Religion-Based Exclusion
Neil Savage
(Peter Nermander) writes...
>
>Maybe that's the problem with scouting in the USA. In Sweden (in the
>Swedish Scout Association) the troops are not chartered by some "external"
>organisation. Instead they charter themselves.
Just a clarification: BSA charters troops to external organizations.
GSUSA asks organizations to "sponsor" troops (give them a place to
meet), but the financial responsibily rests with the community Girl Scout
"service team" and the local Girl Scout council 'owns' the troop number.
Operationally, the troop 'belongs' to the girls themselves, with the
condition that they follow Girl Scout standards, guidelines, and polices.
The two USA Scouting organizations function very differently on this
point of 'chartering'. In the GSUSA, no outside organization has
any say at all in the delivery of the program or in who can and cannot
be a troop member.
- neil (Swift Water Girl Scout Council trainer)
Charley_Renn
: GSUSA asks organizations to "sponsor" troops (give them a place to
: meet), but the financial responsibily rests with the community Girl Scout
: "service team" and the local Girl Scout council 'owns' the troop number.
: Operationally, the troop 'belongs' to the girls themselves, with the
: condition that they follow Girl Scout standards, guidelines, and polices.
: - neil (Swift Water Girl Scout Council trainer)
Neil,
Just a question here... I talked to a girlscout leader once
who had re-activated a gs troop shortly after the old group floundered.
Apparently, there was money in an account accessible by the scout office
when the old troop floundered. Since most of the girls were from the
old troop and had raised that money, it was assumed the account would
transfer to the new membership. However, the gs office locked the funds
for a year and then rolled them into the general coffers. What happened
here? And, how does it relate to the above?
Charley
b_d...@lacebark.ntu.edu.au
Scouting. One is the old thread about "should atheists be allowed in
Scouting". Here I think they should and believe I have good reasons for
thinking so. However I recognise that WOSM does have a religious
policy that member organisations must accept and total non-believers
in any kind of spiritual reality appear to be excluded.
The second is the suggestion that appears to be being made that
BSA does not accept various non-mainstream (US mainstream, that is)
religious organisations, that would be acceptable under WOSM rules in
other countries. IF this is so, it is disturbing. Now, is it true?
Are Wiccans not allowed to charter troops? Or to be Scouts?
Are there Troops chartered by Buddhist temples in the US?
Are there any religious organisations that can not charter
troops?
I would welcome some clear answers to these and similar questions.
Now, IF the BSA does exclude various groups, it is perfectly free
to do so. Afterall, there are Catholic Scout Asscociations, Muslim
Scout Associations, Jewish Scout Associations etc in the world.
However, if it does, it MUST do two things. One, it must
allow these organisations it excludes to form their own Scout
Associations and use the word "Scout" in their title. Two, it
must cooperate with them with goodwill to establish an umbrella
national committee which is then recognised by WOSM rather than BSA
being recognised on its own. Anything else is against the spirit
of the world wide brotherhood of Scouting. If religion X is acceptable
to WOSM in country Y, then the BSA must allow religion X to be acceptable
to WOSM in the USA. If it does not want X in the BSA, it must allow
a separate Scout organisation for religion X and cooperate with that
organisation. I do not believe there should be any question about this.
The suggestions that X should go and form their own organisation
is acceptable, but not if the BSA has a monopoly on the word
"Scout" and not if the BSA would then frustrate the new organisation
in being linked to WOSM.
Finally, I have not added 3Gs to the title. I suggest this is past
its "use by" date. We are bringing together totally different things.
I can understand people's fears about "gays", although I do not share
them. "God" now seems to have two separate issues. "Girls" are to me
a non-issue. I fought hard in the 1960s for girls to join boys in
Scouting in the UK. Now it is totally accepted in the UK and here
in Australia. It is not an issue.
Cheers, Brian.
--
Associate Professor Brian Salter-Duke (Brian Duke)
School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Northern Territory University,
Darwin, NT 0909, Australia. Phone 089-466702
e-mail: b_d...@lacebark.ntu.edu.au or b_d...@uncl04.ntu.edu.au
BILL NELSON
In a previous article, b_d...@lacebark.ntu.edu.au () says:
>However I recognise that WOSM does have a religious
>policy that member organisations must accept and total non-believers
>in any kind of spiritual reality appear to be excluded.
>
I would like to learn more about this requirement as well. Maybe
someone who is close to the WOSM could clearify this.
>The second is the suggestion that appears to be being made that
>BSA does not accept various non-mainstream (US mainstream, that is)
>religious organisations, that would be acceptable under WOSM rules in
>other countries. IF this is so, it is disturbing. Now, is it true?
>
The only one I know of is Wicca (a type of witchcraft).
>Are Wiccans not allowed to charter troops? Or to be Scouts?
Just charter troops. If a Wiccan can take the BSA Scout Oath they
can be a member. If ANYONE refuses to live by the BSA Scout Oath
they cannot be a member. Think of it as a by-law.
>Are there Troops chartered by Buddhist temples in the US?
Yes, the Buddhist Churches of America charter troops.
>Are there any religious organisations that can not charter
>troops?
>
Again, the Wicca's said here (and I know of no other source)
that they were refused a charter. Maybe someone else knows.
>Now, IF the BSA does exclude various groups, it is perfectly free
>to do so. Afterall, there are Catholic Scout Asscociations, Muslim
>Scout Associations, Jewish Scout Associations etc in the world.
>However, if it does, it MUST do two things. One, it must
>allow these organisations it excludes to form their own Scout
>Associations and use the word "Scout" in their title. Two, it
>must cooperate with them with goodwill to establish an umbrella
>national committee which is then recognised by WOSM rather than BSA
>being recognised on its own. Anything else is against the spirit
>of the world wide brotherhood of Scouting. If religion X is acceptable
>to WOSM in country Y, then the BSA must allow religion X to be acceptable
>to WOSM in the USA. If it does not want X in the BSA, it must allow
>a separate Scout organisation for religion X and cooperate with that
>organisation. I do not believe there should be any question about this.
>
>The suggestions that X should go and form their own organisation
>is acceptable, but not if the BSA has a monopoly on the word
>"Scout" and not if the BSA would then frustrate the new organisation
>in being linked to WOSM.
There are a great number of scouting organizations in the US that
cater to many interests. For example there is a gay scouting organization
(I forgot their name); Campfire, a co-ed scouting organization and
the Royal Rangers, a Christian scouting organization).
They are not called 'scouts' because there
was a law passed in the early days of US scouting giving the name
scouts to the BSA and GSUSA.
>
>Finally, I have not added 3Gs to the title. I suggest this is past
>its "use by" date. We are bringing together totally different things.
>I can understand people's fears about "gays", although I do not share
>them. "God" now seems to have two separate issues. "Girls" are to me
>a non-issue. I fought hard in the 1960s for girls to join boys in
>Scouting in the UK. Now it is totally accepted in the UK and here
>in Australia. It is not an issue.
I put it back. People here on rec.scouting want it.
Hope this helps,
bill
--
Bill Nelson Webelos Den Leader, Pack 878 Assistant Scoutmaster,
Troop 14, Unit Commissioner, Tempe District, Grand Canyon Council
Phoenix, Arizona USA mailto:nel...@aztec.asu.edu
Member of U.S. Scouting Service Proj., http://www.hiwaay.net/hyper/Scouts
Jaana A Antikainen
: The 3Gs convention is a compromise that we rec.scouting subscribers
: adopted to handle situations that still exist and will probably
: exist well into the future. Please do not second-guess it or try
: to impose your own interpretation of it. The convention is simply
: that any article that relates to the BSA membership requirements in
: the areas of a youth's gender, belief in God, or homosexuality is
: to be tagged with "3Gs" in the subject line.
If it is only about BSA, then about 10% of all my posts of "the three
G's" should be tagged... I'm not so much interested in BSA (even though
some BSAers seem to like to think that all foreign people are extreemly
interested in them), what I'm trying to talk about is *scouting* and
atheism/homosexuality. If you don't know the difference, that's your
problem...:)
I will continue using "3Gs" anyway, since I think that it's a good
convention. I saw the flame wars earlier, and I understand that some
people are fed up with the subjects. They will ignore me anyway :), so I
think I can as well do as they asked and use the 3Gs - it's not a big
trouble to do it anyway.
: While these policies
: are obviously legitimate items for discussion on rec.scouting,
: the use of "3Gs" in the subject line isn't; it is the convention,
: it's in the FAQ, and to maintain civility on rec.scouting, we expect
: all subscribers to use it. Please cooperate.
Stanley, who are the "we" you are talking about? While I agree that 3Gs
is a good convention, I don't think that I'm in a position to "expect"
anything from anyone, let alone from all subscribers. Does you position
in rec.scouting differ from mine? People can ask me to use the 3Gs, or
to shut up about the matters, and they have. The first I have done, the
second not - but I do nothing because some one in rec.scouting "expects"
it from me, but because they politely asked me to and I see no reason
not to. There is a difference. I hope you see it. No one in rec.scouting
can decide something for the others.
--
Jaana Antikainen------------email: jant...@cc.helsinki.fi---
Iivisniemenkuja 4 F 70---------------------------------------
02260 Espoo----------------"My problem is that I have--------
FINLAND---------------------gone sane in an insane world."---
BILL NELSON
In a previous article, jant...@cc.Helsinki.FI (Jaana A Antikainen) says:
>Krieger S.M. (s...@summit.novell.com) wrote:
>: The 3Gs convention is a compromise that we rec.scouting subscribers
>: adopted to handle situations that still exist and will probably
>: exist well into the future. Please do not second-guess it or try
>: to impose your own interpretation of it. The convention is simply
>: that any article that relates to the BSA membership requirements in
>: the areas of a youth's gender, belief in God, or homosexuality is
>: to be tagged with "3Gs" in the subject line.
>
>If it is only about BSA, then about 10% of all my posts of "the three
>G's" should be tagged... I'm not so much interested in BSA (even though
Stan,
I agree with Jaana on this. Why are we restricting the 3G's to only
BSA? I think the discussions frequently go beyond BSA however
they probably should be tagged. I vote for modifying FAQ0 to
get rid of the limited BSA scope on the tag.
-bill
Krieger S.M.
>Jaana A Antikainen says:
>>Stan Krieger wrote:
>>: The 3Gs convention is a compromise that we rec.scouting subscribers
>>: adopted to handle situations that still exist and will probably
>>: exist well into the future. Please do not second-guess it or try
>>: to impose your own interpretation of it...
>>If it is only about BSA, then about 10% of all my posts of "the three
>>G's" should be tagged... I'm not so much interested in BSA (even though
>Stan,
>I agree with Jaana on this. Why are we restricting the 3G's to only
>BSA? I think the discussions frequently go beyond BSA however
>they probably should be tagged. I vote for modifying FAQ0 to
>get rid of the limited BSA scope on the tag.
Bill, this is fine with me.
Remember that my posting was in response to a person to unilaterally
decided to abandon use of the 3Gs convention. I feel that this
convention has served all rec.scouting subscribers very well and
will continue to do so.
--
All opinions, advice, or suggestions, even
Stanley M Krieger if related to my employment or company's
products, are my own.
Neil Savage
writes...
>Neil,
>
> Just a question here... I talked to a girlscout leader once
>who had re-activated a gs troop shortly after the old group floundered.
>Apparently, there was money in an account accessible by the scout office
>when the old troop floundered. Since most of the girls were from the
>old troop and had raised that money, it was assumed the account would
>transfer to the new membership. However, the gs office locked the funds
>for a year and then rolled them into the general coffers. What happened
>here? And, how does it relate to the above?
>
Yep. that's how it works here in Swift Water Girl Scout Council also.
The $$$ follows the troop NUMBER, not the girls. I don't excuse
this policy, I just report on it.
In training, we advise all troops that are about to disband to spend
every dime on the girls who raised that money BEFORE the troop
founders. After the fact, it is usually too late.
If the troop NUMBER is reactivated, there is NO guarantee that the
girls or the community that had the troop NUMBER before will get it
back. The council may, and often does, assign ANOTHER altogether
DIFFERENT troop number, after a lapse of a year or less.
And, even those troops that continue to function are restricted in the
amount of money they can carry over from one Girl Scout Year (begins
1 OCT) to the next. The only way even a functioning troop can keep
the council from absorbing excess funds into the general coffers is to
DESIGNATE the money for a specific purpose, such as to defray pay-in-
advance site reservation fees, or ear-marking money raised for a
long-range trip, planned by the girls the year before (the council
knows about this line item because you file a trip budget with them).
I repeat: the only way for a troop of girls to keep the money from one year
to the next is to designate it; an obvious hiatus (such as realizing that
the troop disbanded) causes the council to remand all troop assets. Even
the local Service Unit is practically powerless to intervene - we cannot
transfer the funds to another community account (that would be a serious
offense if caught).
Them's the rules. We have to live by them 'cause we agreed to them
when we signed the volunteer form. Unfortunately there is wide-spread
ignorance about this aspect of troop funding - despite going over it in
training and in leaders' meetings.
- neil
Swift Water Girl Scout trainer
Service Unit co-Manager, Exeter, Kensington, Newfields Girl Scouts
zar...@cog.org
b_d...@lacebark.ntu.edu.au () wrote:
>The second is the suggestion that appears to be being made that
>BSA does not accept various non-mainstream (US mainstream, that is)
>religious organisations, that would be acceptable under WOSM rules in
>other countries. IF this is so, it is disturbing. Now, is it true?
>
>Are Wiccans not allowed to charter troops? Or to be Scouts?
>Are there Troops chartered by Buddhist temples in the US?
>Are there any religious organisations that can not charter
>troops?
>
>I would welcome some clear answers to these and similar questions.
Yes, its true. BSA only allows *particular* religions to sponsor
Scouting units, despite their many public published statements that they
allow all who follow the Scout Oath and Law, and believe in God. I
believe there are Buddhist temples that sponsor troops, but there are
many smaller religions, including Wiccans, who have been denied either
sponsorship of units or religious awards, or both.
In our case, they say our members can belong to a troop sponsored by
another church (and thereby subject our youth to religious education in
someone else's religion) or stay out. Our adult leaders, and youth,
comply with the religous requirements of scouting, but for no reason
other than religious discrimination they prohibit our churches from
sponsoring troops. There are probably several hundred Wiccan Scouters
across the US, and a few thousand boys - in troops sponsored by others.
But we don't really have a count. The current President of The Covenant
of the Goddess (COG), our international organization, is in fact an ASM -
in a Methodist troop. COG also has member churches in Canada, England and
Austrlia. Check out their WWW site on HTTP://www.cog.org/cog.
It's a long story. First we wanted to sponsor a religious award, because
many of our members belong to troops sponsored by others. When we
complied with all of their rules, (as did some others at the same time)
they adopted a NEW RULE, saying we had to sponsor 25 units to sponsor a
religous award. OK, we said, good idea. We then applied for a
"Chartered Partner Agreement - after the Local Council forwarded the
sponsorship application to National. After another couple of years of
procrastination, they turnd us down flat. The District Executive gave us
another application, and said if we call ourselves the "Saturday
Bar-be-que Association" or "Hilltop Friends of Scouting", or something
else the same people can sponsor a troop, but not if our church's name is
on the application.
Our religous beliefs are similar in many ways to NA beliefs practiced by
OA as part of Scouting. Because reverance for Nature is part of our
religion, our beliefs are more congruent with the outdoor program of
Scouting than many religons for whom Nature is not specifically part of
their theology. Its really a shame that BSA has to be so biggotted.
I hope this clarifies and answers. In short, BSA allows only churches
belonging to specific "mainstream" religions to sponsor units, and
discriminates against minority religions. Their literature purposly
misrepresents their practice.
Hmmmmm. If you are in Australia, maybe our Australian member churches
could sponsor scouting units there?
Robert Evans
I checked out the WWW site you specified and found nothing really substantial
about your religion. I was curious about the Code of Ethics published:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An ye harm none, do as ye will.
Since our religion and the arts and practices peculiar to it are the gift of the
Goddess, membership and training in a local coven or tradition are bestowed free, as
gifts, and only on those persons who are deemed worthy to receive them. However, a
coven may expect each of its members to bear a fair share of its ordinary operating
expenses.
All persons have the right to charge reasonable fees for the services by which
they earn a living, so long as our religion is not thereby exploited.
Every person associated with this Covenant shall respect the autonomy and
sovereignty of each coven, as well as the right of each coven to oversee the
spiritual, mental, emotional and physical development of its members and students in
its own way, and shall exercise reasonable caution against infringing upon that right
in any way.
All persons associated with this Covenant shall respect the traditional secrecy
of our religion.
Members of this Covenant should ever keep in mind the underlying unity of our
religion as well as the diversity of its manifestations.
These ethics shall be understood and interpreted in light of one another, and
especially in light of the traditional laws of our religion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a pretty generic code. I suppose that the one point of your code that most
people woul have a problem with is the fifth point:
"All persons associated with this Covenant shall respect the traditional secrecy of
our religion."
Why all the secrecy? Maybe this is the part that BSA has a problem with. How can a
youth organization be associated with a religion which "may" have secret rituals which
violate certain rules of the organization?
I know that without that knowledge, I could not form an opinion on letting Wiccan
churches sponsor a BSA unit.
Bob
____________________________________
these opinions are mine and noone
else's
Stephen Way
> Why all the secrecy? Maybe this is the part that BSA has a problem with.
> How can a youth organization be associated with a religion which "may"
> have secret rituals which violate certain rules of the organization?
I don't think there would be a problem - after all, no-one bars
freemasons from Scouting.
Steve
Robert Evans
While it is true that freemasons are not barred from Scouting, do freemasons
allow people below 18 to be members and to participate in their secret rituals?
I don't know...I'm asking. I would think that Wiccans would encourage their
kids
to participate in their secret rituals. See the difference?
Bob
_____________________________________
These opinions are mine alone.
BILL NELSON
In a previous article, zar...@cog.org ("zar...@cog.org") says:
>Stephen Way <Stev...@ways.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I don't think there would be a problem - after all, no-one bars
>>freemasons from Scouting.
>>
>>Steve
>>
>
>And, of course BSA-OA has secret rituals too. So what's the problem?
>
By policy, no activity in the BSA is to be secret. If there are
secret rituals in your area than someone is violating policy.
zar...@cog.org
>I don't think there would be a problem - after all, no-one bars
>freemasons from Scouting.
>
>Steve
>
And, of course BSA-OA has secret rituals too. So what's the problem?
ZardoZ
Robert Evans
rituals in a scout organization. I guess that means the OA.
zar...@cog.org
>By policy, no activity in the BSA is to be secret. If there are
>secret rituals in your area than someone is violating policy.
>
>-bill
That's another published "policy" that's inconsistent with BSA practice.
New OA recruits are not told what to expect in the "Ordeal," at least in
my area. The older members make a point of keeping it secret.
And, after three years of asking and being refused information, I decided
not to attend Woodbadge training unless I knew in advance what I was
getting into. Among those I asked was the guy who began the "Walking
Woodbadge" program at Philmont and ran it for many years. BSA policy may
say they don't have secrets, but "We can't tell you that" is practice -
even for Woodbadge. Sounds secret to me - unless your definition of
secret is different from mine.
I prefer honesty and openness, not obfuscation and dishonesty. If BSA
would just do what they say, follow their own Law and Oath, they would do
much better. This is another example of dishonesty at BSA - saying one
thing and practicing another.
Blessed Be,
ZardoZ
zar...@cog.org
>Zardoz,
>
>I checked out the WWW site you specified and found nothing really substantial
>about your religion. I was curious about the Code of Ethics published:
>
>people woul have a problem with is the fifth point:
>
> "All persons associated with this Covenant shall respect the traditional secrecy of
>our religion."
>
>youth organization be associated with a religion which "may" have secret rituals which
>violate certain rules of the organization?
>
>churches sponsor a BSA unit.
>
>Bob
>
Well Bob, its off the subject of Scouting, but to satisfy curiosity I can
answer your questions.
The "Traditional Secrecy" is because many of our members still live in
areas where religious persecution exists. The story I posted recently of
the woman in Texas who had been tied to a post and set on fire was real,
and the reason she was in Texas was that her family had several relatives
killed in Missouri before they moved to Texas - by the Sheriff, and no
its not in the official records as some on this echo asked for. Even
today many of our members have to keep their religon secret or they loose
their jobs, have their children and houses attacked, etc., and as often
by the police or county officials as by anyone else.
We encourage those who are secure enough to be putlic, to confront
biggorty and ignorance by inviting others to visit their religious
observances, etc, as we do in my town, but the reality is that in many
towns it still isn't safe. So those who wish to remain secret in their
practice of our religion are not revealed by the others. The practices
are widely published in books available in bookstores like Hastings and
other national chains as well as in specialty bookstores in every city,
so the practices are no longer secret. Just the names of people in towns
where biggotry still exists.
Of course, sponsoring a Scouting unit is hardly secret, so any local
church choosing to do so would have to be public. We encourage that, but
its not required.
Remember that paranoid is only unreasonable when somebody is not out to
get you. When cable TV channels run hate campaigns every year before our
major religious hollidays, perhaps secrecy is sometimes needed, and
we're not paranoid - just reasonably cautious.
> An ye harm none, do as ye will.
This is our equivalent to, "Let your concious be your guide." But
whatever you decide to do, ask first if it harms anyone.
> Since our religion and the arts and practices peculiar to it are the gift of the
>Goddess, membership and training in a local coven or tradition are bestowed free, as
>gifts, and only on those persons who are deemed worthy to receive them. However, a
>coven may expect each of its members to bear a fair share of its ordinary operating
>expenses.
>
> All persons have the right to charge reasonable fees for the services by which
>they earn a living, so long as our religion is not thereby exploited.
There are hucksters and charlatans who use knowledge of our religion for
unscrupulous financial gains, either through charging impressionable
youth for the knowledge, or otherwise using the knowledge for personal
profit. You see their adds in checkout counter "news" sheets, and on
"Psychic" cable TV channels. None of that is part of the religious
practice of our faith, and those people are not welcome. That's why this
part of the code of ethics is included in the Covenant of the Goddess
by-laws.
> Every person associated with this Covenant shall respect the autonomy and
>sovereignty of each coven, as well as the right of each coven to oversee the
>spiritual, mental, emotional and physical development of its members and students in
>its own way, and shall exercise reasonable caution against infringing upon that right
>in any way.
The organization is organized along similar lines to the Congregational
Christian Church, with each local congregation having autonomy. This is
in the COG code of ethics to assure hesitant prospective members that
their local autonomy is not given up by joining with others in the
organization.
> These ethics shall be understood and interpreted in light of one another, and
>especially in light of the traditional laws of our religion.
>
This statement means that we each respect each other's interpretation of
our religion. Even in religoins where the basics are written in a single
book, there are thousands of different interpretations, and some don't
respect the interpretation of their neighboring church. In our religion
there is no written authoritive book, but many traditions handed down
through many, many generations. We respect the beliefs and
interpretations of each other.
One of the traditional laws of our religion includes the belief in
respecting every other person's beliefs, including yours. We would like
that to be reciprical.
>This is a pretty generic code. I suppose that the one point of your code that most
>people woul have a problem with is the fifth point:
>
> "All persons associated with this Covenant shall respect the traditional secrecy of
>our religion."
We're not paranoid, just cautious. The story I posted a while ago about
the woman who had been tied to a post and burned (although rescued before
she died) was true, and many similar stories abound. Two years ago, for
instance, we rented a camp in North Carolina for our annual convention.
Neighbors of the camp owners caused them such problems that they have
said we would not be welcome back. In Florida a County Zoning Commission
tried to fine a member church $500,000 for worshipping in their home.
Their legal defence has cost $30,000 so far. Many of our people still
need to be secret about their beliefs. The biggotry posted by some on
this echo is all too typical. If you want to learn the practices of our
religion in detail, its widly published and available everywhere. Just
the names of many of its followers still need to be secret. I hope that
this answers your concerns.
Blessed Be
ZardoZ
Edward J. Wurtz
> I prefer honesty and openness, not obfuscation and dishonesty. If BSA
> would just do what they say, follow their own Law and Oath, they would do
> much better. This is another example of dishonesty at BSA - saying one
> thing and practicing another.
> Blessed Be,
> ZardoZ
If you prefer the above, then why do you post under a psuedonym?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Edward J. Wurtz | Lodge Adviser, Quilshan Lodge
Tribal Prosecutor | High Adventure Team, Mt. Baker Council
Lummi Indian Nation | Trip Advisor, Philmont Council Trek '96
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...a good ol' Buffalo, too!
"The problem with the Boy Scouts is...there ain't enough of them!"
Will Rogers
b_d...@lacebark.ntu.edu.au
> In a previous article, b_d...@lacebark.ntu.edu.au () says:
[Some of my stuff and Bill's deleted.]
As I understanding it these organisations such as Campfire, Royal Rangers,
etc are scouting-like organisations. They are not Scouting organisations,
in the sense that they are connected to WOSM. Only BSA is connected to
WOSM. In some countries there are several Scouting organisations but
they form a central committee that affiliates to WOSM since there is
only one affiliation per country. This was certainly the situation some
years ago. So BSA should not prevent other organisations from using the
term "Scouts" or from joining WOSM if these organisations would be
acceptable in other countries yet the BSA wants to exclude their
beliefs. Being fully part of the world-wide brotherhood of Scouts has
some real advantages.
Randy Finder
> Robert Evans <ev...@theBorg.wes.army.mil> writes:
>> Why all the secrecy? Maybe this is the part that BSA has a problem with.
>> How can a youth organization be associated with a religion which "may"
>> have secret rituals which violate certain rules of the organization?
>
> freemasons from Scouting.
A better counter-example (though freemasons is good as well) is the Mormons
(The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints). The Mormons have "secret
rituals" (though that isn't the term used) and are considerred one of the most
supportive organizations of BSA in the US. Every ward (single church location)
that is a general family ward (90%+) should have a scout troop. The BSA program
is integrated with the LDS youth program for boys to a very significant extent.
BSA has even given exceptions to their own rules for LDS troops, by allowing
female scouters in troops before any other troops could have them. (The youth
programs segregate by gender by 12 and above that age men lead it. For those
under 12, women lead the education and thus are leaders for the 11 year olds.)
I'm not saying the exemption wasn't warrented....
YiLFS
Randy Finder
>
> Steve
>
--
--
Leadership, Friendship and Service - Alpha Phi Omega
Peter Nermander
>I don't know...I'm asking. I would think that Wiccans would encourage their
>kids
>to participate in their secret rituals. See the difference?
Wait a minute here... I can't recall any "religious" rituals in the scouting
program? Since the BSA allow different kinds of theists they can't possibly
have a religious program.
/Peter
Robert Evans
The point I was trying to make is that perhaps (I don't know) the BSA did not
recognize Wicca as a religion because it has secret rituals which may or may
not involve youth. (Not that there are any specific religious rituals in a
scout program.) The difference between the Covenant of the Goddess (COG) church
and other adult organizations with secret rituals (such as Masons) is that the
other groups don't allow youth to participate in their secret rituals.
From what I've seen here and what I have read in the past, the COG organization
is fairly unstructured as to what rituals they perform. I suppose it would
depend on what sources you believe as to whether one ritual is harmful to
youth or not. But I still don't have enough information to make up my own
personal opinion on whether Wicca should be allowed to sponsor BSA troops. I
do know that I would not want my children exposed to it, but then that is my
right as a parent and not something I should dictate to others.
Best Regards,
Bob
_________________________________
These opinions are my own.
Charles Hoffman
zar...@cog.org <zar...@cog.org> wrote:
>And, of course BSA-OA has secret rituals too. So what's the problem?
OA ceremonies are hardly "secret rituals". Any parent can go see
what they are. The parent does not need to be an OA member. Community
leaders are also welcome. They don't even have to have any relation with
the Scouting program. Heck anyone can come, except for youth members who
have not yet completed the prerequisites for what the ceremony recognizes.
All the OA asks is that the content of the ceremony be safeguarded so its
impact will be benificial for the young scouts who will participate when
their time comes.
Also keep in mind that the OA ceremonies recognize new members and those
members who have given service. The term "ritual" usually invokes
images of initiation, and spiritual communion. The BSA leaves the practice
of ones spirituality to the individual and family. No official BSA
ceremony could be considered an religious ritual.
Charles Hoffman, ASM Troop 612, San Lorenzo, CA
You are not judged by how much you love,
but by how much you are loved by others. -- G. P. Oz
zar...@cog.org
>From what I've seen here and what I have read in the past, the COG organization
<snip>
>I
>do know that I would not want my children exposed to it, but then that is my
>right as a parent and not something I should dictate to others.
>
>Best Regards,
>Bob
No disagreement here Bob. There are religious rituals of several other
religoins that I wouldn't want my children exposed to either, (perhaps
even yours), but like you said those are the parents rights to have
different opinions. When I was a Scout, my Catholic friends could not set
foot other Christian churches without specific permission from their
priest. Do LDS parents allow their children to attend pentacostal
Christian services? We are in agreement that each parent should not
dictate what religous teaching is taught to the chidlren of other
parents. I happen to think Wiccan rituals are positive healty loving
expriences for children and other living things. You may not. That's
where respect for our neighbors and their belifs becomes important.
That's where we should all be able to share in the fellowship of
Scouting whatever our particular religious beliefs, as do people in other
parts of the world.
Blessed Be
ZardoZ
zar...@cog.org
chof...@octel.com (Charles Hoffman) wrote:
>All the OA asks is that the content of the ceremony be safeguarded so its
>impact will be benificial for the young scouts who will participate when
>their time comes.
>
You call them "ceremonys" and not rituals. My dictionary defines
"ritual" as, "The prescribed form or order of conducting a religious or
solumn ceremony." The OA ceremony may not be religious, but is it a
solumn ceremony? We're talking "or" here, so the OA ceremony qualifies
as a ritual - with a specific form or order. And as to secret, again we
have doublespeak. It's not secret you say, you just, "safeguard the
content."
So what we have is a "ceremony" (ritual) with "safeguarded content"
(secret). Lets at least be honest with each other.
BTW - my NA Medicine Woman friend ( a religious leader in several tribes)
would call them religious - and would be upset if many of the OA
ceremonies are done whithout the proper respect for their NA religion.
When done without sincerity they mock the religion of NA peoples.
Blessed Be
ZardoZ
Charles Hoffman
zar...@cog.org <zar...@cog.org> wrote:
>chof...@octel.com (Charles Hoffman) wrote:
>>All the OA asks is that the content of the ceremony be safeguarded so its
>>impact will be benificial for the young scouts who will participate when
>>their time comes.
>
>You call them "ceremonys" and not rituals. My dictionary defines
>"ritual" as, "The prescribed form or order of conducting a religious or
>solumn ceremony." The OA ceremony may not be religious, but is it a
>solumn ceremony? We're talking "or" here, so the OA ceremony qualifies
>as a ritual - with a specific form or order. And as to secret, again we
>have doublespeak. It's not secret you say, you just, "safeguard the
>content."
>
>So what we have is a "ceremony" (ritual) with "safeguarded content"
>(secret). Lets at least be honest with each other.
I probably should not continue a discussion where 'dictionary' definitions
are being thrown about. Usually on Usenet this means that the poster doing
the quoting is desperate. But I will assume this is not the case here.
OA ceremonies are not religious.
OA ceremonies are open to any adult concerned with their content.
It is that simple.
They are in no way similar to the "secret rituals" of any religious body.
>
>BTW - my NA Medicine Woman friend ( a religious leader in several tribes)
>would call them religious - and would be upset if many of the OA
>ceremonies are done whithout the proper respect for their NA religion.
>When done without sincerity they mock the religion of NA peoples.
The OA has a policy that if local nations have concerns about the way
ceremonies are put on that the ceremonies will be changed. What bothers
one religion, can matter not at all to another.
>Blessed Be
>ZardoZ
As a point of record, if your assembly is well established, and dedicated to
spiritual and secular growth of its members, then I would love to see the BSA
allow you to charter a unit.
Some BSA volunteers are very conservative and some are very liberal. A great
many are somewhere in between. Just like society in general. You should
remember that before flaming. Not all of us are automatically against
you. Try not to insult those who may support your cause.
Evelyn C. Leeper
Robert Evans <ev...@theBorg.wes.army.mil> wrote:
> Stephen Way <Stev...@ways.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Robert Evans <ev...@theBorg.wes.army.mil> writes:
> >> Why all the secrecy? Maybe this is the part that BSA has a problem with.
> >> How can a youth organization be associated with a religion which "may"
> >> have secret rituals which violate certain rules of the organization?
> >
> >I don't think there would be a problem - after all, no-one bars
> >freemasons from Scouting.
>
> I don't know...I'm asking. I would think that Wiccans would encourage their
But what's the difference between the Wiccans' secret rituals and the
Mormons'?
Except, of course, that the Mormons are welcomed with open arms into the
BSA and the Wiccans are not.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908 957 2070 | Evelyn...@att.com
"Why are women reading romances presumed to be any more
idiotic than men watching football?" --Beth Kolko
zar...@cog.org
b...@xenon.chem.ucla.edu (Bruce Hietbrink) wrote:
> Thanks for stating this so clearly. The analogy I like
>to use is reading a murder mystery. If I started reading
>a mystery it would be pretty rude of someone else to come up
>to me and tell me how it ends. It would ruin the surprise
>and the whole impact of the book. The OA ceremonies are like
>that. There is no secret. If anyone here wants to know I
>would even lend them a copy of the script. However, if someone
>is likely to be joining the OA, it would ruin the ordeal
>if they were to read the ceremonies ahead of time.
>
This part of the thread started when someone began complaining about
"secret rituals" in Wiccan practice. It was used as a justificaion for
religious based denial. In practice there are no longer secrets in
Wicca. Just as the OA ceremonies are "available" to anyone who is really
concerned, Wiccan ceremonies have been widely published and are readily
available at Barns and Noble, Hastings, Bookstar, or a number of other
national chain bookstores, as well as specialty bookstores. If anyone
wants to attend, the public is often welcome. There are several other
religious organizations that now have more secret ceremonies than Wicca.
Also like OA, there is an element of surprise in some ceremonies that
adds to the excitement for the participants. Adults like mystery just as
teenage Scouts do.
Its "secret" because you don't routinely tell the particpant what they
will particpant in, and its public because the scripts are published and
available if they need to know.
The point is that before someone starts criticizing others for "secret"
ceremonies, they need to look to their own house.
Blessed Be
ZardoZ
Bruce Hietbrink
Hoffman) wrote:
> In article <48alq8$r...@newshost.lanl.gov>,
> zar...@cog.org <zar...@cog.org> wrote:
> >And, of course BSA-OA has secret rituals too. So what's the problem?
>
> OA ceremonies are hardly "secret rituals". Any parent can go see
> what they are. The parent does not need to be an OA member. Community
> leaders are also welcome. They don't even have to have any relation with
> the Scouting program. Heck anyone can come, except for youth members who
> have not yet completed the prerequisites for what the ceremony recognizes.
> All the OA asks is that the content of the ceremony be safeguarded so its
> impact will be benificial for the young scouts who will participate when
> their time comes.
>
> Also keep in mind that the OA ceremonies recognize new members and those
> members who have given service. The term "ritual" usually invokes
> images of initiation, and spiritual communion. The BSA leaves the practice
> of ones spirituality to the individual and family. No official BSA
> ceremony could be considered an religious ritual.
>
Thanks for stating this so clearly. The analogy I like
to use is reading a murder mystery. If I started reading
a mystery it would be pretty rude of someone else to come up
to me and tell me how it ends. It would ruin the surprise
and the whole impact of the book. The OA ceremonies are like
that. There is no secret. If anyone here wants to know I
would even lend them a copy of the script. However, if someone
is likely to be joining the OA, it would ruin the ordeal
if they were to read the ceremonies ahead of time.
YIS
Bruce Hietbrink
Tom Granvold
Roger D Carroll <rdc...@inmax.com> wrote:
>In article <54914...@ways.demon.co.uk>
>Stephen Way <Stev...@ways.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> I don't think there would be a problem - after all, no-one bars
>> freemasons from Scouting.
>>
Why?
YiS,
Tom Granvold <thomas....@eng.sun.com>
--
Tom Granvold <thomas....@eng.sun.com>
Mark Schnitzius
>The point I was trying to make is that perhaps (I don't know) the BSA did
>not recognize Wicca as a religion because it has secret rituals which may
>or may not involve youth. (Not that there are any specific religious
>rituals in a scout program.) The difference between the Covenant of the
>Goddess (COG) church and other adult organizations with secret rituals
>(such as Masons) is that the other groups don't allow youth to participate
>in their secret rituals.
I sincerely hope that the BSA isn't as good as you at:
1. Presupposing a "crime" on the part of the Wiccans (secret
rituals involving children)
2. Presupposing harmful effects of this alleged "crime"
This is equivalent to a company rejecting an interviewee because
they've received no word one way or the other on whether he's
committed murder or not. What nonsense. It's amazing what
rationales you people come up with to support your intolerant
beliefs.
*************************************************************
mark schnitzius isx corporation schn...@east.isx.com
<a href="http://east.isx.com/~schnitzi/">me</a>
Robert A. Uhl
>
>Also keep in mind that the OA ceremonies recognize new members and those
>members who have given service. The term "ritual" usually invokes
>images of initiation, and spiritual communion. The BSA leaves the practice
>of ones spirituality to the individual and family. No official BSA
>ceremony could be considered an religious ritual.
Well, I'm a member of OA (Brotherhood), and I must say that I am
terribly uncomfortabke in certain lodges. Blue Heron Lodge (Tidewater
Council, Va.) is a _great_ lodge. It was never at all quasipagan or
anything. It was wonderful.
OTOH, you have the council here in Denver. It seems at time to take
the ceremonies to seriously and reaches near-pagan depths at times (or
so it can seem). At the same time, and unrelatedly (I believe), is
the fact that it makes no secret of the Ordeal or the Legend at all.
This bothers me.
Perhaps it has decided to elevate other parts of OA to make up for
dengrating the secrecy. I don't know.
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bob Uhl | Spectre | `En touto nika' + |
| U of D | PGG FR No. 42 | http://mercury.cair.du.edu/~ruhl/ |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
zardoz
> OTOH, you have the council here in Denver. It seems at time to take
>the ceremonies to seriously and reaches near-pagan depths at times (or
>so it can seem). At the same time, and unrelatedly (I believe), is
>the fact that it makes no secret of the Ordeal or the Legend at all.
>This bothers me.
> Perhaps it has decided to elevate other parts of OA to make up for
>dengrating the secrecy. I don't know.
>
>--
Wasn't it just a few days ago that we were being told that OA is *NOT* a
secret organization and BSA - OA does *not* have secret ceremonies? Just
wondering?
Blessed Be!
ZardoZ
The opinions expressed herein are mine alone, and do not reflect policy
or beliefs of any organization. If you disagree with my opinions, that
is not my problem.
zardoz
wrote:
>zardoz (zar...@cog.org) wrote:
>: ru...@phoebe.cair.du.edu (Robert A. Uhl) wrote:
>
>: > OTOH, you have the council here in Denver. It seems at time to take
>: >the ceremonies to seriously and reaches near-pagan depths at times (or
>: >so it can seem). At the same time, and unrelatedly (I believe), is
>: >the fact that it makes no secret of the Ordeal or the Legend at all.
>: >This bothers me.
>: > Perhaps it has decided to elevate other parts of OA to make up for
>: >dengrating the secrecy. I don't know.
>
>: Wasn't it just a few days ago that we were being told that OA is *NOT* a
>: wondering?
>
>
>The OA is NOT a secret organization and its ceremonies are NOT secret.
>
>Any adult who is interested/concerned about the OA is allowed to watch them.
>
>What the OA tries to do is allow 'mystery' to make their ceremonies have a
>greater impact on the youth participants. This is no different from reading
>a mystery novel and not finding out whodunit until the end. If one 'peeks'
>and reads ahead to find out, or someone tells you, this spoils the impact of
>the book. Same idea with the OA, hence the 'secrecy'.
Oh, I get it now. When BSA - OA does it they are not "secrect," just
"mystery" ceremonies. When we do it, they are not "mystery" ceremonies,
they are "secret." The deffinition depends on who is doing the
ceremonies. These things get easier to understand every day. Glad you
explained it.
And really, we don't complain about some OA groups doing serious pagan
ceremonies either - unless they mock the magick therin.
Michael Rogero Brown (Sys Admin)
: > OTOH, you have the council here in Denver. It seems at time to take
: >the ceremonies to seriously and reaches near-pagan depths at times (or
: >so it can seem). At the same time, and unrelatedly (I believe), is
: >the fact that it makes no secret of the Ordeal or the Legend at all.
: >This bothers me.
: > Perhaps it has decided to elevate other parts of OA to make up for
: >dengrating the secrecy. I don't know.
: >
: Wasn't it just a few days ago that we were being told that OA is *NOT* a
: secret organization and BSA - OA does *not* have secret ceremonies? Just
: wondering?
Please! This gets so tiresome.
The OA is NOT a secret organization and its ceremonies are NOT secret.
Any adult who is interested/concerned about the OA is allowed to watch them.
What the OA tries to do is allow 'mystery' to make their ceremonies have a
greater impact on the youth participants. This is no different from reading
a mystery novel and not finding out whodunit until the end. If one 'peeks'
and reads ahead to find out, or someone tells you, this spoils the impact of
the book. Same idea with the OA, hence the 'secrecy'.
--
----------All Opinions Expressed are MINE, not IBM's--------------
Michael Rogero Brown (ITV, PDA, and uKR1 System Administrator)
IBM (ITV & PCA Development) TEL/TIE (407) 443-6400
Boca Raton, FL Internet: mi...@bocaraton.ibm.com
If you think I speak for IBM, then I've got some swamp land^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
real estate here in Florida to sell you.
Charles Hoffman
>ru...@phoebe.cair.du.edu (Robert A. Uhl) wrote:
>
>> OTOH, you have the council here in Denver. It seems at time to take
>>the ceremonies to seriously and reaches near-pagan depths at times (or
>>so it can seem). At the same time, and unrelatedly (I believe), is
>>the fact that it makes no secret of the Ordeal or the Legend at all.
>>This bothers me.
>> Perhaps it has decided to elevate other parts of OA to make up for
>>dengrating the secrecy. I don't know.
>
>Wasn't it just a few days ago that we were being told that OA is *NOT* a
>secret organization and BSA - OA does *not* have secret ceremonies? Just
>wondering?
>
>ZardoZ
>
I started out being sympathetic to your cause. By your actions here you
may have shown us why you were denied a charter. You are not mature
enough to lead a BSA troop. It is not your religion, it is not your life
style. It is the constant need to appear one up on everyone else.
On this net you resort to the lowest forms of "agi-prop" retoric. The above
example is simply too blatent to ignore. Grow up, come out from behind
your facade and start acting like an adult. There are plenty of people
who disagree with the way the BSA has treated them. Many are able to state
their case clearly without the childish attitude that you express.
As a troop leader you must subordinate your own needs for those of the
Scouts. You must be steady, dependable, and sound moral fiber. I do not
see this in your discourse in this group. I have seen it in other Wiccans.
Look carefully at those people in history who changed attitudes peacefully
and successfully. They had to exceed the standards of the day because they
knew that they would be under a microscope by supporters and critics alike.
zardoz
>In article <49g48a$a...@newshost.lanl.gov>, zardoz <zar...@cog.org> wrote:
>I started out being sympathetic to your cause. By your actions here you
>may have shown us why you were denied a charter. You are not mature
>your facade and start acting like an adult. There are plenty of people
>who disagree with the way the BSA has treated them. Many are able to state
>their case clearly without the childish attitude that you express.
Ad-hominem attacks are the last resort of those who have run out of valid
arguments. Keep up the good work Charles. You seem to be losing the
debate.
Sean Cox
>
> It is amazing how far people will go to protect their children! Did you
> know that most volunteer organisations require police checks of
> prospective volunteers before they may be permitted to work with
> children
This is a very interesting topic you bring up here Cody. Did YOU know
that here in the BSA they DO NOT do criminal background checks? That's
right, several people convicted of abusing kids have gotten back into
the BSA and done it again! Also, did you know that the BSA refuses to
share info with other agencies! Most other agencies help each other, but
the BSA seems to think they do so much better than any other organization,
they don't need to share with anyone else.
Luckily, the new Oprah Winfrey law is going to force them to do criminal
background checks!!
C ya,
Sean
CzarCasm
: Luckily, the new Oprah Winfrey law is going to force them to do criminal
: background checks!!
: C ya,
: Sean
What is the new Oprah Winfrey law?....
--
http://www.crl.com/~stanleyb/
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
We live together, we act on, and react to, one another;
but always and in all circumstances we are by ourselves.
The martyrs go hand in hand into the arena;
they are crucified alone. A.H.
Sean Cox
>
> Sean Cox (sc...@pres.fsu.edu) wrote:
>
> : Luckily, the new Oprah Winfrey law is going to force them to do criminal
> : background checks!!
>
I don't know all the details, but I am sure someone here does. Basicaly
it is a federal law passed that requires certain volunteers with youth
agencies to be fingerprinted when signed up.
There is a lot more to it than that, but that is the jist of it.
C ya
Sean
Roger D Carroll
In article <49htkc$u...@bocanews.bocaraton.ibm.com>
mich...@buaku.bocaraton.ibm.com (Michael Rogero Brown (Sys Admin))
writes:
> zardoz (zar...@cog.org) wrote:
>
> : Wasn't it just a few days ago that we were being told that OA is *NOT* a
> : secret organization and BSA - OA does *not* have secret ceremonies? Just
> : wondering?
>
> Please! This gets so tiresome.
>
> The OA is NOT a secret organization and its ceremonies are NOT secret.
>
> Any adult who is interested/concerned about the OA is allowed to watch them.
>
> What the OA tries to do is allow 'mystery' to make their ceremonies have a
> greater impact on the youth participants. This is no different from reading
> a mystery novel and not finding out whodunit until the end. If one 'peeks'
> and reads ahead to find out, or someone tells you, this spoils the impact of
> the book. Same idea with the OA, hence the 'secrecy'.
Some folks would rather perpetuate a fib than admit an error. Mike, you
an I probly unnerstand the OA very well. It ain't no secret at all.
Brought me a guest (non-BSA, non family, non-anythang) to the last
brotherhood initiation ceremony at the fall reunion. She thought it was
purty neat. All them kids in wonder of what was gonna happen next. The
terrific message an' all.
If it is 'posed ta be a secret, we're doin' a purty poor job o' keepin'
it one. Fact is if Mr Zardoz wants to have all them secrets, he can
email me, I'll whisper 'em in his modem.
Good Scouting to you Mr Brown,
Roger
Stephen M. Henning
> Did YOU know that in the BSA they DO NOT do criminal background checks?
Did you see the Dateline NBC investigation into the background checks used
for day care centers. They are a joke. They had convicted child abusers
apply for licenses to open day care centers and they were approved all
over the US.
> Several people convicted of abusing kids have gotten back into
> the BSA and done it again!
This can only happen if the conviction or suspected concern is not
reported to the national organizaion. The BSA national organizaion
maintains records of people considered unfit to be BSA leaders. The local
council must make the determination and supply the data for these records.
> Also, did you know that the BSA refuses to share info with other agencies!
The BSA list of people considered unfit to be BSA leaders is confidential
because it is very conservative and could cause undue distress to a person
who may be the most upstanding person in the community but became
suspicious in the eyes of the BSA and was reported. A person is removed
as a BSA leader or denied leadership if they are suspect even though the
suspicion has not been verified in a court of law. The BSA could get in a
big legal tangle if such a list was made public.
> Most other agencies help each other, but the BSA seems to think they do
> so much better than any other organization, they don't need to share
> with anyone else.
The BSA turns over all cases to local authorities and lets them deal with
it. To be on the safe side, people who are believed suspect are reported
to national and not allowed in the BSA. I have had several people removed
from Scouting. Some were removed for violating BSA rules and were not
reported to local authorities. Others served time in jail. All are on the
BSA list as unfit to be leaders and the list of every other organization
who keeps track of such things. I work closely with all other local
agencies but must do it on a discrete basis. In many cases I can only
express a lack of recommendation.
The ultimate approval comes from the Charter Organization. They are the
ones who check into a persons background and make the approval. If they
are not comfortable with a person, they can either refuse to sign their
application or consult with the local council and express their concerns
and have them checked out.
--
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
zardoz
>If it is 'posed ta be a secret, we're doin' a purty poor job o' keepin'
>it one. Fact is if Mr Zardoz wants to have all them secrets, he can
>email me, I'll whisper 'em in his modem.
>
Dear Roger,
The reason I posted this about OA, is to point out that what you know is
not "secret" but when someone comes to the ceremony the surprise adds to
the "mystery." A couple of people recently said that Wiccan churches
should not be allowed to sponsor Scouting units because of "secret
rituals," even though the scripts for the rituals are sold nationwide in
chain bookstores like Barnes & Nobel or Hastings and many smaller
bookstores. Even after that was pointed out several people still
insisted that Wiccan rituals are "secret" and thus its a reason not to
allow troop sponsorship. At the same time, they say that OA's "mysteries"
are not secret even though the participants are not commonly told what to
expect in advance. That part is double standard hypocracy any way you try
to wiggle.
Of course, nothing that you know is a secret from you, and nothing I know
is a secret from me. What one knows can always be found out. Even the
secret ceremonies of the LDS have been published, though I'm told that
there are some unspecified differences between current versions and
published versions.
Personally, I don't care a whit what the OA ceremonies are, but there are
those who have complained recently here that the "secrets" are not being
kept by some council. Lets just agree that "mystery" adds to the
excitement of participating in ceremony; in OA, LDS, or Wicca, and that
if one wants to work at finding out, the "secrets" are really available.
Lets just not keep complaining that Wiccan ceremonies are improper for
sponsors of Scouting units because of "secrets." That's is no more the
case than for OA. If anyone wants a copy of a Wiccan ritual, of any
kind, they need only post a polite request on alt.religion.wicca, and I'm
sure someone will send you some.
Channing Moore
"appropriate"? i know that homosexuals are considered to be generally
evil, but what about other flavors of queer (transgender, transsexual,
lesbians, crossdressers, etc.) which don't have any specific
homosexuality involved? and, as it was said, the charter org. has the
final say. have there yet been any cases where an episcopal church
(many of which now support homosexuals in the preisthood) got tangled up
in something like this? i can see a relatively liberal episcopal parish
chartering a troop and trying to appoint their reverend, who was gay, to
the position of scoutmaster. what would happen then? the charter org
supports him, he is an upstanding member of the community, but the nat'l
guidelines disagree. what then?
just some thoughts.
answers by email welcome,
channing