I've Had A Change Of Heart On The Boy Scouts.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone

And saying that Mormons aren't true Christians is the no true Scotsman fallacy.

Mormons actually feel insulted when they're referred to as Christians.

But - Hey! They are.

There are 3100 different Christian sects (excluding Mormons) in America alone. So much for "True Christians".

reply to post by Annee

Mormons actually feel insulted when they're referred to as Christians.

This was something i didn't know, so i guess i stand corrected then.

But it doesn't help when they put an oath to God first before everything else and have strong Christian overtones.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone

But it doesn't help when they put an oath to God first before everything else and have strong Christian overtones.

The original scouting came from England and was based on the Military.

"I will do my duty to God and the King"- - - is more about loyalty to country - - then God.

Read the Law - - instead of the Oath.

LAW

On my honour I promise that:-
1. A Scout's honour is to be trusted.
2. A Scout is Loyal to the King and to his officers, and to his country, and to his employers.
3. A Scout's duty is to be useful and to help others.
4. A Scout is a friend to all and a brother to every other Scout, no matter to what social class the other belongs.
5. A Scout is Courteous.
6. A Scout is a friend to animals.
7. A Scout obeys orders of his patrol leader or scout master without question.
8. A Scout smiles and whistles under all circumstances.
9. A Scout is thrifty.

www.netpages.free-online.co.uk...

reply to post by Annee


From the wiki:

According to its mission statement, the Boy Scouts of America seeks "to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law".[1] All members are required, as a condition of membership, to promise to uphold and obey both of these pledges. The texts of BSA's Scout Oath and Scout Law for Boy Scouting have remained unchanged since they were approved in 1911,[4] and every member agrees to follow them on their application form.

Scout Oath On my honor I will do my best To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.

Scout Law A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.

Spirituality has been an integral part of the international Scouting movement since its inception.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


I know.

I recently went through this Boy Scout discussion somewhere else. Can't remember why or where.

Anyway - - the BSA originated from the British scouting - - - which was patterned after the military.

Here is the British military oath. What I find interesting is the British military now has alternate wording for non-god believers.

Christians in America latched onto the Boy Scouts (like they did almost everything else) and made it religious based.

OATH OF ALLEGIENCE

All soldiers must take an oath of allegiance upon joining the Army, a process known as attestation. Those who wish to swear by God use the following words:

I, [soldier's name], swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me.

Others replace the words "swear by Almighty God" with "solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm".Under the reign of another monarch, the name of the monarch and all pronouns with gender are replaced appropriately.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by seabag



The US mint doing a fund raiser is not federal funding. They are selling a product and giving the proceeds to the BSA. At least on the surface thats revenue neutral at worst and not a direct transfer of tax dollars.

I will have to check out the HUD money thats a new one on me.

The military did provide support for Jamboree. You know how? They opened up Fort AP HIll to be used as facilities. Again I dont really see that as "funding" as is very much akin to local schools providing facilities to be used for meetings. AP Hill however will not be used for Jamboree going forward BSA has a new property in West Virginia that will be the home of Jamboree.

The direct transfer of public funds to private organizations is a problem and I do not support that however allowing private organizations to use public facilities at little to no cost is not the same thing. The provisions prohibiting discrimination apply to government. A government refusing to provide access to BSA to funds or facilities it provides access to other groups would be the government discriminating against BSA.
I absolutly see how people would be offended if tax money were directly paid to BSA to use as they see fit, however typically the same people protesting BSA see no problem with tax money being given to Planned Parenthood. Many people feel this amounts to the government funding abortion and they are offended by that. So you cant have one without the other. Stop all direct funding.
Providing access to facilities is not however direct funding nor should it be construed to mean that government condones or supports organizations using those facilities.

reply to post by Openeye

If you look back at my previous posts not once did I advocate legislation which would force the BSA to admit gays and atheists, and I would oppose such legislation.

I said:
But people like myself find it necessary to use speech to speak out against bigotry in attempt to open up a dialaouge so solutions and progress can be made.

When you use buzz words like “solutions” and “progress” what do you mean? Obviously you’re seeking inclusion for homosexuals.

We probably don't, however I think certain forms of morality can be judged objectively. For example the reason why gays and atheists are not allowed in scouting has a religious connotation, which in my opinion has no bases in reality, therefore there is no rational reason to deny them entry.

So because YOU believe the BSA’s decision to exclude gays has religious connotations then the first amendment is somehow null and void? Regardless, BSA still maintains the freedom of assembly despite your personal views about religion.

As I’ve already pointed out, the Supreme Court disagrees with you, sir.

Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000), was a case of the Supreme Court of the United States decided on June 28, 2000, that held that the constitutional right to freedom of association allows a private organization like the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to exclude a person from membership when "the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints."[1] The Supreme Court ruled that opposition to homosexuality is part of BSA's "expressive message" and that allowing homosexuals as adult leaders would interfere with that message.

wiki

This is especially true when it comes to atheists; a valid argument could be made about allowing gay teenagers to sleep in the same tents as straight boys but the argument is very very thin because there is no evidence that gay teenagers in scouting are coaxing straight teenagers into sex.

It’s the belief of BSA administrators that, in the best interest of the children, these situations be avoided and I agree. I don’t need to wait until my young boy is coaxed into gay relations before I realize this is a bad situation. Most humans have the gift of foresight…..

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by EvilSadamClone

 

I know.

I recently went through this Boy Scout discussion somewhere else. Can't remember why or where.

Anyway - - the BSA originated from the British scouting - - - which was patterned after the military.

Here is the British military oath. What I find interesting is the British military now has alternate wording for non-god believers.

Christians in America latched onto the Boy Scouts (like they did almost everything else) and made it religious based.

OATH OF ALLEGIENCE

All soldiers must take an oath of allegiance upon joining the Army, a process known as attestation. Those who wish to swear by God use the following words:

I, [soldier's name], swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me.

Others replace the words "swear by Almighty God" with "solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm".Under the reign of another monarch, the name of the monarch and all pronouns with gender are replaced appropriately.

en.wikipedia.org...

If someone does.not have a son in boyscouts right now

it is of no concern to them. Quite sickening the things these people with a LG agenda latch on to things to exert their power.

Gay kids can be in the boyscouts.

Whats next transgender girls girls who think their boys being forcibly allowed to.join.stop this non sense

Originally posted by popcornmafia

Whats next transgender girls girls who think their boys being forcibly allowed to.join.stop this non sense

I believe you mean transexual.

hmmmm OK

I have a grandson who may want to join boy scouts.

I have reason to be concerned.

Originally posted by Annee
hmmmm OK

I have a grandson who may want to join boy scouts.

I have reason to be concerned.

Wouldn't that really be the business of his mom and dad?

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Annee
hmmmm OK

I have a grandson who may want to join boy scouts.

I have reason to be concerned.

Wouldn't that really be the business of his mom and dad?

You don't know the situation do you.

His dad died of Cancer - - his mom works long hours.

I am his primary caretaker - - by necessity. Besides that my daughter and I agree on most things.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

Here's a couple for you:

en.wikipedia.org...

www.thehumanist.org...

And don't dismiss a show just because. It's doesn't mean they do not have an invalid point. That in itself is a fallacy. They do have some legitimate points in the episode about the discrimination.

And saying that Mormons aren't true Christians is the no true Scotsman fallacy.

Wikipedia as a source? really? LOL! In any case, even that doesn't state they receive tax dollars. Access to a SINGLE BASE, that is hardly "exclusive" isn't exactly the organization receiving public funds. Your other source specifically states that they do not receive government funding. Members and sponsors paying fees is like any other club, and has nothing to do with tax dollars. Neither do charitable contributions. That entire article is misleading. As for "dismissing" the show; didn't say whether they had a valid claim or not, said I wasn't watching them. They are biased, and I have seem them lie in the couple of episodes I did watch. Won't bother again. So, any actual sources that show tax dollars used for the Boy Scouts?

Nope, not a fallacy, either, but a simple statement of opinion. Christianity, according to Bible-believing Christians, involves certain criteria, and denying the deity of Christ makes a group something other than Christian. Now, they have every right to believe that way, but that particular belief makes their religion other than Christian.

reply to post by seabag

So because YOU believe the BSA’s decision to exclude gays has religious connotations then the first amendment is somehow null and void?

I have already acknowledged their right to exclude whomever they wish, that is not the issue. I have always enjoyed the famous quote by Voltaire “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”, that does not mean I wont actively criticize an organizations position.

I already mentioned an argument could be made for excluding gays because of the sexual connotation, even though this argument does not hold up well. But they simply have no rational reason for excluding atheists, I would love to be provided with one. An agnostic can be a scout, a sun worshiper could be a scout, but not an atheist. The only reason they would not allow an atheist to be a scout is because an atheist has no deity, and no religion, therefore the BSA's reasoning is motivated by their religious views, which again they have every right to express. Does that make it morally right? No...not at all, in fact they morally compromised.

Civil rights don't make something moral or good, they protect ones views from being infringed on by the state.

And I'm going to say this again to make myself clear because for some reason this is not getting through, I in no way support legislation which would force an organization to include a specific group of people. I do however support people saying to that organization that they are wrong, which they are, and they are wrong because they don't have logical reasons to exclude gays and atheists other than "Because we have the right" or "Their beliefs are not compatible with ours", those are not reasons those are excuses.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

Wikipedia as a source? really?

Yes, really.

Because a good Wiki article will list any sources they can along with a link to the source. You can find those sources when you scroll down and then you can check them yourself. There are a lot of sources to check out. And a good article is based on those sources.

Edit:

And personally, I'd like to see an end to both the BSA and the GSA and mold them into one group called the American Scouts. Or something like that.

Hey, I'm a visionary sometimes.

reply to post by Openeye

"Because we have the right" or "There beliefs are not compatible with ours.".

Well, what other reasons could there be other than those?

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


That's my point...

Their position lacks rationality and logic, its only supported by their philosophical presupposition and not by evidence or reason.

Originally posted by Annee
hmmmm OK

I have a grandson who may want to join boy scouts.

I have reason to be concerned.

Annee:

I'm LDS, an assistant scoutmaster and my 14yo son is in scouts with me. I cannot express to you how many times I have been overwhelmed with pride because my son has made good choices based on the principles he learned in scouting.
Every troop is different, run by individuals who cast their shadow on the thing, but as for us: It's a boy-led program, generally religious with absolutely no pressure or prosyletizing heaped on the non-religious boys. Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean and Reverent...Where else can a young man learn these values today, and not get mocked by his peers?

I'm just saying don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Annee
hmmmm OK

I have a grandson who may want to join boy scouts.

I have reason to be concerned.

Wouldn't that really be the business of his mom and dad?

You don't know the situation do you.

His dad died of Cancer - - his mom works long hours.

I am his primary caretaker - - by necessity. Besides that my daughter and I agree on most things.

So wouldn't it be the business of his mom? Do you tell your daughter what to do concerning her son?