Philly BSA proposes lip service to nondiscrimination
Brian Westley
city property for nothing:
http://www.newsgleaner.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10287924&BRD=2340&PAG=461&dept_id=488595&rfi=6
...
"The agreement should please everyone," said Pat Coviello, executive
vice president of the Council. "This will in no way diminish the
leadership standards the Boy Scouts of America have."
...
During the September meeting, the mayor's chief of staff suggested that
the Cradle of Liberty Council adopt the same "anti-discrimination"
policy put in place by the greater New York Boy Scout councils. That policy
reads in part, "prejudice, intolerance, and unlawful discrimination in
any form are unacceptable within the ranks of the Greater New York
Councils."
Coviello said the agreement being worked on between the city and the Cradle
of Liberty Council would leave the Council's policy on homosexuals and
atheists intact.
...
---
Merlyn LeRoy
J. Hugh Sullivan
>Yep, the BSA wants to practice discrimination while getting
>city property for nothing:
Ho Hum!
Hugh
Jay Walker
"Brian Westley" <wes...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:3f848615$0$34172$a186...@newsreader.visi.com...
> Yep, the BSA wants to practice discrimination while getting
> city property for nothing:
>
>
http://www.newsgleaner.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10287924&BRD=2340&PAG=461&dept_id=488595&rfi=6
> ...
Hardly for nothing Merlyn... please get your "facts" straight....
--
Jay Walker
Brian Westley
>"Brian Westley" <wes...@visi.com> wrote in message
>news:3f848615$0$34172$a186...@newsreader.visi.com...
>> Yep, the BSA wants to practice discrimination while getting
>> city property for nothing:
>>
>>
>http://www.newsgleaner.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10287924&BRD=2340&PAG=461&dept_id=488595&rfi=6
>> ...
>Hardly for nothing Merlyn... please get your "facts" straight....
Hey, it's Lyin' Jay, once again shooting his ignorant mouth off
with absolutely NOTHING to back him up, while I continue to
post references; this is what *I* posted when the story first broke:
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/6836417.htm
The city has told the Cradle of Liberty Boy Scout Council that it is
ending the agreement under which the Boy Scouts had free use of city
property at 22d and Winter Streets, a council executive said yesterday.
Note "free use of city property", and an actual LINK to
what I was talking about.
This link (which I've posted before) repeats the phrase:
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/6872001.htm
Once again, Lyin' Jay re-earns his nickname.
Don't you EVER get tired of lying?
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Graham Holland
>
>"Brian Westley" <wes...@visi.com> wrote in message
>news:3f848615$0$34172$a186...@newsreader.visi.com...
>> Yep, the BSA wants to practice discrimination while getting
>> city property for nothing:
>>
>> Merlyn LeRoy
>
>Hardly for nothing Merlyn... please get your "facts" straight....
Hi Jay,
How good of you to pop up again to challenge the veracity of someone
else's post! It was starting to become rather quiet on
rec.scouting.issues without you...
"The Council's Center City headquarters was built in 1929, after City
Council had passed a resolution the year before allowing the Boy
Scouts free use of the land in perpetuity. However, the city reserved
the right to take back the land, provided it gave the Scouts one
year's notice."
http://www.newsgleaner.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10287924&BRD=2340&PAG=461&dept_id=488595&rfi=6
Doesn't "free use of the land in perpetuity" mean they are getting it
for nothing? (note the link above to the source of the statement -
something that you refused to provide to back up your own "fact".)
Anyway, before you question someone else's "facts", maybe you should
concentrate on proving the veracity of your own statements first
(something you have point-blank refused to do in the past).
Graham
Graham Holland
> That policy
>reads in part, "prejudice, intolerance, and unlawful discrimination in
>any form are unacceptable within the ranks of the Greater New York
>Councils."
How can a council say that "prejudice and intolerance are unacceptable
within its ranks" and then go on to show prejudice and intolerance
against gays and atheists?
Graham
FPicci1215
within its ranks" and then go on to show prejudice and intolerance
The same way that the SA in the UK can say it is CoEd but allow
sections/groups/units to remain "boys only".
Frank
M G
'The issue arose when the City Solicitor's office recently handed down
an opinion that the Council would lose the free use of the Center City
building because the national Boy Scout policy of choosing only
heterosexual males and non-atheists as leaders conflicts with the
city's "Fair Practices" policy.'
BSA national headquarters keeps saying that there is a single
membership policy that applies to all Councils. In Oregon the mother
of a grade school boy filed a lawsuit because the boy, who is a child,
was recruited by the public school to join Boy Scout's but couldn't
actually join because his mother wants to raise him as an atheist. So
if the policy in Oregon is no atheist Scouts or Scouters, how can the
policy in Pennsylvania be only no atheist Scouters? Or is the article
being disingenuous?
Graham Holland
Whereas the BSA bans all gay and atheist youth and adults, the Scout
Association does not ban anyone on the grounds of gender. This makes
the Scout Association co-ed, and your comparison invalid. The equal
opportunites policy makes it clear that there are distinctions to be
made, particularly when changing from single-sex provision to co-ed
provision.
http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/eqopps/eo-gen-y.htm
"There will be circumstances where single-sex provision, both for boys
and young men and for girls and young women, is the most effective and
appropriate way of meeting the needs of young people. These
circumstances may occur, for example, when working with members of
certain faith groups. The Scout Association will continue to offer
single-sex provision if local circumstances require it. The Scout
Association accepts that single-sex provision is still valid, however,
the long term vision of the Association is co-educational. It is the
duty of every District Commissioner to ensure that Scouting is
available to all young people, male and female, in their District.
Each District must make appropriate provision for both male and female
young people. All new Groups must have a constitution which enables
mixed provision."
"There is no justification for restricting Membership on the basis of
gender. The absence of a mixed Group identifies an urgent need for
suitable provision to be made, and is not a justification for failing
or refusing to provide Scouting for young people."
I hope this makes things clearer with regards the Scout Association's
stance.
However, the orignial question still remains. How can a council say
that "prejudice and intolerance are unacceptable within its ranks" and
then go on to show prejudice and intolerance against gays and
atheists?
Graham
FPicci1215
Association does not ban anyone on the grounds of gender. This makes
A ban is a ban. If a girl wishes to join one of those units - and can't - its
a ban. The direction (top- down vs bottom-up) really is immaterial.
So the SA doesn't impose the ban, it is the unit/section/group that does (which
is what I said). How can they do that if the UK SA says it is Co-ed and bans
no one on account of gender?
The balance of your message goes on to explain how the UKSA justifies that a
ban can be imposed by a unit/section/group without being a ban. Cool.
frank
Graham Holland
><< Whereas the BSA bans all gay and atheist youth and adults, the Scout
>Association does not ban anyone on the grounds of gender. This makes
>the Scout Association co-ed, and your comparison invalid. >><BR><BR>
>
>A ban is a ban. If a girl wishes to join one of those units - and can't - its
>a ban. The direction (top- down vs bottom-up) really is immaterial.
I can see what you are trying to say, but that doesn't change the fact
that the SA, as an organisation, does not have a policy that disallows
girls. On the contrary, every effort should be made within every
District to make sure that there is adequate provision for all young
people, regardless of gender. The Scout Association wants girls to
join as well as boys. Can you say that the BSA wants gays to join as
well as straights, and wants atheists to join as well as those with a
faith?
>So the SA doesn't impose the ban, it is the unit/section/group that does (which
>is what I said). How can they do that if the UK SA says it is Co-ed and bans
>no one on account of gender?
That would be like saying the education system as a whole isn't co-ed
because an all boys school doesn't accept girls. In this case, there
are plenty of other schools that do accept boys. The Scout Association
is the same: it is an association of Scout Groups which belong to a
local geographical District. Within that District, as part of the
association, there is (or should be) provision for all, regardless of
gender. It's like the Football Association here in the UK (soccer).
The FA is co-ed because it accepts girls and boys. There are all-male
football clubs, and all-female football clubs. At some levels of the
game there are even mixed sex football clubs. Just because a boy can't
join the girls' team, or a girl can't join the boy's team, it doesn't
mean that the FA isn't co-ed.
The SA's policy makes it clear that there are situations where an all
boy Scout Group or an all girl Scout Group are entirely appropriate.
Yes, that means that there are some units that are not co-ed. However,
it doesn't change the fact that every District should have the
facility to provide a place for any girl that asks for one. If no such
Group exists in the District then it should be a priority for the
District Commissioner to create one. There are no Districts in my
Scout County of Merseyside that cannot offer a co-ed Scout Group to a
girl who asks for one. In my book, that makes us co-ed.
>The balance of your message goes on to explain how the UKSA justifies that a
>ban can be imposed by a unit/section/group without being a ban. Cool.
If that means that an all-girl school has a "ban" on boys, then yes.
However, I don't see that many other people use that word to describe
the absence of the opposite sex. In the same way I don't see people
saying that the NFL has a "ban" on female players.
If you want to continue to use the word "ban" then fine, go ahead.
Yes, there are some Scout Groups that only accept boys, but it doesn't
change the fact that, as an organisation, the SA is co-ed because it
accepts girls and boys.
And my question still remains unanswered at the second time of asking.
Here goes attempt number three...
How can a BSA council say that "prejudice and intolerance are
M G
Simple. It goes like this:
People who object to government subsidies and sponsorship of BSA are
exhibiting intolerance and prejudice against BSA for upholding its
values. Exclusion of gays and atheists, like gender segregation, is
lawfull and is not discrimination, nor is such exclusion a form of
prejudice or intolerance.
Owen Morris
Graham Holland <za...@enterprise.netREMOVE> typed:
> In this newsgroup..fpicci1215@aol.com (FPicci1215) wrote:
>
>> << Whereas the BSA bans all gay and atheist youth and adults, the
>> Scout Association does not ban anyone on the grounds of gender. This
>> makes
>> the Scout Association co-ed, and your comparison invalid. >><BR><BR>
>>
>> A ban is a ban. If a girl wishes to join one of those units - and
>> can't - its a ban. The direction (top- down vs bottom-up) really is
>> immaterial.
>
> I can see what you are trying to say, but that doesn't change the fact
> that the SA, as an organisation, does not have a policy that disallows
> girls. On the contrary, every effort should be made within every
> District to make sure that there is adequate provision for all young
> people, regardless of gender. The Scout Association wants girls to
> join as well as boys. Can you say that the BSA wants gays to join as
> well as straights, and wants atheists to join as well as those with a
> faith?
>
>
of course, technically this applies equally to the SA... though it isn't
held in as much regard as the rule is within BSA... and is only held
strictly in relation to adult leaders.... YP being deemed to be undecided,
rather than being left out of Scouting.... I have had in the past Cubs who
have refused to say "God" in their promise because they don't believe in any
form of higher being... fine... I don't see why it should stop them from
benefiting from the Scouting programme, so I let them join.
--
Owen Morris (ow...@devnull.farndonscouts.org)
1st Farndon Scout Group (http://www.farndonscouts.org)
ScoutLink Network Administrator (http://www.scoutlink.net)
FPicci1215
So does BSA. That's why we have Venturing and Exploring. Its also the case
with Learning for Life.
<< Can you say that the BSA wants gays to join as
well as straights, and wants atheists to join as well as those with a
faith? >>
Actually BSA doesn't care about sexual orientation so long as the members keep
their orientation to themselves. I know for a fact that two of my Scouts, that
attained Eagle rank, are gay. No one cared.
In terms of "atheists", I sometimes have to wonder. The baseline issue is the
individual's ability to agree to live in accordance with the Scout Oath. If
someone in the UK SA would not agree to the Scout Oath, what happens?
frank
FPicci1215
have refused to say "God" in their promise because they don't believe in any
form of higher being... fine... I don't see why it should stop them from
I notice that throughout this you used the first person "I". What is the
position of the SA if someone refuses to say the Scout Promise?
Frank
Jay Walker
What has the city gotten in return Merlyn?.... your concept of "nothing" is
pretty strange.
--
Jay Walker
Jay Walker
"Graham Holland" <za...@enterprise.netREMOVE> wrote in message
Graham... your should check your sources carefully... the BSA dos not "ban
all gay and atheist youth and adults".... even Merlyn knows better....
--
Jay Walker
Jay Walker
"Graham Holland" <za...@enterprise.netREMOVE> wrote in message
Point blank refused.... I don't recall it quite that way.... Did you check
the ample references I provided you?.... Just what is Dr. John Stockton's
nationality anyway Graham?.... and what does that have to do with Merlyn's
ridiculously misleading post?
--
Jay Walker
Chimp
> > Anyway, before you question someone else's "facts", maybe you should
> > concentrate on proving the veracity of your own statements first
> > (something you have point-blank refused to do in the past).
> >
> > Graham
>
> Point blank refused.... I don't recall it quite that way....
But everyone else does. Here is what you said:
"You can plainly see that, so far, I am unwilling [to back up
my statements]"
> Did you check the ample references I provided you?....
The "ample references" you provided? Again, your memory is playing
tricks. Here is the full extent of you providing "ample references":
<trumpet fanfare> ... (and here is the exact quote) ... <drum roll>
" ... do a GOOGLE search...." !!
And this from Mr Jay "I will quickly take exception to material
that is unsupported" Walker.
Chimp
J. Hugh Sullivan
Elementary, my dear Watson.
Queers and atheists are not qualified to be members of BSA and
therefore are not "within the ranks".
Hugh
M G
> Actually BSA doesn't care about sexual orientation so long as the members keep
> their orientation to themselves. I know for a fact that two of my Scouts, that attained Eagle rank, are gay. No one cared.
Who sets membership policy? The answer is national headquarters.
Does national headquarters allow Councils, Districts, or units to
over-rule the national policy? The answer is no. If someone
complained to national headquarters that two mentioned individuals
violated membership standards would their membership have been
revoked? The answer is yes if the two individuals did not deny they
are gay or if evidence was supplied to support the contention that
they are gay. If "BSA doesn't care" then it wouldn't expell them if
it knew about their sexual oriental, right?
> In terms of "atheists", I sometimes have to wonder. The baseline issue is the
> individual's ability to agree to live in accordance with the Scout Oath. If
> someone in the UK SA would not agree to the Scout Oath, what happens?
The Scout Oath is not the focus of this thread. The focus for this
thread is government subsidy for BSA. BSA is a private organization
that can enforce any arbitrary membership policy it chooses. However,
governments cannot subsidize organizations that are partisan/sectarian
(discriminatory) with regard to membership policy. Most people know
that. The issue here is whether atheists, unlike theists, are not
covered by this civil rights protection in the youth group context as
BSA claims.
Jay Walker
"Chimp" <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:18c7a69a.03101...@posting.google.com...
Those with an interest should actually check the archives and make up their
own mind Chimp...I doubt that your "but everyone does" or "the full extent"
statements would meet your own test of factual... The creative editing does
indeed serve your purpose though... however, that has nothing to do with
Merlyn's assertion that "the BSA wants to practice discrimination while
getting city property for nothing" which is incorrect...
The BSA has provided, at no direct cost to the city, a service... one that
was and continues to be both needed and wanted by the vast majority of the
citizens. The BSA has improved the property, again at no cost to the city.
As to whether the BSA "wants to practice discrimination", that too is hardly
an accurate statement. It is at best, an uninformed generalization. Keeping
convicted felons out of a youth organization, (which the BSA also does)
would be "discrimination" too... BUT that would be expected, now wouldn't
it? The BSA has established membership requirements that can be easily met
by those who agree to be acceptable role models for the Scout Oath and Scout
Law.. BTW, some atheists do indeed choose to accept the membership
requirements (you could be one of them) and the BSA has among its members
both youth and adults that are indeed homosexuals. The membership form does
not have a blank on it for religious preference nor does it have a blank for
sexual preference.
The BSA has the right to establish membership policies and it has the
obligation to vigorously defined that right. The policies of the BSA share
wide spread support from both the membership and the public. It would again
be advisable to direct those with an interest to the BSA national web site
for more complete information on this issue. Merlyn's statement is indeed
"misleading and incomplete" at best.
Chimp, did you check the archives to verify the information I posted?.... Do
you have any credible evidence that my statement concerning Dr. John
Stockton is in any way "incomplete or misleading"?.... You do not nor does
Graham. Lets stick to the issue here... Merlyn has once again posted a "one
liner" that is clearly misleading.
--
Jay Walker
Chimp
>> issue is the individual's ability to agree to live in accordance
>> with the Scout Oath. If someone in the UK SA would not agree to
>> the Scout Oath, what happens?
>
> The Scout Oath is not the focus of this thread. The focus for this
> thread is government subsidy for BSA. BSA is a private organization
> that can enforce any arbitrary membership policy it chooses. However,
> governments cannot subsidize organizations that are partisan/sectarian
Government (singular), not governments. Since the above mentions
the UK, note that there is nothing stopping the UK government
funding sectarian organizations. In fact it does so all the time.
I believe that, by law, UK schools must hold a "predominantly
Christian" service each morning. Students have no right to absent
themselves (although parents have a right to absent their children).
To their credit, about half the UK schools simply ignore this law.
Whatever, the policy seems to do Christians little good in the UK:
church attendance amongst school leavers drops to <2% as soon as
it is no longer compulsory.
Chimp
Chimp
> [snip of Jay's usual irrelevant stuff] however, that has nothing to do
> with Merlyn's assertion that "the BSA wants to practice discrimination
> while getting city property for nothing" which is incorrect...
>
> The BSA has provided, at no direct cost to the city, a service... one that
> was and continues to be both needed and wanted by the vast majority of the
> citizens. The BSA has improved the property, again at no cost to the city.
The BSA has use of a plot of city land, and pays no rent. Merlyn's
"... getting city property for nothing" is an accurate summary of that.
> As to whether the BSA "wants to practice discrimination", that too
> is hardly an accurate statement. It is at best, an uninformed
> generalization. Keeping convicted felons out of a youth organization,
> (which the BSA also does) would be "discrimination" too... BUT that
> would be expected, now wouldn't it?
Yes it would. So you're agreeing. The BSA wants to discriminate against
several groups (felons, atheists, gays, among others). It was clear
from the context which groups Merlyn was referring to. His statement
was thus accurate.
> The BSA has established membership requirements that can be easily met
> by those who agree to be acceptable role models for the Scout Oath and
> Scout Law.. BTW, some atheists do indeed choose to accept the membership
> requirements (you could be one of them) and the BSA has among its
> members both youth and adults that are indeed homosexuals. The membership
> form does not have a blank on it for religious preference nor does it
> have a blank for sexual preference.
You are rather overlooking the fact that BSA requires members to
subscribe to a religious oath. Thus it has entrance requirements
that discriminate over religion. All your bluster, prevarication
and smokescreen doesn't change that. Neither does the fact that
many (as you point out with unnecessary regularity) do indeed meet
the requirements.
Now, how about you answer the question you repeatedly avoided
last time we went round and round this circle. Since, as you
quite clearly state above, some atheists do join BSA, how can
"duty to God" be in any way fundamental or necessary for Scouting?
Indeed, since you state that even I could join, and since my
complete lack of any belief in God and non-performance of any
duties to any Gods is presumably well known to the readership
by now, in what way are these things fundamental to Scouting?
Are you saying, as I think you're saying, that the mere
utterance of those words is sufficient to qualify me for
Scouting, however little regard I pay them in everyday life?
Is that what you call a principle?
> Chimp, did you check the archives to verify the information I posted?
> .... Do you have any credible evidence that my statement concerning
> Dr. John Stockton is in any way "incomplete or misleading"?....
> You do not nor does Graham.
Here is a clue Jay: I have no interest in Dr John nor his nationality.
Here is a second clue: The accusation was _not_ that your statement
on this was incomplete and misleading (as your use of quotes
misleadingly suggests) -- indeed, it is most likely entirely complete
and entirely accurate -- the accusation was that it was unsupported.
Not only was it unsupported, you stated that you were "plainly"
unwilling to support the statement. This attitude conflicted with
your frequent whines that others post unsupported material, and
conflicts glaringly with your self-righteous and entirely inaccurate
statement "I will quickly take exception to material that is
unsupported ...".
Chimp
Chimp
> >
> >> That policy reads in part, "prejudice, intolerance, and unlawful
> >> discrimination in any form are unacceptable within the ranks of
> >> the Greater New York Councils."
> >
> > How can a council say that "prejudice and intolerance are
> > unacceptable within its ranks" and then go on to show
>
>
> Queers and atheists are not qualified to be members of BSA and
> therefore are not "within the ranks".
Come, come, Hugh, you normally read English more accurately than
that. The objects of the prejudice and intolerance may indeed
not be in the ranks, but the prejudice and intolerance most
certainly are.
Indeed, anyone who has signed the DRP is prejudiced against
atheists, since they have decided, before even meeting the
person, and knowing very little of their character or life
story, that they cannot become the best kind of citizen.
"Blacks cannot become the best kind of quarterback", "Jews
cannot become the best kind of musician" and "Catholics cannot
become the best kind of politician", are similar, and equally
false statements, arising from the sort of prejudice that the
above policy is intended to reject.
Chimp
Chimp
> [snip of Jay's usual irrelevant stuff] however, that has nothing to do
> with Merlyn's assertion that "the BSA wants to practice discrimination
> while getting city property for nothing" which is incorrect...
>
> The BSA has provided, at no direct cost to the city, a service... one that
> was and continues to be both needed and wanted by the vast majority of the
> citizens. The BSA has improved the property, again at no cost to the city.
The BSA has use of a plot of city land, and pays no rent. Merlyn's
"... getting city property for nothing" is an accurate summary of that.
> As to whether the BSA "wants to practice discrimination", that too
> is hardly an accurate statement. It is at best, an uninformed
> generalization. Keeping convicted felons out of a youth organization,
> (which the BSA also does) would be "discrimination" too... BUT that
> would be expected, now wouldn't it?
Yes it would. So you're agreeing. The BSA wants to discriminate against
several groups (felons, atheists, gays, among others). It was clear
from the context which groups Merlyn was referring to. His statement
was thus accurate.
> The BSA has established membership requirements that can be easily met
> by those who agree to be acceptable role models for the Scout Oath and
> Scout Law.. BTW, some atheists do indeed choose to accept the membership
> requirements (you could be one of them) and the BSA has among its
> members both youth and adults that are indeed homosexuals. The membership
> form does not have a blank on it for religious preference nor does it
> have a blank for sexual preference.
You are rather overlooking the fact that BSA requires members to
subscribe to a religious oath. Thus it has entrance requirements
that discriminate over religion. All your bluster, prevarication
and smokescreen doesn't change that. Neither does the fact that
many (as you point out with unnecessary regularity) do indeed meet
the requirements.
Now, how about you answer the question you repeatedly avoided
last time we went round and round this circle. Since, as you
quite clearly state above, some atheists do join BSA, how can
"duty to God" be in any way fundamental or necessary for Scouting?
Indeed, since you state that even I could join, and since my
complete lack of any belief in God and non-performance of any
duties to any Gods is presumably well known to the readership
by now, in what way are these things fundamental to Scouting?
Are you saying, as I think you're saying, that the mere
utterance of those words is sufficient to qualify me for
Scouting, however little regard I pay them in everyday life?
Is that what you call a principle?
> Chimp, did you check the archives to verify the information I posted?
> .... Do you have any credible evidence that my statement concerning
> Dr. John Stockton is in any way "incomplete or misleading"?....
> You do not nor does Graham.
Here is a clue Jay: I have no interest in Dr John nor his nationality.
Here is a second clue: The accusation was _not_ that your statement
on this was incomplete and misleading (as your use of quotes
misleadingly suggests) -- indeed, it is most likely entirely complete
and entirely accurate -- the accusation was that it was unsupported.
Not only was it unsupported, you stated that you were "plainly"
unwilling to support the statement. This attitude conflicted with
your frequent whines that others post unsupported material, and
conflicts glaringly with your self-righteous and entirely inaccurate
statement "I will quickly take exception to material that is
unsupported ...".
Chimp
Jay Walker
> "Jay Walker" <wwwa...@sp.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > "Chimp" <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > by those who agree to be acceptable role models for the Scout Oath and
> > Scout Law.. BTW, some atheists do indeed choose to accept the membership
> > requirements (you could be one of them) and the BSA has among its
> > members both youth and adults that are indeed homosexuals. The
membership
> > form does not have a blank on it for religious preference nor does it
> > have a blank for sexual preference.
>
>
> last time we went round and round this circle. Since, as you
> quite clearly state above, some atheists do join BSA, how can
> "duty to God" be in any way fundamental or necessary for Scouting?
>
Apparently some atheists can indeed accept the DRP as well as agree to live
by the Scout Oath and Scout Law.... Some with alternative life styles have
no problem accepting the conditions of membership either... BUT then you
already know that.
>
> Indeed, since you state that even I could join, and since my
> complete lack of any belief in God and non-performance of any
> duties to any Gods is presumably well known to the readership
> by now, in what way are these things fundamental to Scouting?
>
beliefs are certainly none of your business. I can sign an adult application
though and my peers have indeed found me to be an acceptable role model for
the Scout Oath and Scout Law. You have, from time to time, responded here as
though you are/were a member of the BSA. Let us know what Council you
currently serve and your volunteer position. Let us in on your Scouting
experience... or lack of it. Come out of the closet Chimp... tell us who you
really are.
>
> > Chimp, did you check the archives to verify the information I posted?
> > .... Do you have any credible evidence that my statement concerning
> > Dr. John Stockton is in any way "incomplete or misleading"?....
> > You do not nor does Graham.
>
> Here is a clue Jay: I have no interest in Dr John nor his nationality.
> Here is a second clue: The accusation was _not_ that your statement
> on this was incomplete and misleading (as your use of quotes
> misleadingly suggests) -- indeed, it is most likely entirely complete
> and entirely accurate -- the accusation was that it was unsupported.
>
> Not only was it unsupported, you stated that you were "plainly"
> unwilling to support the statement. This attitude conflicted with
> your frequent whines that others post unsupported material, and
> conflicts glaringly with your self-righteous and entirely inaccurate
> statement "I will quickly take exception to material that is
> unsupported ...".
>
> Chimp
What humorous reading your BS makes in the archives!
Was my original post factual Chimp?.... a simple yes or no will be quite
sufficient... You did check the archives didn't you? What part of "check the
archives" for readily available information supports your contention that I
have not provided support for my original statement?....
You can bet I will continue to challenge misleading posts...
--
Jay Walker
Graham Holland
>Chimp, did you check the archives to verify the information I posted?.... Do
>you have any credible evidence that my statement concerning Dr. John
>Stockton is in any way "incomplete or misleading"?.... You do not nor does
>Graham. Lets stick to the issue here...
Why do *you* continue to insist that *you* don't have to provide
sourced, credible evidence to support your statements?
Why do *you* continue to insist that other people should go away and
search for the evidence to prove you are right or wrong?
IMO you shouldn't make statements of fact unless you are willing and
able to provide links to the proof of those facts. If you refuse to
provide that proof when asked then you will (and you do) look like a
fool.
Graham Holland
As far as refusal to believe in God is concerned, the guidelines (for
young people) are in two sections.
"To enable young people to grow into independent adults the Scout
Method encourages young people to question what they have been taught.
Scouts and Venture Scouts who question God's existence, their own
spirituality or the structures and beliefs of any or all religions are
simply searching for spiritual understanding. This notion of a search
for enlightenment is compatible with belief in most of the world's
faiths. It is unacceptable to refuse Membership, or question a young
person's suitability to continue to participate fully in a Section, if
they express doubts about the meaning of the Promise."
This covers those who question the meaning of the Promise. However,
the rules are clear about those members, or potential members, who are
firm in their (non) belief...
It is not acceptable to deny entry to, or persuade a young person to
leave, the Movement because of his or her religious beliefs.
"However, the Religious Policy of the Association prohibits Membership
to anyone who denies the spiritual side of human beings or the
existence of a spiritual power greater than any human being. It may
also be acceptable to ask a young person to leave the Movement if:
* the young person is putting unfair pressure on other young people to
conform to a particular set of beliefs or to join another faith
community (in such case 'unfairness' needs to be judged by the effect
of that pressure on other members);
* the young person expresses their beliefs in a way that is in
conflict with the fundamental principles of the Association."
Both sections are taken from
http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/eqopps/eo-rel-y.htm
Graham
--
GRAHAM HOLLAND <zabaR...@enterprise.net> Liverpool, England
uk.rec.scouting FAQ http://www.scoutnet.org.uk/uk_rec.htm
uk.rec.scouting Archive Group for file sharing
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/UKRSArchive
Graham Holland
>Graham... your should check your sources carefully... the BSA dos not "ban
>all gay and atheist youth and adults".... even Merlyn knows better....
So if the BSA (e.g. DE, Council, or HQ) found out a leader is gay that
leader would not be thrown out? Right?
Graham Holland
>People who object to government subsidies and sponsorship of BSA are
>exhibiting intolerance and prejudice against BSA for upholding its
>values.
As far as I am concerned I am not objecting to the BSA upholding its
values - I am objecting to the values it is upholding.
>Exclusion of gays and atheists, like gender segregation, is
>lawfull and is not discrimination,
Yes, it is lawful.
Yes, it is discrimination.
>nor is such exclusion a form of
>prejudice or intolerance.
That, however, is opinion. Your opinion is that it's right, mine is
that it's wrong.
Graham
Graham Holland
>Elementary, my dear Watson.
>
>Queers and atheists are not qualified to be members of BSA and
>therefore are not "within the ranks".
But the facts state that they are "within the ranks", and are members.
I know of three gay members of the BSA from my own Scouting experience
in the USA and in this thread Frank has stated that he has two Eagle
Scouts who are both gay.
Graham
M G
> Graham... your should check your sources carefully... the BSA dos not "ban
> all gay and atheist youth and adults".... even Merlyn knows better....
Not within the LFL programs, but from the Scouting programs, including
co-ed Venturing, it does ban atheists and gays. If BSA wants to keep
its no rent building it may be able to do so by making the building a
headquarters for the LFL subsidiary and removing all non-LFL
activities from that building although I doubt that will happen.
Here is an excerpt from a court decision
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A108090.htm
"Plaintiff complained to district officials about the policy of
permitting the Boy Scouts access to schools and students when, after
investigating the organization further, plaintiff determined that her
son could not join because he was an atheist. To join, a boy must take
the Scout Oath and agree to obey Scout Law. Through the Scout Oath, a
boy pledges to honor his duty to God and his duty to his country, to
help others, and to obey Scout Law. The Scout Law to which a scout
must subscribe is to be "trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly,
courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and
reverent." Because the Scout Oath and general scouting principles
require a belief in God, persons who do not have that belief, such as
atheists, are not eligible for membership. Although a belief in God is
necessary for membership, the organization is otherwise
nondenominational."
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
>su...@adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote in message
>> On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 17:23:24 +0100, Graham Holland
>> >In this newsgroup..Brian Westley <wes...@visi.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> That policy reads in part, "prejudice, intolerance, and unlawful
>> >> discrimination in any form are unacceptable within the ranks of
>> >> the Greater New York Councils."
>> >
>> > How can a council say that "prejudice and intolerance are
>> > unacceptable within its ranks" and then go on to show
>> > intolerance against gays and atheists?
>>
>> Elementary, my dear Watson.
>>
>> Queers and atheists are not qualified to be members of BSA and
>> therefore are not "within the ranks".
>
>Come, come, Hugh, you normally read English more accurately than
>that. The objects of the prejudice and intolerance may indeed
>not be in the ranks, but the prejudice and intolerance most
>certainly are.
In my BSA experience, which probably doubles or triples that of anyone
else here, I see absolutely no intolerance or discrimination "within
the ranks". Atheists and queers are not a topic of discussion at any
meetings I've attended over the past 65 years. The exception to the
rule is that young Scouts I have seen, since 1938, have joked about
and ridiculed queers when talking among themselves - but I've never
heard them discuss atheists.
Eat breakfast and drink coffee with the good ol' boys at the cafe
every morning and you hear a lot of anti-homo ridicule. Some may be
BSA members but it's not "within the ranks".
>Indeed, anyone who has signed the DRP is prejudiced against
>atheists, since they have decided, before even meeting the
>person, and knowing very little of their character or life
>story, that they cannot become the best kind of citizen.
Graham used the phrase "within the ranks" and I quoted that in my post
and limited my statement to that - I think you missed it.
I agree with BSA that queers and atheists can not become the best kind
of citizen, because by BSA definition they can't ; you don't agree
because you don't consider those characteristics disqualifying. There
are other characteristics which prevent a person from being the best
kind of citizen - lying, adultery, stealing, child and female abuse
among others. In some respects, on this news group anyhow, I am not
the best kind of citizen because I don't care much for the feelings of
queer activists. You and Jon have caused me to soften my comments
about atheists - perhaps make exceptions for two of them might be more
accurate.
As good as you are you would be lousy discussing duty to God with a
Scout , which is one of the basic elements of BSA. Thus, for BSA
purposes, you are not the best kind of citizen. What would you do if
asked to lead Church Services on a Sunday campout, remembering that we
pray to God?
>
>"Blacks cannot become the best kind of quarterback", "Jews
>cannot become the best kind of musician" and "Catholics cannot
>become the best kind of politician", are similar, and equally
>false statements, arising from the sort of prejudice that the
>above policy is intended to reject.
You know, I have never heard of any of those statements before...
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
As I've often stated I can only speak from my own experience.
I have never seen an admitted atheist in BSA. I have never seen a
queer in BSA who was not run off as soon as he was discovered. Run off
is an understatement.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
In the South he would be fortunate if that was all that happened. I
don't know any people who actually hate queers but I know hundreds who
despise them.
Hugh
Owen Morris
Chimp <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> typed:
> ma...@tidalwave.net (M G) wrote in message
>> fpicc...@aol.com (FPicci1215) wrote in message
>>
>>> In terms of "atheists", I sometimes have to wonder. The baseline
>>> issue is the individual's ability to agree to live in accordance
>>> with the Scout Oath. If someone in the UK SA would not agree to
>>> the Scout Oath, what happens?
>>
>> The Scout Oath is not the focus of this thread. The focus for this
>> thread is government subsidy for BSA. BSA is a private organization
>> that can enforce any arbitrary membership policy it chooses.
>> However, governments cannot subsidize organizations that are
>> partisan/sectarian (discriminatory) with regard to membership
>> policy. [...]
>
> Government (singular), not governments. Since the above mentions
> the UK, note that there is nothing stopping the UK government
> funding sectarian organizations. In fact it does so all the time.
> I believe that, by law, UK schools must hold a "predominantly
> Christian" service each morning. Students have no right to absent
> themselves (although parents have a right to absent their children).
> To their credit, about half the UK schools simply ignore this law.
>
even where that is the majority/sole faith in the school, without specific
permission from the LEA... and even in such cases, a predominatly Christian
assembly must also be held each day (note that it is day, not morning... a
large number of schools hold the assembly after lunch.) As for being able
to excuse someone from the assembly, in practice it doesn't happen, because
it is only from the religious elements of the assembly that the child (or a
teacher) may be excused/excuss themselves... that would mean that for most
assemblies, then someone would be in at the start, then have to leave, then
come back in for notices and the like, then have to leave again for
prayers.... then come back in maybe for a talk about a non-religious
issue... most people just sit through the parts they aren't interested in
;)
Owen Morris
J. Hugh Sullivan <su...@adelphia.net> typed:<snip>
> As good as you are you would be lousy discussing duty to God with a
> Scout , which is one of the basic elements of BSA. Thus, for BSA
> purposes, you are not the best kind of citizen. What would you do if
> asked to lead Church Services on a Sunday campout, remembering that we
> pray to God?
>
But, equally would a Christian be any use at discussing duty to God with a
Moslem Scout, or a Buddhist at discussiong duty to God with a Christian
Scout?
Graham Holland
wrote:
>
>But, equally would a Christian be any use at discussing duty to God with a
>Moslem Scout, or a Buddhist at discussiong duty to God with a Christian
>Scout?
I am a Christian, but that has not stopped me from discussing duty to
God with Muslim Scouts and Leaders. Why should it?
FPicci1215
quite clearly state above, some atheists do join BSA, how can
Perhaps the best answer to the role of "faith" in Scouting is available from
the WOSM Web site. It contains the mission statement of the World
organization. Specifically:
the mission of Scouting is to contribute to the education of young people,
through a value system based on the Scout Promise and Law,
<snip>
• assisting them to establish a value system based upon spiritual,
social and personal principles as expressed in the Promise and Law.
All National Scout organizations are now required to include "Duty to God" in
their promise (yes, I know there are several that don't, they will be required
to put it back when next revised). Scouting throughout the world has three
elements in their respective "promises" - Duty to God, Duty to Others, Duty to
self.
<< Are you saying, as I think you're saying, that the mere
utterance of those words is sufficient to qualify me for
Scouting, however little regard I pay them in everyday life?
Is that what you call a principle? >><BR><BR>
I can't speak for Jay, but I would say that "mere utterance" is not adequate.
However, the use of the word "God" is a ..... convenience... to provide a
context for the Promise rather than a specific reference to a specific deity.
I think WOSMs handbook "Scouting and Spiritual Development" does a fairly
decent job of defining the situation.
Personally, I think it is more a function of agreement with the principles
associated with recognizing a "spiritual world" which is greater than ones
self. Buddhists do not necessarily have a belief in "God", they do have a
belief that is consistent with the concept contained in the Scout Oath.
Frank
FPicci1215
cannot become the best kind of musician" and "Catholics cannot
become the best kind of politician", are similar, and equally
false statements, arising from the sort of prejudice that the
above policy is intended to reject.>>
Bad analogy set. Quarterbacking a football team and playing an instrument are
poor examples -physcial characteristics and/or skills vs value system. The
Catholic/Politician analogy is almost as bad - the argument there was based on
"who" will be represented.
I would argue that anyone of "faith" (regardless of which one it is and
including those who profess Atheism) cannot be the "best kind of politician".
Assuming the "politician" has a set of moral beliefs and/or value systems, it
will at some point run contrary to what their constituency wishes at a given
point in time. At that point, they will not be the "best" kind of politician -
assuming that your definition of the "best kind of politician" is one that
strictly represents their constituency.
In fact, as soon as a politician is influenced, in any way, by a lobbyist, they
have ceased to be the "best kind of politician". As soon as financing or
"deals" influence a vote, they have ceased to be the "best" kind of politician.
The result - our political system prohibits having a politician who is "the
best kind of politician".
Frank
M G
When I said governments I meant governments in the U.S. I apologize
for inadvertantly slighting the English by using the plural without
indicating it was U.S.
I only have limited knowledge of the religion-state policies of other
countries. It is my understanding that at least one Scandinavian
country, I think it is Norway, also mandates Christian (Protestant)
religious instruction in schools. France also goes too far in the
other direction, in my opinion, prohibiting students from wearing
clothes and accessories that communicate religious identification, and
Germany cops-out by leaving it up to each locality to decide if they
will permit Islamic female students wear head coverings. U.S. laws
that let individuals follow their religious convictions and encourages
accommodation of different religious beliefs while prohibiting
government from espousing or counseling religious belief in my opinion
gets it just right.
Getting the prohibition on government partisanship to extend to
theism/atheism in the U.S. will be very difficult, but taking the long
term perspective I don't think it is as hopeless a cause as many
people think. Not long ago I saw a tribute on T.V. to ex
vice-president Quayle attended by ex President Bush among others.
They recited the pledge of allegiance without "under God"! They also
had a cleric with an Irish accent give a Christian prayer. Given that
this happened post-Newdow I considered that significant.
The First Geer Family
> Yes it would. So you're agreeing. The BSA wants to discriminate against
> several groups (felons, atheists, gays, among others). It was clear
> from the context which groups Merlyn was referring to. His statement
> was thus accurate.
While it is true that BSA to some felons, based on what crime they where
convicted of. How, it well in their Legal Right to do that. Public schools,
some Private businesses in the manufacturing and industry discriminate
against felons do to Federal or State Laws. Heck even the Federal Government
disciminate against them.
And pray tell what do you mean by "among others"?
>
> Now, how about you answer the question you repeatedly avoided
> last time we went round and round this circle. Since, as you
> quite clearly state above, some atheists do join BSA, how can
> "duty to God" be in any way fundamental or necessary for Scouting?
As long as they are willing to accept the DRP or they just conceal that they
are Atheists. BTW BSA normally does not conduct nor approve ANY Witch Hunt.
If a current member openly declares himself or herself as an Athiest, felon,
or gay they do it knowly what will happen.
>
> Are you saying, as I think you're saying, that the mere
> utterance of those words is sufficient to qualify me for
> Scouting, however little regard I pay them in everyday life?
> Is that what you call a principle?
Its called Trusting, Honest when a scout or scouter, says he or she accepts
the DRP
J. Hugh Sullivan
<ow...@devnull.farndonscouts.org> wrote:
>In news:3f880921...@news.cis.dfn.de,
>J. Hugh Sullivan <su...@adelphia.net> typed:
>> On 10 Oct 2003 12:50:27 -0700, pan_pani...@yahoo.com (Chimp)
>> wrote:
>>
><snip>
>> As good as you are you would be lousy discussing duty to God with a
>> Scout , which is one of the basic elements of BSA. Thus, for BSA
>> purposes, you are not the best kind of citizen. What would you do if
>> asked to lead Church Services on a Sunday campout, remembering that we
>> pray to God?
>>
>
>But, equally would a Christian be any use at discussing duty to God with a
>Moslem Scout, or a Buddhist at discussiong duty to God with a Christian
>Scout?
I don't know much about Muslims but it appears to me that Allah is
mostly a different way of spelling God.
If Buddhists don't believe in "God" they shouldn't be in BSA. But I'll
not be bigot enough to take them to court for it or pimp for their
being banned.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
I think politicians SHOULD be influenced by the people they represent.
After all, they were elected/appointed to represent us.
A glaring example is that Judge Moore represents the wishes of
(apparently) the majority in Alabama yet the courts prevent him from
doing it.
>The result - our political system prohibits having a politician who is "the
>best kind of politician".
In the case of Moore it's not the best kind of government for many
Alabamians.
If anyone thinks I am an activist for display of the TC, please do a
Google search. I'd stick 'em in someone's face only if they said I
could not; I have no need otherwise 'cause I know where to find 'em.
Hugh
M G
> In this newsgroup..matt@tidalwave.net (M G) wrote:
>
> >People who object to government subsidies and sponsorship of BSA are
> >exhibiting intolerance and prejudice against BSA for upholding its
> >values.
>
> As far as I am concerned I am not objecting to the BSA upholding its
> values - I am objecting to the values it is upholding.
There is no law that says that BSA has to have your values or that you
have to have BSA "values". Values in quotes because I find BSA
characterization of its membership policy as "upholding values" to be
a mischaracterization. BSA can characterize its own policies anyway
it wants to. Nevertheless, BSA Councils place themselves in potential
legal jeopardy when they sign legal documents that make claims in
contradiction to existing laws.
> >Exclusion of gays and atheists, like gender segregation, is
> >lawfull and is not discrimination,
>
> Yes, it is lawful.
> Yes, it is discrimination.
The question I responded to was how could the Council sign such a
statement from the city given its exclusionary policies. I offered
what I think is the BSA Council's point of view. You and I disagree
with that reasoning, but based on what I have read from BSA
spokespeople that appears to me to be their viewpoint. I don't
understand the basis of their denying that it is discrimination
either, but since they signed the document the implication is that
they deny it is discrimination. As someone else points out, refusing
membership to a felon is discrimination but that doesn't mean that a
youth organization that refuses membership to felons is disciminatory.
So BSA could be claiming atheists and gays are in the same catagory
as felons and therefore excluding them doesn't justify the label
discrimination.
In my view the biggest problem with the document is the context. Keep
in mind the original context - a BSA Council was signing a document
accepted by the city as qualifiying BSA to be in conformance of legal
anti-discrimination requirements. While it is true that selective
membership policies by strictly private organizations are lawfull -
and my interpretation is that the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that BSA is
exempt from public accommodation laws and is thus strictly private -
it is generally not true that such exlusive membership policies are
lawful when conducted, either directly or indirectly, by cities. BSA
and the city appear to be claiming that BSA's membership policy
excluding atheists and gays is legal in the context of receiving
government subsidy. I don't think that claim is consistent with
existing legal principles, but I am not a judge. Nor do I think
that is a claim that most atheists will ever find acceptable. I
suspect the same is true of most gays.
> >nor is such exclusion a form of
> >prejudice or intolerance.
>
> That, however, is opinion. Your opinion is that it's right, mine is
> that it's wrong.
Again, I was not expressing my opinion. I was expressing an opinion
that appears to me to be BSA's official position. BSA policy is to
exclude atheists and gays yet the BSA Council signed the document.
What other interpretation of the BSA Council's reasoning is possible?
The alternative "within the ranks" justification is circular. Since
it is likely that there are atheists and gays already in the ranks
who, according to existing BSA policy, would be expelled if outed to
headquarters that isn't sufficient to justify the Council's signing.
Furthermore, the Council could not sign the document without the
consent of headquarters so I attribute this viewpoint to headquarters.
M G
> On 11 Oct 2003 21:46:07 GMT, fpicc...@aol.com (FPicci1215) wrote:
>
> I think politicians SHOULD be influenced by the people they represent.
> After all, they were elected/appointed to represent us.
> A glaring example is that Judge Moore represents the wishes of
> (apparently) the majority in Alabama yet the courts prevent him from
> doing it.
Judges are not supposed to be politicians, their proper role in
government is that of unpoliticians. They are supposed to keep the
politicians in check and protect minorities from the tyranny of the
majority. Unfortunately, states like California and Alabama elect
their Supreme Court judges. Electing Supreme Court judges is a
mistake. It turns judges into politicians.
Ernie Wisdom
"M G" <ma...@tidalwave.net> wrote in message
news:4c9fc7f6.03101...@posting.google.com...
In those place where they do not elect how do the Judges get their jobs?
Could it be that they are appointed by politicians?
--
Ernie Wisdom
Volunteer at Large
Downey, CA
ewi...@earthlink.net
My Blog http://home.earthlink.net/~ewisdom/
Owen Morris
Graham Holland <za...@enterprise.netREMOVE> typed:
> In this newsgroup.."Owen Morris" <ow...@devnull.farndonscouts.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> But, equally would a Christian be any use at discussing duty to God
>> Christian Scout?
>
> I am a Christian, but that has not stopped me from discussing duty to
> God with Muslim Scouts and Leaders. Why should it?
>
that Hugh gave as a Christian... "I don't know much about Muslims but it
appears to me that Allah is
mostly a different way of spelling God."
Muslims have some very fundamentally different views regarding God to those
of Christians. Most Christians, myself included, have very little idea
about those views. If we are to say that an atheist can't talk to a
Christian about their duty to God because *the atheist can't comprehend the
Christians duty to God*, then I would argue that the same could be said for
a Christian talking to a Muslim about their duty to God (Allah).
It would, however, appear that while one is acceptable, the other isn't, and
I see this as being an anomaly
M G
> In those place where they do not elect how do the Judges get their jobs?
> Could it be that they are appointed by politicians?
I am assuming that elected judges need to run for re-election to keep
their seats whereas appointed judges keep their seats until
retirement. I doubt that there are many one time public elections
that confer lifetime employment.
Even with lifetime employment judges are constrained by public
opinion. They have to be mindfull of the politicians control over the
budget and over the contents of the constitution. Nevertheless,
judges who have lifetime employment have more freedom to judge in
accord with their conscience and that freedom is important if the rule
of law is to prevail over the rule of public opinion.
The First Geer Family
"Graham Holland" <za...@enterprise.netREMOVE> wrote in message
> >Association does not ban anyone on the grounds of gender. This makes
> >the Scout Association co-ed, and your comparison invalid. >><BR><BR>
> >
> >A ban is a ban. If a girl wishes to join one of those units - and
can't - its
> >a ban. The direction (top- down vs bottom-up) really is immaterial.
>
> I can see what you are trying to say, but that doesn't change the fact
> that the SA, as an organisation, does not have a policy that disallows
> girls. On the contrary, every effort should be made within every
> District to make sure that there is adequate provision for all young
> people, regardless of gender. The Scout Association wants girls to
> join as well as boys. Can you say that the BSA wants gays to join as
> well as straights, and wants atheists to join as well as those with a
> faith?
What does the anology of the UK Scouting policy against gender with the
BSA's policies dealing with gays and athiests? I would be more in line with
the US Girl Scout policy of gender discrimination.
Besides how one country's scouting program views towards gays and athiests
SHOULD NOT be imposed on another country. How do you think the UK Scouts
would feel if the BSA tried to impose their view on the UK scouting program?
Graham Holland
<emg...@trtain.missouri.org> wrote:
>
>What does the anology of the UK Scouting policy against gender with the
>BSA's policies dealing with gays and athiests? I would be more in line with
>the US Girl Scout policy of gender discrimination.
Actually, the UK policy is not "against gender".
The original exchange was:-
Question from me:- How can a council say that "prejudice and
intolerance are unacceptable within its ranks" and then go on to show
prejudice and intolerance against gays and atheists?
Answer from Frank:- The same way that the SA in the UK can say it is
CoEd but allow sections/groups/units to remain "boys only".
I then went on to say that the comparison wasn't valid, and then went
on the explain how the SA is CoEd, and the reasons why it can call
itself that when some Groups are male-only. I was saying that the SA
doesn't ban girls (and encourages all Districts to be able to
accommodate them), unlike the BSA which does ban gays and atheists.
>Besides how one country's scouting program views towards gays and athiests
>SHOULD NOT be imposed on another country.
I think I have missed something along the way. Who is suggesting that
one country's Scouting program views should be imposed on another?
>How do you think the UK Scouts
>would feel if the BSA tried to impose their view on the UK scouting program?
The UK Scouts would probably be mildly amused.
As it stands there are no channels by which any national Scouting
organisation can "impose" their views on another, and I haven't seen
any evidence to suggest that any national organisation actually wants
to even attempt to impose their views on another!
Graham
J. Hugh Sullivan
Mercans and Brits don't pronounce "tomato" and "potato" the same but
that doesn't make them taste different. Call them Allah and Mohammed,
if they are born in sin but can be saved, that's close enough for me.
We don'r drive the same car but I expect we could arrive at the same
destination if we wished.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
The SCOTUS is appointed - conservatives appoint right wingers and
liberals appoint left wingers. Can it get more political than being
appointed for you political views?
Court cases are rarely decided on guilt or innocence, right or wrong;
they are decided by which lawyer makes the best presentation while
preventing the opposition from doing the same.
No matter how he gets there a judge owes somebody. He is as limited by
the law as he is free to observe it.
Hugh
Chimp
> > > by those who agree to be acceptable role models for the Scout Oath and
> > > Scout Law.. BTW, some atheists do indeed choose to accept the membership
> > > requirements (you could be one of them) and the BSA has among its
> > > members both youth and adults that are indeed homosexuals. The
> > > membership form does not have a blank on it for religious preference
> > > nor does it have a blank for sexual preference.
> >
> > Now, how about you answer the question you repeatedly avoided
> > last time we went round and round this circle. Since, as you
> > quite clearly state above, some atheists do join BSA, how can
> > "duty to God" be in any way fundamental or necessary for Scouting?
>
> counts. Apparently some atheists can indeed accept the DRP as well
> as agree to live by the Scout Oath and Scout Law.... Some with
> alternative life styles have no problem accepting the conditions of
> membership either... BUT then you already know that.
OK, so if duty to God is a personal issue, and if (as you say) some
people who are atheists (ie, lack any belief in God) agree to live
by the Scout Oath, in what way is it fundamental to the scouting
program? If it is a personal issue, it is likely different for
each kid, and therefore not something that underpins the program.
And, yes, I did know that many people find the membership conditions
acceptable -- since you knew that I already knew it, why bother
to state it? -- I am asking you to explain why the duty-to-God issue
is a fundamental enough issue to lead to the non-participation of
some kids, at the same time as being entirely personal.
> [...] You have, from time to time, responded here as though you
> are/were a member of the BSA.
I don't think I have ... if so I gave the wrong impression.
> Let us know what Council you currently serve and your volunteer
> position. Let us in on your Scouting experience... or lack of it.
> Come out of the closet Chimp... tell us who you really are.
I think this has all been posted before. I am not a member of
Scouting, and never have been as an adult (one reason, though not
the only one, is that I'm not eligible, as you know). I was in
scouting for a while as a kid, till about 14. Over the last
decade, I have had quite a bit of contact with some scout troops,
helping them out with activities that I enjoy doing (climbing,
mountain climbing, and science-related activities such as astronomy
field trips and observatory visits).
> > > Chimp, did you check the archives to verify the information I posted?
> > > .... Do you have any credible evidence that my statement concerning
> > > Dr. John Stockton is in any way "incomplete or misleading"?....
> > > You do not nor does Graham.
> >
> > Here is a clue Jay: I have no interest in Dr John nor his nationality.
> > Here is a second clue: The accusation was _not_ that your statement
> > on this was incomplete and misleading (as your use of quotes
> > misleadingly suggests) -- indeed, it is most likely entirely complete
> > and entirely accurate -- the accusation was that it was unsupported.
> >
> > Not only was it unsupported, you stated that you were "plainly"
> > unwilling to support the statement. This attitude conflicted with
> > your frequent whines that others post unsupported material, and
> > conflicts glaringly with your self-righteous and entirely inaccurate
> > statement "I will quickly take exception to material that is
> > unsupported ...".
>
> Was my original post factual Chimp?..a simple yes or no will be quite
> sufficient...
I don't know Jay. I do not know Dr John's nationality and have
no interest in it.
> You did check the archives didn't you?
Nope. As I have _repeatedly_ stated, I have no interest in the answer.
Why doesn't this register with you? Do you automatically assume
that everyone is also interested in whatever your pet fetish is,
whether it's ISP terms, or Dr John?
Again, the issue here was you making unsupported statements, and
stating your unwillingness to support your statements, at the same
time as complaining about others who support their statements to
a far greater extent than you do.
> What part of "check the archives" for readily available information
> supports your contention that I have not provided support for my
> original statement?....
It's brevity and lack of specifics. "Check the archives" is grossly
inadequate as "support" for a statement, as would be "check the
library of congress" or "see the NY Times archive". In each case
the volume of information being pointed at is so great as to be
useless. A specific link to an archive post, a cite of a LoC
book, or a date and page reference to a NY Times article, would,
however, be a normal way of supporting an assertion. Do I need
to point out that you have not provided any such? Jay, are you
really so dense that I really need to spell out this answer to your
question, or have you lapsed back into your habit of deliberate
and practised stupidity?
Chimp
Chimp
>> Since, as you quite clearly state above, some atheists do join BSA,
>> how can "duty to God" be in any way fundamental or necessary for
>> Scouting?
>
> Perhaps the best answer to the role of "faith" in Scouting is
> available from the WOSM Web site. It contains the mission statement
> of the World organization. Specifically: the mission of Scouting is
> to contribute to the education of young people, through a value
> system based on the Scout Promise and Law, <snip> assisting them
> to establish a value system based upon spiritual, social and personal
> principles as expressed in the Promise and Law.
Yes, the WOSM "translates" duty-to-God as a committment to
spiritual values. The trouble with this is that "spirit" is
one of the vaguest words in the English language. It could be
taken to refer to a non-material, supernatural aspect of human
beings, or it can be used more mundanely in phrases such as
"a spirited horse" or "promotion of team spirit" or "the spirit
of the age".
One definition (from the OED) gives "spirit" as "person's mental
or moral nature or qualities" with an example use: "a man of
unbending spirit". If this definition is acceptable, there is no
reason why atheists can't participate fully in scouting. Is this
within the intended spirit <grin> of the rules?
> << Are you saying, as I think you're saying, that the mere
> utterance of those words is sufficient to qualify me for
> Scouting, however little regard I pay them in everyday life?
> Is that what you call a principle? >><BR><BR>
>
> I can't speak for Jay, but I would say that "mere utterance"
> is not adequate. However, the use of the word "God" is a .....
> convenience... to provide a context for the Promise rather than
> a specific reference to a specific deity. I think WOSMs handbook
> "Scouting and Spiritual Development" does a fairly
> decent job of defining the situation.
The trouble with that "convenience" is that the word acts to
exclude some who find that the word "God" doesn't convey their
meaning. I got into arguing about this over a Scout boy who
had a full committment to spiritual principles, if judged by
the above OED definition, but who was unwilling to use the
word "God" to express them, since "God" has a very different
meaning in most dictionaries.
This seemed to me unfortunate, both for the boy and his troop,
if the dictionary meaning of "God" is not required. Some
may criticize him for getting hung up over a word, but that
charge could equally be levelled at those who insist on a
particular word as a "convenience".
Chimp
Chimp
> > several groups (felons, atheists, gays, among others). It was clear
> > from the context which groups Merlyn was referring to. His statement
> > was thus accurate.
>
> While it is true that BSA to some felons, based on what crime they where
> convicted of. How, it well in their Legal Right to do that. Public schools,
> some Private businesses in the manufacturing and industry discriminate
> against felons do to Federal or State Laws. Heck even the Federal Government
> disciminate against them.
First, it would be helpful if you used sentences. Second, it would
be helpful if you assimilated the point of the thread. Yes, it is
perfectly legal for BSA and others to discriminate against felons
-- so what?, that isn't under dispute. The discussion you were
replying to was about whether Merlyn's use of the word "discriminate"
in the context of BSA's attitude to atheists was fair -- and it is.
> And pray tell what do you mean by "among others"?
Let's see, the openly promiscuous, known pedophiles, habitual
drunks, ... probably quite a few others. What was your point?
> > Now, how about you answer the question you repeatedly avoided
> > last time we went round and round this circle. Since, as you
> > quite clearly state above, some atheists do join BSA, how can
> > "duty to God" be in any way fundamental or necessary for Scouting?
>
> As long as they are willing to accept the DRP or they just conceal
> that they are Atheists. BTW BSA normally does not conduct nor approve
> ANY Witch Hunt. If a current member openly declares himself or
> herself as an Athiest, felon, or gay they do it knowly what will happen.
First, atheist is lower case. Second, this doesn't address the
question I asked. If it is a fact that, as some people state,
atheists do join and participate in scouting, without it causing
any difficulty, why would it cause a problem if atheists were
allowed to join openly?
> > Are you saying, as I think you're saying, that the mere
> > utterance of those words is sufficient to qualify me for
> > Scouting, however little regard I pay them in everyday life?
> > Is that what you call a principle?
>
> Its called Trusting, Honest when a scout or scouter, says he or
> she accepts the DRP
So that's a yes? Mere lip service to the DRP is sufficient,
and if a leader then pays the words no further attention, then
no problem will be encountered?
Chimp
Chimp
> >su...@adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote in message
> >> On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 17:23:24 +0100, Graham Holland
> >> >In this newsgroup..Brian Westley <wes...@visi.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> That policy reads in part, "prejudice, intolerance, and unlawful
> >> >> discrimination in any form are unacceptable within the ranks of
> >> >> the Greater New York Councils."
> >> >
> >> > How can a council say that "prejudice and intolerance are
> >> > unacceptable within its ranks" and then go on to show
> >> > intolerance against gays and atheists?
> >>
> >> Elementary, my dear Watson.
> >>
> >> Queers and atheists are not qualified to be members of BSA and
> >> therefore are not "within the ranks".
> >
> >Come, come, Hugh, you normally read English more accurately than
> >that. The objects of the prejudice and intolerance may indeed
> >not be in the ranks, but the prejudice and intolerance most
> >certainly are.
>
> In my BSA experience, which probably doubles or triples that of anyone
> else here, I see absolutely no intolerance or discrimination "within
You've also posted "I have never seen a queer in BSA who was not run
off as soon as he was discovered. Run off is an understatement".
What can this mean other than that there is considerable
intolerance in the ranks of BSA, which manifests itself
immediately that the object of the intolerance hoves into sight?
The prejudice and intolerance are still present, even if they
are not to the fore owing to the lack of a target.
[snip]
> As good as you are you would be lousy discussing duty to God with a
> Scout , which is one of the basic elements of BSA. Thus, for BSA
> purposes, you are not the best kind of citizen. What would you do if
> asked to lead Church Services on a Sunday campout, remembering that
> we pray to God?
Decline, or seek an substitute to lead the prayers, even if only
one of the older boys. But a sincere believer could equally do
the same. According to BSA, such matters are ones for oneself,
one's family and religious leaders, and any scout could
legitimately decline participation on these grounds. If you
are making requirments beyond this, you are going beyond BSA
policy.
Besides, would I necessarily be any worse at discussing duty to
God with a Christian Scout than a polytheistic Hindu or an
animist Native American would be? I'm not so sure. If I did
end up presenting a Sunday service, I'd probably come up with
something that the Scouts found ... interesting ... and probably
a little different from what they were used to, but then the
same might be true if one asked a Hindu or Shinto priest.
Chimp
Heavyarms
> su...@adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote in message
> > On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 17:23:24 +0100, Graham Holland
> > >In this newsgroup..Brian Westley <wes...@visi.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> That policy reads in part, "prejudice, intolerance, and unlawful
> > >> discrimination in any form are unacceptable within the ranks of
> > >> the Greater New York Councils."
> > >
> > > How can a council say that "prejudice and intolerance are
> > > unacceptable within its ranks" and then go on to show
> > > intolerance against gays and atheists?
> >
> > Elementary, my dear Watson.
> >
> > Queers and atheists are not qualified to be members of BSA and
> > therefore are not "within the ranks".
>
> Come, come, Hugh, you normally read English more accurately than
> that. The objects of the prejudice and intolerance may indeed
> not be in the ranks, but the prejudice and intolerance most
> certainly are.
>
> atheists, since they have decided, before even meeting the
> person, and knowing very little of their character or life
>
> "Blacks cannot become the best kind of quarterback", "Jews
Just curious, Chimp. Why did you toss that one in there? Due to the recent
so-called Rush Limbaugh controversy?
> cannot become the best kind of musician" and "Catholics cannot
> become the best kind of politician", are similar, and equally
> false statements, arising from the sort of prejudice that the
> above policy is intended to reject.
>
> Chimp
Chimp
> << "Blacks cannot become the best kind of quarterback", "Jews
> cannot become the best kind of musician" and "Catholics cannot
> become the best kind of politician", are similar, and equally
> false statements, arising from the sort of prejudice that the
> above policy is intended to reject.>>
>
> Bad analogy set. Quarterbacking a football team and playing an
> instrument are poor examples -physcial characteristics and/or
> skills vs value system. [...]
I'm not sure why they are bad examples.
"Blacks cannot be the best kind of quarterback because they lack
the intelligence to make the optimum split-second decisions."
"Jews cannot be the best kind of musicians because they lack the
necessary aesthetic sensibilities."
"Atheists cannot become the best kind of citizen because <not sure,
BSA have never specified why>".
Each of these statements is unsupported (or indeed refuted) by
available evidence. They are thus simply unreasoned prejudice.
Chimp
The First Geer Family
> "The First Geer Family" <emg...@trtain.missouri.org> wrote in message
> > "Chimp" <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > > Yes it would. So you're agreeing. The BSA wants to discriminate
against
> > > several groups (felons, atheists, gays, among others). It was clear
> > > from the context which groups Merlyn was referring to. His statement
> > > was thus accurate.
> >
> > While it is true that BSA to some felons, based on what crime they where
> > convicted of. How, it well in their Legal Right to do that. Public
schools,
> > some Private businesses in the manufacturing and industry discriminate
> > against felons do to Federal or State Laws. Heck even the Federal
Government
> > disciminate against them.
>
> First, it would be helpful if you used sentences. Second, it would
> be helpful if you assimilated the point of the thread. Yes, it is
> perfectly legal for BSA and others to discriminate against felons
> -- so what?, that isn't under dispute.
The point is, that individuals like yourself and Brian continually try to an
impression for some uknown reason that it is one of the greatest sins is BSA
and its various policies. Second, I was only responding to just your
response in the thread. Furthermore, have been reading the thread.Third, all
I was doing was to clarify your statement.
> The discussion you were
> replying to was about whether Merlyn's use of the word "discriminate"
> in the context of BSA's attitude to atheists was fair -- and it is.
Not it was not a response to Brian's use of that word. It was to your
statement.
>
> > And pray tell what do you mean by "among others"?
>
> Let's see, the openly promiscuous, known pedophiles, habitual
> drunks, ... probably quite a few others. What was your point?
Let's see, habitual drunks can be if they are drinking or drunk during a BSA
function, NOT if they do it before or after a BSA function. Openly
promiscuous only if its done during a BSA function. If a unmarried male
leader lives with women, or visa-versa for a female leader conducts
themselves under the BSA guidelines during a BSA function, what they do in
their home, DOES NOT matter.
>
> > > Now, how about you answer the question you repeatedly avoided
> > > last time we went round and round this circle. Since, as you
> > > quite clearly state above, some atheists do join BSA, how can
> > > "duty to God" be in any way fundamental or necessary for Scouting?
> >
> > As long as they are willing to accept the DRP or they just conceal
> > that they are Atheists. BTW BSA normally does not conduct nor approve
> > ANY Witch Hunt. If a current member openly declares himself or
> > herself as an Athiest, felon, or gay they do it knowly what will happen.
>
> First, atheist is lower case.
And the point? Or is one of those generic responses when someone doesn't
really have a response?
Second, this doesn't address the
> question I asked. If it is a fact that, as some people state,
> atheists do join and participate in scouting, without it causing
> any difficulty, why would it cause a problem if atheists were
> allowed to join openly?
For one they would not meet one of the membership requirements. Secondly,
they would be not only violate the DRP, but the Scout Law and Promise.
>
> > > Are you saying, as I think you're saying, that the mere
> > > utterance of those words is sufficient to qualify me for
> > > Scouting, however little regard I pay them in everyday life?
> > > Is that what you call a principle?
> >
> > Its called Trusting, Honest when a scout or scouter, says he or
> > she accepts the DRP
>
> So that's a yes? Mere lip service to the DRP is sufficient,
> and if a leader then pays the words no further attention, then
> no problem will be encountered?
Except the fact is that leader, would be living a continual LIE as long as
he or she remains a leader. Furthermore, how can they teach scouts to be
honest, trustworthy, and lying is wrong, when they are consisting lying?
Chimp
> Chimp <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> typed:
> >
> > Government (singular), not governments. Since the above mentions
> > the UK, note that there is nothing stopping the UK government
> > funding sectarian organizations. In fact it does so all the time.
> > I believe that, by law, UK schools must hold a "predominantly
> > Christian" service each morning. Students have no right to absent
> > themselves (although parents have a right to absent their children).
> > To their credit, about half the UK schools simply ignore this law.
>
> It is also law that a school can not hold an assembly for another faith,
> even where that is the majority/sole faith in the school, without specific
> permission from the LEA... and even in such cases, a predominatly Christian
> assembly must also be held each day (note that it is day, not morning... a
> large number of schools hold the assembly after lunch.) As for being able
> to excuse someone from the assembly, in practice it doesn't happen, because
> it is only from the religious elements of the assembly that the child (or a
> teacher) may be excused/excuss themselves...
Can you clarify for me: does the child have a right to excuse themselves?
I was informed that they didn't (though their parents did).
> that would mean that for most assemblies, then someone would be in
> at the start, then have to leave, then come back in for notices and
> the like, then have to leave again for prayers.... then come back
> in maybe for a talk about a non-religious issue... most people
> just sit through the parts they aren't interested in ;)
It would seem straightforward to divide the session into
non-religious and religious bits, so that all that is needed is
an early departure. Either that or have seperate sessions,
one for those who want religion in it, and one for others.
Chimp
The First Geer Family
"Graham Holland" <za...@enterprise.netREMOVE> wrote in message
> In this newsgroup.."The First Geer Family"
> <emg...@trtain.missouri.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >What does the anology of the UK Scouting policy against gender with the
> >BSA's policies dealing with gays and athiests? I would be more in line
with
> >the US Girl Scout policy of gender discrimination.
>
> Actually, the UK policy is not "against gender".
Thnaks for correcting my error. I meant to say towards gender.
>
> >Besides how one country's scouting program views towards gays and
athiests
> >SHOULD NOT be imposed on another country.
>
> I think I have missed something along the way. Who is suggesting that
> one country's Scouting program views should be imposed on another?
Actually, I should have said or included their Members. I've read in this
forum and others, where individuals who are scouts in their country who
have voiced their countries open door policies. Furthermore, they feel that
the World Scouting Organization, should force the US to either accept gays
and athiests or remove the US from the World Scouting Organization.
>
>
> >How do you think the UK Scouts
> >would feel if the BSA tried to impose their view on the UK scouting
program?
>
> The UK Scouts would probably be mildly amused.
> As it stands there are no channels by which any national Scouting
> organisation can "impose" their views on another, and I haven't seen
> any evidence to suggest that any national organisation actually wants
> to even attempt to impose their views on another!
See above
Rob Strom
>
...
> >
> Mercans and Brits don't pronounce "tomato" and "potato" the same but
> that doesn't make them taste different. Call them Allah and Mohammed,
> if they are born in sin but can be saved, that's close enough for me.
>
Wow!!! Why does this sound like:
"I don't care if you call your sport football, or if you
call it soccer. As long as it's three strikes and yer out,
that's close enough for me".
--
Rob Strom
Graham Holland
<emg...@trtain.missouri.org> wrote:
>>
>> I think I have missed something along the way. Who is suggesting that
>> one country's Scouting program views should be imposed on another?
>
>Actually, I should have said or included their Members. I've read in this
>forum and others, where individuals who are scouts in their country who
>have voiced their countries open door policies.
This newsgroup is full of people who voice their opinions on Scouting
in their own country and on Scouting in other countries. Some members
have shown interest in Scouting policy and issues in other countries,
while some members, however, have stated that they couldn't care less
what other Scouting organisations do. When it comes down to it, this
forum is open for anyone to "voice their country's open door policies"
or not.
>Furthermore, they feel that
>the World Scouting Organization, should force the US to either accept gays
>and athiests or remove the US from the World Scouting Organization.
I don't recall anyone suggesting either of these actions, although I
may well have missed it somewhere along the line. WOSM is not going to
force any national organisation to accept gays, and is not going to
condemn a national organisation that bans them. The faith issue is
different though. WOSM does insist that "Duty to God" has to be an
integral part of all national associations or federations that are
members or that are applying for membership.
Coming back to the original thread, as far as WOSM is concerned the
BSA is free to discriminate against gays even if some national
associations disagree with the reasoning, and WOSM supports the ban on
atheists.
Graham
--
GRAHAM HOLLAND <zabaR...@enterprise.net> Liverpool, England
uk.rec.scouting FAQ http://www.scoutnet.org.uk/uk_rec.htm
uk.rec.scouting Archive Group for file sharing
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/UKRSArchive
Graham Holland
>Jay, are you
>really so dense that I really need to spell out this answer to your
>question, or have you lapsed back into your habit of deliberate
>and practised stupidity?
Chimp, I take it that this is a rhetorical question...
Graham
Ernie Wisdom
news:<uXgib.7779$av5....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>
> > In those place where they do not elect how do the Judges get their jobs?
> > Could it be that they are appointed by politicians?
>
> I am assuming that elected judges need to run for re-election to keep
> their seats whereas appointed judges keep their seats until
> retirement.
Well not in California, just until the next election. Even for our State
Supreme Court they must be re affirmed by a state wide election every 12
years.
This was brought home when Jerry Brown was Governor and Chief Justice Rose
Bird and two other justices were not reaffirmed and had to leave office.
We used to have some spirited races when we had Municipal Courts in
California before the all were reclassified to Superior Court Judges.
We also had many where there was just one name, or names no one ever heard
of.
one of the unintended consequences of this was reflected in the resent
challenge to our punch card ballots.
They said that an undervote was a bad ballot in their studies when it is
common here not to vote for someone you know nothing about. A decade ago
there was talk about a line none of the above but it never was implemented.
I doubt that there are many one time public elections
> that confer lifetime employment.
>
> Even with lifetime employment judges are constrained by public
> opinion. They have to be mindfull of the politicians control over the
> budget and over the contents of the constitution. Nevertheless,
> judges who have lifetime employment have more freedom to judge in
> accord with their conscience and that freedom is important if the rule
> of law is to prevail over the rule of public opinion.
That is what happens with most but there are some that feel that it gives
them license to legislate from the bench.
My favorite example was a few years ago when a election for county
supervisor was over turned because it was charge that election was bad
because a Latino could not be elected in that district. So the winner was
turned out boundaries changed and a female Latino was elected.
Oh the person that was turned out of office for the Latino, a female Latino,
of course she was not consider a real Latino here because even though the
supervisor position is supposed to be nonpartisan she was not of the correct
party so the judge turned her out.
M G
> The SCOTUS is appointed - conservatives appoint right wingers and
> liberals appoint left wingers. Can it get more political than being
> appointed for you political views?
Popular opinion has considerably more influence on judges when the
judge has to run for re-election than when the judge is appointed
because re-election potentially impacts post election decisions up to
the day that the judge decides there will be no future attempts to get
relected.
Also, the Senate confirmation process gives each Senator considerable
power to block an appointment. That helps prevent ideology from
dominating the selection process. Bush complains about not getting
hearings on his nominees, but if he really wants more confirmations
then he could nominate less ideological candidates.
> Court cases are rarely decided on guilt or innocence, right or wrong;
> they are decided by which lawyer makes the best presentation while
> preventing the opposition from doing the same.
You sound like an opponent of the death penalty.
Owen Morris
Chimp <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> typed:
> "Owen Morris" <ow...@devnull.farndonscouts.org> wrote in message
>> Chimp <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> typed:
>>>
>>> Government (singular), not governments. Since the above mentions
>>> the UK, note that there is nothing stopping the UK government
>>> funding sectarian organizations. In fact it does so all the time.
>>> I believe that, by law, UK schools must hold a "predominantly
>>> Christian" service each morning. Students have no right to absent
>>> themselves (although parents have a right to absent their children).
>>> To their credit, about half the UK schools simply ignore this law.
>>
>> It is also law that a school can not hold an assembly for another
>> faith, even where that is the majority/sole faith in the school,
>> without specific permission from the LEA... and even in such cases,
>> a predominatly Christian assembly must also be held each day (note
>> that it is day, not morning... a large number of schools hold the
>> assembly after lunch.) As for being able to excuse someone from the
>> assembly, in practice it doesn't happen, because it is only from the
>> religious elements of the assembly that the child (or a teacher) may
>> be excused/excuss themselves...
>
> Can you clarify for me: does the child have a right to excuse
> themselves? I was informed that they didn't (though their parents
> did).
>
able to excuse themselves from the religious elements of the assembly.
Owen Morris
Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> typed:
Rob Strom
>
> In news:3F8ABD28...@watson.ibm.com,
> Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> typed:
> > "J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:
> >>
> > ...
> >>>
> >> Mercans and Brits don't pronounce "tomato" and "potato" the same but
> >> that doesn't make them taste different. Call them Allah and Mohammed,
> >> if they are born in sin but can be saved, that's close enough for me.
> >>
> >
> > Wow!!! Why does this sound like:
> > "I don't care if you call your sport football, or if you
> > call it soccer. As long as it's three strikes and yer out,
> > that's close enough for me".
> if it is three strikes adn your out, then it isn't either ;)
That was my point, I think!
Hugh's statement sounds exactly like the one I made up
in which the speaker is assuming that all reasonable sports
are essentially baseball (never having learned about anything else).
He's assuming all reasonable religions are essentially Christianity.
--
Rob Strom
Jay Walker
Lets cut through the BS Chimp... are you an acceptable adult role model for
the Scout Oath and the Scout Law?.... I suspect that the answer is no....
so, why are you excluded from membership?.... because you are an atheist?...
or because you are not an acceptable role model.... Before you jump to hard
on this, you might want to review the archives for your position on the Ten
Commandments, the Pledge of Allegiance and the BSA DRP. If you do not
support the ideals of the organization, you have no business being a part of
it....
--
Jay Walker
Jay Walker
> BSA have never specified why>".
>
Let me fill in the blank for you Chimp.... they (many anyway) are not
acceptable role models for the Scout Oath and Scout Law... It really is that
simple.
--
Jay Walker
Brian Salter-Duke
When someone says "It really is that simple", you know it is anything
but simple.
--
Brian Salter-Duke Humpty Doo, Nr Darwin, Australia
My real address is b_duke(AT)octa4(DOT)net(DOT)au
Use this for reply or followup
Scouting: Tolerant, Pluralistic and Open to all young people.
The First Geer Family
[snip]
> > As good as you are you would be lousy discussing duty to God with a
> > Scout , which is one of the basic elements of BSA. Thus, for BSA
> > purposes, you are not the best kind of citizen. What would you do if
> > asked to lead Church Services on a Sunday campout, remembering that
> > we pray to God?
>
> Decline, or seek an substitute to lead the prayers, even if only
> one of the older boys. But a sincere believer could equally do
> the same. According to BSA, such matters are ones for oneself,
> one's family and religious leaders, and any scout could
> legitimately decline participation on these grounds. If you
> are making requirments beyond this, you are going beyond BSA
> policy.
I would agree with you Chimp. In the troop that I'm the ASM in follows the
same guidelines BSA has set down. All Sunday services are required to be
nondenominational prayer, if only one faith service can be offord. In fact
the council I belong to, even the staff (me 7 yrs on staff) to enforce it
not only for religious services, but for meals as well.
[snip]
M G
> Well not in California, just until the next election. Even for our State
> Supreme Court they must be re affirmed by a state wide election every 12
> years.
So you have a hybrid, appointed and then re-elected. In my opinion
this hybrid appointed and then 12 year interval re-election process
favors rule of public opinion over rule of law. As an example of how
to achieve a better balance I suggest the following: A fixed number
of qualified judges are nominated by their peers from the state bar
association. The governer selects one of the nominees and the state
senate confirms. If not confirmed the state bar association adds
another nominee and the process repeats. Once confirmed the judge
serves for life. Qualifications to serve as Supreme Court justice
could include serving a minimum number of years on a lower court (thus
implicitly setting a minimum age) with a forced retirement age.
> They said that an undervote was a bad ballot in their studies when it is
> common here not to vote for someone you know nothing about. A decade ago
> there was talk about a line none of the above but it never was implemented.
"None of the above" should be on all ballots. Another improvement
would be approval ballots or ranked ballots, but that is another
topic.
> That is what happens with most but there are some that feel that it gives
> them license to legislate from the bench.
I think this is a bogus argument. This problem is not prevented by
requiring judges to be confirmed by the general electorate. This
problem is prevented by the ever present threat of retaliation from
the legislature when politicians feel the court has poached their
turf. Keep in mind that the politicans set the budget and the text of
the constitution.
> My favorite example was a few years ago when a election for county
> supervisor was over turned because it was charge that election was bad
> because a Latino could not be elected in that district. So the winner was
> turned out boundaries changed and a female Latino was elected.
The politicization of re-districting is one of the less attractive
features of the democratic process in many states. Placing
re-districting in the hands of politicians is inappropriate and
unecessary. Electoral districts could be determined by civil servants
based on mathematical optimization. The mathematics would ensure that
the districts minimize the boundary circumferance while keeping the
same number of voting eligible citizens in all of the districts. The
optimization models could either be completely oblivious to race and
ethnicity or could be desigend to encourage proportional
representation by race and ethnicity. Then the judges would have no
grounds to intervene.
Chimp
> > "Atheists cannot become the best kind of citizen because <not sure,
> > BSA have never specified why>".
>
> Let me fill in the blank for you Chimp.... they (many anyway) are not
> acceptable role models for the Scout Oath and Scout Law... It really
> is that simple.
Jay, the only thing that is simple is your brain, if you think the
above an adequate response.
First, BSA has never stated that obeying or role-modelling the
Scout Oath and Law is necessary for the best kind of citizenship
-- it regards it as one route to good citizenship, but has never
stated that it is the only route. Thus your above doesn't follow.
Second, you need to work out cause and effect. Is the Oath based
on the principles in the DRP? Or is the DRP based on the Oath?
Surely it is the former, otherwise the DRP would be superfluous.
In this case, your justification is circular, basing the Oath on
the DRP and then the DRP on the Oath.
Third, your response, instead of answering anything, merely begs
the question, which is: _why_ is undertaking a "duty to God" oath
necessary for the best kind of citizenship?
I know you find the concept of analogies difficult, but try this:
Suppose an organization requires the Oath "I promise to eat pork
once a week" and bases this on a stated fundamental principle
"Eating pork is necessary for the best kind of citizenship".
If that organization is asked why pork-eating is neccessary
for good citizenship, would "because you can't model our Oath
if you don't" be in any way an adequate explanation, or is it
entirely circular?
And _please_ don't start your reply with "let's cut out the BS,
the BSA doesn't require pork eating ...", or one of your tedious
digressions onto BBQs, or anything similar that only reveals how
little you get the point.
Chimp
Chimp
Err, yes, it is. I confess to being unable to read Jay. Is he
really serious in asking in what way "... do a Google search ..."
is inadequate "support" for a statement, or is he just playing
dumb as a tactic?
Chimp
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
You missed the point, You can get a hit, or a walk or get on base by
an error - either way you're on base.
>He's assuming all reasonable religions are essentially Christianity.
>
>--
>Rob Strom
Agaian you miss the point. I have never excluded Jews and they are not
Christians.
Hugh
Chimp
> "Chimp" <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > "The First Geer Family" <emg...@trtain.missouri.org> wrote in message
> > > "Chimp" <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>> Yes it would. So you're agreeing. The BSA wants to discriminate
> >>> against several groups (felons, atheists, gays, among others).
> >>> It was clear from the context which groups Merlyn was referring to.
> >>> His statement was thus accurate.
> >
> >> While it is true that BSA to some felons, based on what crime they
> >> where convicted of. How, it well in their Legal Right to do that.
> >> Public schools, some Private businesses in the manufacturing and
> >> industry discriminate against felons do to Federal or State Laws.
> >> Heck even the Federal Government disciminate against them.
> >
> > First, it would be helpful if you used sentences. Second, it would
> > be helpful if you assimilated the point of the thread. Yes, it is
> > perfectly legal for BSA and others to discriminate against felons
> > -- so what?, that isn't under dispute.
>
> The point is, that individuals like yourself and Brian continually
> try to an impression for some uknown reason that it is one of the
> greatest sins is BSA and its various policies. Second, I was only
> responding to just your response in the thread. Furthermore, have
> been reading the thread.Third, all I was doing was to clarify your
> statement.
But the context is all important. The word "discriminate" means
only to make a distinction. Everyone agrees that some discriminations
are legal and proper (e.g. not allowing a convicted pedophile to be
a school teacher); some discriminations are illegal when done by
government but legal when done by others (e.g. over religion);
some discriminations are legal but unethical (we can argue which),
and some are illegal and unethical.
Now, rather than post the above paragraph every time, it is sensible
to use short forms when it is obvious from the context how the
word "discrimination" is being used. In the current thread, Merlyn
used it perfectly sensibly concerning the issue of BSA discrimination
over sexuality and religion, which conflicts with rules regarding
free use of city property.
For you and Jay to confuse the issue by saying "but discrimination
against felons is right and proper" is irrelevant and pointless
-- no one is arguing about that!
> > The discussion you were replying to was about whether Merlyn's
> > use of the word "discriminate" in the context of BSA's attitude
> > to atheists was fair -- and it is.
>
> Not it was not a response to Brian's use of that word. It was to
> your statement.
But my use of the word was in the context of Merlyn's use.
> > > And pray tell what do you mean by "among others"?
> >
> > Let's see, the openly promiscuous, known pedophiles, habitual
> > drunks, ... probably quite a few others. What was your point?
>
> Let's see, habitual drunks can be if they are drinking or drunk during
> a BSA function, NOT if they do it before or after a BSA function. Openly
> promiscuous only if its done during a BSA function. If a unmarried male
> leader lives with women, or visa-versa for a female leader conducts
> themselves under the BSA guidelines during a BSA function, what they do in
> in their home, DOES NOT matter.
I'm not so sure. I was under the impression that if an adult was
known to their community to be openly promiscuous, or a habitual
drunk, they would be considered unfit to be leaders regardless of
whether the activity took place at scout functions. Local attitudes
on this may vary.
> > > > Now, how about you answer the question you repeatedly avoided
> > > > last time we went round and round this circle. Since, as you
> > > > quite clearly state above, some atheists do join BSA, how can
> > > > "duty to God" be in any way fundamental or necessary for Scouting?
> > >
> > > As long as they are willing to accept the DRP or they just conceal
> > > that they are Atheists. BTW BSA normally does not conduct nor approve
> > > ANY Witch Hunt. If a current member openly declares himself or
> > > herself as an Athiest, felon, or gay they do it knowly what will happen.
> >
> > First, atheist is lower case.
>
> And the point? Or is one of those generic responses when someone doesn't
> doesn't really have a response?
The point is that atheism is a description of someone (such as "tall"
or "happy" or "religious"), not a denotion of membership of an
organization requiring a proper noun (such as "Jehovah's Witness",
"Mormon", etc).
> > Second, this doesn't address the
> > question I asked. If it is a fact that, as some people state,
> > atheists do join and participate in scouting, without it causing
> > any difficulty, why would it cause a problem if atheists were
> > allowed to join openly?
>
> For one they would not meet one of the membership requirements.
> Secondly, they would be not only violate the DRP, but the Scout
> Law and Promise.
Again, fuller attention to context would have made the meaning of
the question clear. For "why would is cause a problem if atheists
were allowed to join openly" read "why would it cause a problem if
the rules/oath were changed to allow atheists to join openly".
Bear in mind the context of the question, which is Jay's statement
that atheists do in fact join at present, and that this doesn't
appear to cause any difficulties.
> > > > Are you saying, as I think you're saying, that the mere
> > > > utterance of those words is sufficient to qualify me for
> > > > Scouting, however little regard I pay them in everyday life?
> > > > Is that what you call a principle?
> > >
> > > Its called Trusting, Honest when a scout or scouter, says he or
> > > she accepts the DRP
> >
> > So that's a yes? Mere lip service to the DRP is sufficient,
> > and if a leader then pays the words no further attention, then
> > no problem will be encountered?
>
> Except the fact is that leader, would be living a continual
> LIE as long as he or she remains a leader. Furthermore, how can
> they teach scouts to be honest, trustworthy, and lying is wrong,
> when they are consisting lying?
So you're disagreeing with Jay then? He is defending BSA's
policies on the grounds that atheists do join scouting, and thus
that they do not discriminate against atheists. You are saying
that in doing so they would be dishonest, consistently lying,
and untrustworthy. Well, yes, I agree with you, but please
explain this point to Jay.
Chimp
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
That's not prejudice and intolerance; that's ejecting a gate crasher -
a "member" under false pretenses. Happily the ejection might even
require force.
>[snip]
>> As good as you are you would be lousy discussing duty to God with a
>> Scout , which is one of the basic elements of BSA. Thus, for BSA
>> purposes, you are not the best kind of citizen. What would you do if
>> asked to lead Church Services on a Sunday campout, remembering that
>> we pray to God?
>
>Decline, or seek an substitute to lead the prayers, even if only
>one of the older boys. But a sincere believer could equally do
>the same. According to BSA, such matters are ones for oneself,
>one's family and religious leaders, and any scout could
>legitimately decline participation on these grounds. If you
>are making requirments beyond this, you are going beyond BSA
>policy.
I'm talking about the reald world in which I exist, Chimp - most have
been baptized in a Christian Church.
>Besides, would I necessarily be any worse at discussing duty to
>God with a Christian Scout than a polytheistic Hindu or an
>animist Native American would be? I'm not so sure. If I did
>end up presenting a Sunday service, I'd probably come up with
>something that the Scouts found ... interesting ... and probably
>a little different from what they were used to, but then the
>same might be true if one asked a Hindu or Shinto priest.
In my experience, none of you would be asked to conduct a Sunday
Service. If they did we could have one heck of an argument - which is
not the purpose of the Sunday service. I wouldn't keep quiet if I
disagreed.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
It's pretty much the same where I go. But the biggest differences I've
seen are avoiding praying "in Jesus name" if Jews are present and
whether one was sprinkled or immersed. There just aren't any "other"
religions in BSA that I see.
Hugh
Chimp
> > > > Are you saying, as I think you're saying, that the mere
> > > > utterance of those words is sufficient to qualify me for
> > > > Scouting, however little regard I pay them in everyday life?
> > > > Is that what you call a principle?
> > >
> > > Its called Trusting, Honest when a scout or scouter, says he or
> > > she accepts the DRP
> >
> > So that's a yes? Mere lip service to the DRP is sufficient,
> > and if a leader then pays the words no further attention, then
> > no problem will be encountered?
>
> Lets cut through the BS Chimp... are you an acceptable adult role
> model for the Scout Oath and the Scout Law?.... I suspect that
> the answer is no....
I agree with you.
> so, why are you excluded from membership?.... because you are an
> atheist?... or because you are not an acceptable role model....
Both.
Now, how about you answer the question. Is mere lip service to
the DRP sufficient, even if a leader pays the matter no more regard.
This is what you appear to be saying when you state that some
atheists join and participate despite their non-belief in any god
-- you imply that the utterance of words is important but the
meaning of them isn't.
> Before you jump to hard on this, you might want to review the
> archives for your position on the Ten Commandments, the Pledge
> of Allegiance and the BSA DRP.
In what way is any of that relevant?
> If you do not support the ideals of the organization, you have
> no business being a part of it....
First, Jay, as has been stated to you before, I am _not_ a member
of it, nor am I trying to become one.
However, as it happens I _do_ support the ideals of the BSA.
The "duty to God", though, isn't an ideal of BSA, despite claims
to the contrary. How can "duty to God" be fundamental to BSA
when BSA has no opinion on what "God" means, or on what the duties
to God are, when it does not have any teachings about God, does
not instruct any particular duties to God, and refers anyone who
asks about such things to non-BSA personnel?
How can it be core to BSA when someone like Darrell Lambert can
participate successfully and become a respected and valued
troop member despite having no belief in God? How can it be
core to BSA when someone of as long-service and trenchant views
on the subject as Hugh has _never_ denied a boy progression over
the issue? Sorta strange don't you think?
Chimp
J. Hugh Sullivan
>su...@adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote in message news:<3f8aa31c...@news.cis.dfn.de>...
>> The SCOTUS is appointed - conservatives appoint right wingers and
>> liberals appoint left wingers. Can it get more political than being
>> appointed for you political views?
>
>Popular opinion has considerably more influence on judges when the
>judge has to run for re-election than when the judge is appointed
>because re-election potentially impacts post election decisions up to
>the day that the judge decides there will be no future attempts to get
>relected.
But your point was the comparative non-partisanship of appointed
judges and I disagreed with that.
>Also, the Senate confirmation process gives each Senator considerable
>power to block an appointment. That helps prevent ideology from
>dominating the selection process. Bush complains about not getting
>hearings on his nominees, but if he really wants more confirmations
>then he could nominate less ideological candidates.
Yep - liberals block conservatives and vice versa,
>> Court cases are rarely decided on guilt or innocence, right or wrong;
>> they are decided by which lawyer makes the best presentation while
>> preventing the opposition from doing the same.
>
>You sound like an opponent of the death penalty.
Just the opposite. In the case of the DC snipers, I think they should
be executed immediately if not sooner. The trial has cost the state
$900,000 so far in fees for appointed attorneys. That would educate,
feed, clothe and shelter a lot of deserving people.
Hugh
Chimp
> > Indeed, anyone who has signed the DRP is prejudiced against
> > atheists, since they have decided, before even meeting the
> > person, and knowing very little of their character or life
> > story, that they cannot become the best kind of citizen.
> >
> > "Blacks cannot become the best kind of quarterback",
>
> Just curious, Chimp. Why did you toss that one in there?
> Due to the recent so-called Rush Limbaugh controversy?
No, not really. In thinking for examples, I remembered some
controversy some years back where a black wannabe quarterback
alleged that he was not given opportunities to play because
the coaches regarded blacks as "brawn not brain". He pointed
to an NFL dominated by white quarterbacks (Montana, Marino,
Elway etc at that time), and alleged that the attitude was
widespread. I don't know enough to say whether the complaint
was valid. If Rush said anything on this recently, I must
have missed it.
Chimp
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
>fpicc...@aol.com (FPicci1215) wrote in message
>
>> << "Blacks cannot become the best kind of quarterback", "Jews
>> cannot become the best kind of musician" and "Catholics cannot
>> become the best kind of politician", are similar, and equally
>> false statements, arising from the sort of prejudice that the
>> above policy is intended to reject.>>
>>
>> Bad analogy set. Quarterbacking a football team and playing an
>> instrument are poor examples -physcial characteristics and/or
>> skills vs value system. [...]
>
>I'm not sure why they are bad examples.
>
>"Blacks cannot be the best kind of quarterback because they lack
>the intelligence to make the optimum split-second decisions."
But they are the best athletes.
>"Jews cannot be the best kind of musicians because they lack the
>necessary aesthetic sensibilities."
I don't think it's possible to hurt a Jew's feelings, but have you
looked at the names of the world's great violinists?
>"Atheists cannot become the best kind of citizen because <not sure,
>BSA have never specified why>".
They can't because they don't believe in the goals of BSA which
includes a "duty to God".
>
>Each of these statements is unsupported (or indeed refuted) by
>available evidence. They are thus simply unreasoned prejudice.
Who makes those statements? I'd argue with those who did.
Hugh
Jay Walker
As I correctly stated, it really is simple. By your own admission, you are
unwilling to live by the Scout Oath and Scout Law and you agree that you are
an unacceptable role model for them. It really makes little difference then
whether you are a homosexual, atheist, Christian or a Druid, for that
matter, you are ineligible for membership on that basis alone.... Your
choice of lifestyle or religious preference has no more to do with it than
YOU choose to make of it. You choose to exclude yourself from membership and
that is indeed your right. You do not have a "right" to force the
organization to compromise it's core values to accept you though...
You again want to debate an issue that really is not debatable. Check the
BSA official web site, review the readily available BSA literature including
the Scout Handbook and the Scoutmaster's Handbook. You simply do not have
any concept of what the BSA means by "Duty to God". That is indeed a shame
because the concept is just like what excludes you from membership (and is
at the root of it)... it is very simple and is left to the individual.
Try not to get confused over this issue as it relates to youth members and
the issue as it relates to adults wanting to become leaders. You apparently
were able to benefit from the program as a youth member.... BUT are clearly
(at least for now and by your own choice) excluded from adult membership.
Try to keep the youth and adult membership requirements separate Chimp.
BTW, explaining "religious concepts" to youth members is not in the program
job description of any BSA adult leader Chimp. We seem to have ventured off
into an area that is exclusively the responsibility of the parent or the
youth's religious leader. The BSA adult leader's role in that discussion is
quite limited and the directions for handling that situation are quite
clear.
--
Jay Walker
Rob Strom
>
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 17:22:34 -0400, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Owen Morris wrote:
> >>
> >> In news:3F8ABD28...@watson.ibm.com,
> >> Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> typed:
> >> > "J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> > ...
> >> >>>
> >> >> Mercans and Brits don't pronounce "tomato" and "potato" the same but
> >> >> that doesn't make them taste different. Call them Allah and Mohammed,
> >> >> if they are born in sin but can be saved, that's close enough for me.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Wow!!! Why does this sound like:
> >> > "I don't care if you call your sport football, or if you
> >> > call it soccer. As long as it's three strikes and yer out,
> >> > that's close enough for me".
> >> if it is three strikes adn your out, then it isn't either ;)
> >
> >That was my point, I think!
> >
> >Hugh's statement sounds exactly like the one I made up
> >in which the speaker is assuming that all reasonable sports
> >are essentially baseball (never having learned about anything else).
>
> You missed the point, You can get a hit, or a walk or get on base by
> an error - either way you're on base.
in football???
>
> >He's assuming all reasonable religions are essentially Christianity.
> Agaian you miss the point. I have never excluded Jews and they are not
> Christians.
>
You said "if they are born in sin but can be saved, that's
close enough for me".
Sounds like Christianity to me. Do you know any other
religions that talk like that?
--
Rob Strom
Graham Holland
>
>You again want to debate an issue that really is not debatable.
>
Jay,
Please clarify this statement to me and to other followers of
rec.scouting.issues...
What is not debatable?
Why is it not debatable?
And where is it not debatable?
Graham
Graham Holland
>
>It's pretty much the same where I go. But the biggest differences I've
>seen are avoiding praying "in Jesus name" if Jews are present and
>whether one was sprinkled or immersed. There just aren't any "other"
>religions in BSA that I see.
>
Hi Hugh,
Just wondering, are there any figures that you or anyone else knows
of, which shows the registered religions of BSA members? I know that
the SA is predominately Christian in membership but also has members
from all other main religions.
Heavyarms
"J. Hugh Sullivan" <su...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:3f8bfa57...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> On 13 Oct 2003 07:54:20 -0700, pan_pani...@yahoo.com (Chimp)
> wrote:
>
> >fpicc...@aol.com (FPicci1215) wrote in message
> >
> >> << "Blacks cannot become the best kind of quarterback", "Jews
> >> cannot become the best kind of musician" and "Catholics cannot
> >> become the best kind of politician", are similar, and equally
> >> false statements, arising from the sort of prejudice that the
> >> above policy is intended to reject.>>
> >>
> >> Bad analogy set. Quarterbacking a football team and playing an
> >> instrument are poor examples -physcial characteristics and/or
> >> skills vs value system. [...]
> >
> >I'm not sure why they are bad examples.
> >
> >"Blacks cannot be the best kind of quarterback because they lack
> >the intelligence to make the optimum split-second decisions."
>
> But they are the best athletes.
>
You can't make that statement. Sure, the vast majority of players in the
NFL and NBA are black, but there's a plethora of outstanding athletes in
both leagues who are not black. There are just as many great white baseball
and soccer players as there are black ones (and hispanic players, for that
matter), and they still haven't been able to locate an African-American
or -Canadian that dominates the NHL. ;-)
> >"Jews cannot be the best kind of musicians because they lack the
> >necessary aesthetic sensibilities."
>
> I don't think it's possible to hurt a Jew's feelings, but have you
> looked at the names of the world's great violinists?
>
Charlie Daniels is Jewish? ;-) ('Course, he calls it a fiddle.)
Jay Walker
"Graham Holland" <za...@enterprise.netREMOVE> wrote in message
What "other followers" are you asking in behalf of Graham?... I suspect that
most here really do not need or want your help....
BSA's definition of religion and "Duty to God"
BSA's membership requirements for youth members
BSA's membership requirements for adult members
BSA's definition of acceptable role models for the Scout Oath and Scout Law
You can state you opinion, or you can ask for clarification (after first
taking reasonable steps to educate your self on the issues)... we can
certainly DISCUSS the issues here too.... BUT the above are simply not
appropriate subjects for debate... nothing can or will be changed.... no
point can be "won" or conceded... BUT you can try if you want too...
I suggest you start training that pig to sing though.... your time would be
much better spent and would be a bit more productive... And you have at
least some chance of success... If you and Chimp want to engage in formal
debate, you will find other topics in other newsgroups much better suited to
that endeavor along with participants that are quite good at it. You will
find those that are good at it have little tolerance for amateurs though.
(c:{>
--
Jay Walker
Graham Holland
>
>What "other followers" are you asking in behalf of Graham?...
Since you asked, I was asking on behalf of those people who follow
this newsgroup for the very reason that it is a forum where they *can*
discuss these, and many other, issues.
>I suspect that
>most here really do not need or want your help....
In which case they can take it or leave it. However, I'm sure that I
am not the only person who is intrigued by your re-definition of the
purpose of this newsgroup, and your suggestion that the issues below
are not debatable here...
>BSA's definition of religion and "Duty to God"
>
>BSA's membership requirements for youth members
>
>BSA's membership requirements for adult members
>
>BSA's definition of acceptable role models for the Scout Oath and Scout Law
The group charter clearly states that "rec.scouting.issues is an
unmoderated newsgroup for the discussion and explanation of worldwide,
national or regional issues concerning national Scouting or Guiding
organizations' policies, rules or regulations." All four of the
examples you gave are valid issues concerning the BSA since they are
national issues concerning a Scouting organisation's policies rules or
regulations.
>You can state you opinion,
True.
>or you can ask for clarification (after first taking reasonable
>steps to educate your self on the issues)...
And there was me thinking that asking for clarification *was* taking a
reasonable step to educate oneself on the issues...
>we can certainly DISCUSS the issues here too.... BUT the above are simply not
>appropriate subjects for debate... nothing can or will be changed.... no
>point can be "won" or conceded... BUT you can try if you want too...
Firstly, your argument that we can "discuss" things but not "debate"
them doesn't work, since a debate IS a discussion. (1)
Secondly, your view on whether or not an issue is an appropriate
subject for debate is irrelevant so long as it meets the criteria laid
down in the charter. (2)
Thirdly, whether or not something will be changed by the outcome (or
absence of an outcome) of a debate is no reason to not debate a
particular issue. (IMO)
>I suggest you start training that pig to sing though.... your time would be
>much better spent and would be a bit more productive... And you have at
>least some chance of success...
There you go with that farmyard animal fixation again.
> If you and Chimp want to engage in formal
>debate, you will find other topics in other newsgroups much better suited to
>that endeavor along with participants that are quite good at it.
Thank you for your advice. However, there are still plenty of topics
on this newsgroup that are well suited to formal debate, and there are
still a fair number of participants who are quite good at debating.
You may find it difficult to believe, but there are also a lot of
participants like me who are willing (and able) to back up their
points in a debate with EVIDENCE, something which you are particularly
good at failing to do when asked. Hey, some people even provide
evidence to back up their statements *before* they are asked! Now
there's a novel idea!
So my advice to you in return is to start your own newsgroup -
rec.discussion.unsubstantiated-statements where you can make
statements to your heart's content without ever having to substantiate
them by providing creditable and sourced evidence, and where every
statement of fact is backed up with a "go research it yourself"
response.
>You will find those that are good at it have little tolerance for amateurs though.
>(c:{>
"Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to another edition of Sweeping
Generalisations, featuring Humourous Misconceptions."
If you were ever to take a quick look at uk.rec.scouting (but please
don't stay long,and please, please don't post there) you would find
plenty of people who are good at debating and discussing issues
relevant to Scouting, and who have been doing it in the same forum for
many years. Newcomers are welcomed, and those who are not used to
either newsgroups, netiquette or debating are gently encouraged. I'm
reasonably sure that there are other newgroups out there that treat
newbies in the same respectful way. After all, we were all newbies at
one time or another.
Graham
=================================================
Hey, Jay. This is what sourced evidence looks like. You should try it
sometime...
(1) http://dict.die.net/debate/ Source: WordNet (r) 1.7
debate
n 1: a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against
some proposition or proposal; "the argument over foreign
aid goes on and on" [syn: argument]
2: the formal presentation of and opposition to a stated
proposition (usually followed by a vote) [syn: disputation,
public debate]
v 1: argue with one another; "We debated the question of
abortion"; "John debated Mary"
2: think about carefully; weigh; "They considered the
possibility of a strike"; "Turn the proposal over in your
mind" [syn: consider, moot, turn over, deliberate]
3: discuss the pros and cons of an issue [syn: deliberate]
4: have an argument about something [syn: argue, contend, fence]
(2) CHARTER: rec.scouting.issues
rec.scouting.issues is an unmoderated newsgroup for the discussion
and explanation of worldwide, national or regional issues concerning
national Scouting or Guiding organizations' policies, rules or
regulations. Cross-posting to other rec.scouting groups is strongly
discouraged. Postings not related to Scouting or Guiding issues are
discouraged.
Emma Pease
> In this newsgroup..sull@adelphia.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>>
>>It's pretty much the same where I go. But the biggest differences I've
>>seen are avoiding praying "in Jesus name" if Jews are present and
>>whether one was sprinkled or immersed. There just aren't any "other"
>>religions in BSA that I see.
>>
>
> Hi Hugh,
>
> Just wondering, are there any figures that you or anyone else knows
> of, which shows the registered religions of BSA members? I know that
> the SA is predominately Christian in membership but also has members
> from all other main religions.
I don't think the BSA gathers information on the religions of its
members. It does have statistics on units chartered by religious
organizations but members of those units may or may not belong to the
chartering organization's religion. I can't find those statistics
online though. It may have statistics on how many scouts earn which
religious medals (but since religious medals are given by the
religious organization and not the BSA and not necessarily just to BSA
members it may not). IIRC the religious group chartering the largest
number of units is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
(aka Mormons).
As far as other religious organizations chartering, they include
Baha'i, Jewish, Buddhist, and Muslim among the non-Christian groups.
They do not apparently permit Wicca groups to charter though Wicca
scouts are permitted (but they and Unitarian Universalist scouts may
not wear their religious medals on the scout uniform).
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Ernie Wisdom
"M G" <ma...@tidalwave.net> wrote in message
news:4c9fc7f6.03101...@posting.google.com...
> "Ernie Wisdom" <ewi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<QCAib.9409$dn6....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>
> > Well not in California, just until the next election. Even for our State
> > Supreme Court they must be re affirmed by a state wide election every 12
> > years.
>
> So you have a hybrid, appointed and then re-elected. In my opinion
> this hybrid appointed and then 12 year interval re-election process
> favors rule of public opinion over rule of law.
It is 4 or 6 years for lower courts with sometimes more than 1 running. A
friend of mine ran and beat a Pharmacist who was also a lawyer. The Cost
over $90,000.
As an example of how
> to achieve a better balance I suggest the following: A fixed number
> of qualified judges are nominated by their peers from the state bar
> association.
That would go over real well here, it might cause an armed revolt. The trial
lawyers, all members of the bar are big campaign contributors here and not
well like.
The governer selects one of the nominees and the state
> senate confirms. If not confirmed the state bar association adds
> another nominee and the process repeats. Once confirmed the judge
> serves for life. Qualifications to serve as Supreme Court justice
> could include serving a minimum number of years on a lower court (thus
> implicitly setting a minimum age) with a forced retirement age.
You have a right to your belief.
>
> > They said that an undervote was a bad ballot in their studies when it
is
> > common here not to vote for someone you know nothing about. A decade ago
> > there was talk about a line none of the above but it never was
implemented.
>
> "None of the above" should be on all ballots. Another improvement
> would be approval ballots or ranked ballots, but that is another
> topic.
>
> > That is what happens with most but there are some that feel that it
gives
> > them license to legislate from the bench.
>
> I think this is a bogus argument.
Hardly, schools for one have been under many mandate here.
A decade or so back a court required that the LAUSD follow a little Hover
commission report and close schools and sell the property in the SAn
Fernando Valley.
Population shift and now they must open more at a much higher cost.
This problem is not prevented by
> requiring judges to be confirmed by the general electorate. This
> problem is prevented by the ever present threat of retaliation from
> the legislature when politicians feel the court has poached their
> turf.
Not when they are all the same party.
Keep in mind that the politicans set the budget and the text of
> the constitution.
>
> > My favorite example was a few years ago when a election for county
> > supervisor was over turned because it was charge that election was bad
> > because a Latino could not be elected in that district. So the winner
was
> > turned out boundaries changed and a female Latino was elected.
>
> The politicization of re-districting is one of the less attractive
> features of the democratic process in many states. Placing
> re-districting in the hands of politicians is inappropriate and
> unecessary. Electoral districts could be determined by civil servants
> based on mathematical optimization.
An the unions they belong to. To give the best to the politician their dues
support.
The First Geer Family
Well I can personally attest to the fact there are more then just
Christians and Jews in BSA. I met Wiccas, Muslims, and at least a Buddhist
or Hindu.
Graham Holland
>
>I don't think the BSA gathers information on the religions of its
>members. It does have statistics on units chartered by religious
>organizations but members of those units may or may not belong to the
>chartering organization's religion. I can't find those statistics
>online though. It may have statistics on how many scouts earn which
>religious medals (but since religious medals are given by the
>religious organization and not the BSA and not necessarily just to BSA
>members it may not). IIRC the religious group chartering the largest
>number of units is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
>(aka Mormons).
>
>As far as other religious organizations chartering, they include
>Baha'i, Jewish, Buddhist, and Muslim among the non-Christian groups.
>They do not apparently permit Wicca groups to charter though Wicca
>scouts are permitted (but they and Unitarian Universalist scouts may
>not wear their religious medals on the scout uniform).
Thanks, Emma.
Chimp
> "Chimp" <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > "Jay Walker" <wwwa...@sp.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > "Chimp" <pan_pani...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > no business being a part of it....
> >
> > First, Jay, as has been stated to you before, I am _not_ a member
> > of it, nor am I trying to become one.
> >
> > However, as it happens I _do_ support the ideals of the BSA.
> > The "duty to God", though, isn't an ideal of BSA, despite claims
> > to the contrary. How can "duty to God" be fundamental to BSA
> > when BSA has no opinion on what "God" means, or on what the duties
> > to God are, when it does not have any teachings about God, does
> > not instruct any particular duties to God, and refers anyone who
> > asks about such things to non-BSA personnel?
> >
> > How can it be core to BSA when someone like Darrell Lambert can
> > participate successfully and become a respected and valued
> > troop member despite having no belief in God? How can it be
> > core to BSA when someone of as long-service and trenchant views
> > on the subject as Hugh has _never_ denied a boy progression over
> > the issue? Sorta strange don't you think?
Once again, Jay, you reveal your talent for ignoring what is in
a post and "replying" with a lot of irrelevant stuff.
> As I correctly stated, it really is simple. [snip of Jay's account
of "it", namely the entrance requirements]
Jay, although I've stated the following many times before, it bears
repeating, since it never seems to get through to you. 1) I know
what the entrance requirements are; (2) I am not attempting to or
interested in joining BSA. Thus you do not have to repeatedly state
the joining requirements.
> Your choice of lifestyle or religious preference has no more to
> do with it than YOU choose to make of it.
I agree entirely, but it is entirely beside the point. By
requiring a religious oath, BSA chooses to discriminate against
those who -- yes, of their own free choice -- feel that religious
oath to be inappropriate to them. It really is that simple.
In the same way, a requirement to eat pork will only discriminate
against Jews and Moslems to the extent that those Jews and Moslems
choose -- again through their own free choice -- not to eat pork.
Since we're all agreed on the above, why do you feel the need to
keep rehearsing it?
> You do not have a "right" to force the organization to compromise
> it's core values to accept you though...
Again, Jay, who is suggesting otherwise? I agree with you. But
no-one here is talking about "forcing" -- posting on usenet is
about the mildest and most easily ignorable form of "forcing" one
could imagine.
> You again want to debate an issue that really is not debatable.
No, Jay, it is entirely debatable. You may chose not to debate
it -- fine, is is not as though you contribute anything when
it comes to reason and evidence -- but this news group has
managed to spend years debating such issues, so they are
most definately debatable. [NB "debate" is not synonymous with
"formal, structured debate" it can mean "informal discussion".]
> Check the BSA official web site, review the readily available
> BSA literature ...
No thanks Jay; I am well aware of the membership requirments.
> You simply do not have any concept of what the BSA means by "Duty
to God". [...] it is very simple and is left to the individual.
Yep, and nor does BSA have any concept of "Duty to God" -- it is,
as you say, left to the individual (and their families and
religious leaders). So, since it is a personal concept, left to
the individual, in what way is it core to BSA?
> Try not to get confused over this issue as it relates to youth
> members and the issue as it relates to adults wanting to become
> leaders.
I don't need to try, Jay, I am in no danger of getting confused
here, and don't need your exposition of the differences.
> BTW, explaining "religious concepts" to youth members is not
> in the program job description of any BSA adult leader Chimp.
Yep, I think I said that to Hugh just recently ...
> We seem to have ventured off into an area that is exclusively
> the responsibility of the parent or the youth's religious leader.
Exactly! And since it is "exclusively" (your word) the
responsiblity of the parent and the youth's religious leader
(who are, in general, non-BSA personnel), in what way are
such things core to BSA, and in what way does it matter what
the views of the leader are, provided he respects the principle
you've just stated?
Chimp
Chimp
>
> >"Atheists cannot become the best kind of citizen because <not sure,
> >BSA have never specified why>".
>
> They can't because they don't believe in the goals of BSA which
> includes a "duty to God".
It is revealing that justifications of the DRP attempted on
this newsgroup never amount to more than "The DRP is justified
because it is a fundamental BSA principle, and the BSA's
fundamental principles are justified because they are the
BSA's fundamental principles, and the BSA's fundamental principles
are justified because they are the BSA's fundamental principles,
and ...".
> >Each of these statements is unsupported (or indeed refuted) by
> >available evidence. They are thus simply unreasoned prejudice.
>
> Who makes those statements? I'd argue with those who did.
Really? Including the one I've left quoted? [Remarks like the
others were prevalent in the past, but are seldom heard nowadays
since it is generally accepted that they are false and based
solely on prejudice.]
Chimp
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
>"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 17:22:34 -0400, Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Owen Morris wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In news:3F8ABD28...@watson.ibm.com,
>> >> Rob Strom <st...@watson.ibm.com> typed:
>> >> > "J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> > ...
>> >> >>>
>> >> >> Mercans and Brits don't pronounce "tomato" and "potato" the same but
>> >> >> that doesn't make them taste different. Call them Allah and Mohammed,
>> >> >> if they are born in sin but can be saved, that's close enough for me.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Wow!!! Why does this sound like:
>> >> > "I don't care if you call your sport football, or if you
>> >> > call it soccer. As long as it's three strikes and yer out,
>> >> > that's close enough for me".
>> >> if it is three strikes adn your out, then it isn't either ;)
>> >
>> >That was my point, I think!
>> >
>> >Hugh's statement sounds exactly like the one I made up
>> >in which the speaker is assuming that all reasonable sports
>> >are essentially baseball (never having learned about anything else).
>>
>> You missed the point, You can get a hit, or a walk or get on base by
>> an error - either way you're on base.
>
>in football???
In religion.
>
>
>>
>> >He's assuming all reasonable religions are essentially Christianity.
>
>> Agaian you miss the point. I have never excluded Jews and they are not
>> Christians.
>>
>
>
>You said "if they are born in sin but can be saved, that's
>close enough for me".
>
>Sounds like Christianity to me. Do you know any other
>religions that talk like that?
>
>--
>Rob Strom
Maybe you should take a look at Judiasm - Jews can be saved by burnt
offerings done in the proper manner. And the Messiah will come for
them sooner or later.
Hugh