themselves as Christian or Catholic, etc. No, you're all heretics according to your own Holy Bible, and it says you're going to Hell for it. Oh yeah, yo don't believe in Hell. That's convenient.

I see religions evolving before my eyes with people interpreting this and that however they see fit. After a while, you end up with a completely different religion! Let's just add them to the already huge list of religions practiced around the world. Even though there are so many people with so many different beliefs, it is atheists who are looked down upon the most. It's the "at least they believe in SOMETHING" attitude that makes me sick.

[Steve]

I would suggest the study of other belief systems around the world.

No person who has truly searched for answers to their questions embraces any one religion in its "pure" form. Nor is all religion rejected because of the shortcomings of a few, or one.

Study the works of other cultures.

[jamming]

A Scout is Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obediant, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent. At least when I was a Scout, being Reverent requires you to Revere something, how will a Atheist be Reverent?

reverent

adj 1: feeling or showing profound respect or veneration; "maintained a reverent silence" [ant: irreverent] 2: showing great reverence for god; "a godly man"; "leading a godly life" [syn: godly, worshipful]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

[Coot]

Originally posted by stevent
Athiests are so certain there is no God, or gods, that their minds are closed to any further exploration of the subject.

Hmmm....I've read the christian bible cover to cover a number of times, I've studied Lao Tzu, I've studied the multifold path of various sects of Buddhism...along with the writings of Joseph Campbell, Alan Watts and Carl Jung. I don't pretend to have spent a career studying every religion, but I've investigated enough to satisfy myself that there's no one in charge, or even minding the store.

Atheism in and of itself does not necessarily preclude spiritualism, though it often times does.

Until someone comes along with some tantalizing new information, I'm pretty sure that my conclusion as to the non-existence of a deity is sufficient for myself. Oh, and if there is some new tantalizing information out there...be sure and pass it along.

Edit:
While the universe operates with both supreme chaos and supreme logic, I am quite certain that it is not a random cypher.

[Steve]

Athiesm, to me, is the complete rejection of the notion that there is anything other than human consciousness.

You, my friend, do not qualify as an athiest, at least not in my book :)

[Coot]

Gadzooks! I guess denying the existence of god doesn't cut it anymore....tough crowd ;)