NationStates Jolt Archive

this is somthing that i have been pondring for a while now.

what is everyone's thoughts on the Boy Scouts of America. or the Boy Scout programm in their country.

and if u have a Boy Scout program in your country how is it set up?

I don't think they should be able to act as a religious organization if they receive governmental support. They should have to forsake one or the other.

They should be used as military reserves during wartime, instead of re-instituting a draft.

Because they will always 'Be Prepared!'.

well they arnt really a religous organization. but i see what u mean. most of the troops are run through churches. but that dosnt make them a religious organization.

and bann-ed i think the scouts could act as a millitary.

I dislike the Boy Scouts, because I believe it is a militaristic organization dedicated to immoral and regressive conservative Christian values, and it socializes youngsters to become dedicated to the State, when they should instead be taught to rebel.

I dislike the Boy Scouts, because I believe it is a militaristic organization dedicated to immoral and regressive conservative Christian values, and it socializes youngsters to become dedicated to the State, when they should instead be taught to rebel.

Taught to rebel against what, exactly?

A decent organization, capable of carrying out plenty of good things and forming strong and healthy character and civic dedication. It is hampered by a lack of uniformly applied standards, and oftentimes crippling bureaucracy within individual troops, as well as the reliance on hard-to-replace individual leaders.

I'm an Eagle Scout, actually. I thoroughly approve of it. In the current day and age, few people learn any practical skills outside of their given speciality. Boy Scouts gives you a good general grasp of a lot of very useful skills. You might not be able to cure cancer, but knowing how to stop bleeding, treat heat stroke, pitch a tent, row a boat, and shoot a rifle are handy skills. It also provides some leadership 'education' and a good environment, provided the right troop.
Yes, I know from personal experience that the 'wrong troop' can be a rather unpleasant experience.
Yes, I realize that you COULD learn these skills outside of Boy Scouts, and many people do.
But all organizations have their flaws. And MANY troops are willing to take people regardless of sexuality or religion. What a bunch of old farts at the top say has little impact on the local level unless the local leaders choose to let it.

I enjoyed most of my time in Boy Scouts, made some friends, and learned a great deal I wouldnt have otherwise.

They should be used as military reserves during wartime, instead of re-instituting a draft.

Because they will always 'Be Prepared!'.

That's a great idea, but the damn liberals will be all "You can't use child soldiers" and "it's against the Geneva Convention"...pansies...

well they arnt really a religous organization. but i see what u mean. most of the troops are run through churches. but that dosnt make them a religious organization.

and bann-ed i think the scouts could act as a millitary.

They do not allow atheists or open homosexuals into the Boy Scouts for religious reasons.

I dislike the Boy Scouts, because I believe it is a militaristic organization dedicated to immoral and regressive conservative Christian values, and it socializes youngsters to become dedicated to the State, when they should instead be taught to rebel.

How are they militaristic? I was in Boy scouts for years. We never learned anything about the Millitary. I do agree with the second part. The third part makes no sense.

Taught to rebel against what, exactly?
The State, obviously...

Nice signature, by the way. I especially like the Machiavelli quote, because it provides a simple explanation for many events in US history, both in domestic and foreign policy. From Ludlow to Chile, Machiavelli was ultimately right.

How are they militaristic? I was in Boy scouts for years. We never learned anything about the Millitary. I do agree with the second part. The third part makes no sense.
I find the uniform, the salute, and the glorification of hierarchy to be more than vaguely militaristic. Even if you disagree with my labeling specifically, I find it to be sickening, and I would not support my (future) kids being involved with it.

As to the third part, I'll again reiterate the excessive emphasis on hierarchy and the uniform as evidence of the notion that the Scouts are here in part to make us love the State. Here is the 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."

(Parts I don't find despicable have been made bold.)

This talk of "duty," "obey," "Law," and "country" is all about hierarchy and obedience to authority, things which should be discouraged rather than propped up as wonderful values.

I very much agree with the Scouts' emphasis on charity, self-reliance and preparedness, but I believe you can get it without waving the flag, the salute, the uniform, buttons and so on.

I disagree with their stance on homosexual scout leaders, but in general I highly support the scouting (Not just BSA) movement.

That's a great idea, but the damn liberals will be all "You can't use child soldiers" and "it's against the Geneva Convention"...pansies...

I know. All we have to do is give them an ultimatum.

"Either we send the boy scouts, or you go."

The largest Swedish scouting union is insipidly and sinisterly religious when one looks at them closely. The charter of the umbrella organisation (Svenska Scoutrådet) states as one of their goals:

"en andlig utveckling, som innebär att söka svar på livsfrågor, att söka efter sin tro samt att respektera andras tro."

"A spiritual development, which entails seeking answers to life questions, to search for one's faith and to respect the faith of others."

Their first "scout law" is:

"En scout söker sin tro och respekterar andras."

"A scout seeks his faith and respects that of others."

The five scouting organisations that are members of Svenska Scoutrådet are upon closer inspection decidedly Christian - The Salvation Army, YMCA, The Sobriety Movement, Swedish Mission Church and "Svenska Scoutförbundet", the latter's charter being representative of them all:

"Svenska Scoutförbundet hävdar en kristen livssyn och respekterar varje livsåskådning som låter sig förenas med scoutlagen och scoutlöftet."

"Svenska Scoutförbundet asserts a Christian view of life and respects every philosophy that is compatible with the scout law and scouting oath."

So, they are clearly not a very proper organisation for children to be involved in, but that is up to individual parents to decide... they are, however, not very controversial, because they are not discriminatory as the USA scouts are, for instance. They do not discriminate members and leaders on the basis of sexual orientation or religious views, not only because such a thing would be un-Swedish and would quickly render them very unpopular, but also because it is quite illegal and HomO (The Ombudsman against Discrimination on grounds of Sexual Orientation) and DO (The Ombudsman against Ethnic Discrimination - covering faith-based discrimination as well) would be on them like hawks.

So, quite suspect as they may be, they so far adhere to Swedish values of inclusion and non-discrimination, so I am not too worried about them, especially as their religious propaganda is fortunately seemingly powerless against the secularising pressures of the rest of society. I would still of course never allow my children to join them, not that I would ever have children lame enough to want to...

I find the uniform, the salute, and the glorification of hierarchy to be more than vaguely militaristic. Even if you disagree with my labeling specifically, I find it to be sickening, and I would not support my (future) kids being involved with it.

As to the third part, I'll again reiterate the excessive emphasis on hierarchy and the uniform as evidence of the notion that the Scouts are here in part to make us love the State. Here is the 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."

(Parts I don't find despicable have been made bold.)

This talk of "duty," "obey," "Law," and "country" is all about hierarchy and obedience to authority, things which should be discouraged rather than propped up as wonderful values.

I very much agree with the Scouts' emphasis on charity, self-reliance and preparedness, but I believe you can get it without waving the flag, the salute, the uniform, buttons and so on.

It all comes from tradition.
If I recall correctly, Scouting came over to the US from the UK some time in the early 1900's, and I'm sure we all know what Europe was like at that point.
Anyway, if you dont want your kids exposed to those ideas, dont send them to become Scouts. I'm sure other people find the ideas you hate to be the greatest thing since the invention of sex.

The State, obviously...

Nice signature, by the way. I especially like the Machiavelli quote, because it provides a simple explanation for many events in US history, both in domestic and foreign policy. From Ludlow to Chile, Machiavelli was ultimately right.


I find the uniform, the salute, and the glorification of hierarchy to be more than vaguely militaristic. Even if you disagree with my labeling specifically, I find it to be sickening, and I would not support my (future) kids being involved with it.

As to the third part, I'll again reiterate the excessive emphasis on hierarchy and the uniform as evidence of the notion that the Scouts are here in part to make us love the State. Here is the 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."

I very much agree with the Scouts' emphasis on charity, self-reliance and preparedness, but I believe you can get it without waving the flag, the salute, the uniform, buttons and so on(Parts I don't find despicable have been made bold.)

This talk of "duty," "obey," "Law," and "country" is all about hierarchy and obedience to authority, things which should be discouraged rather than propped up as wonderful values..





Uniforms helps people feel a part of something, even more so in little kids. Hierarchy is every part of life, from school, to your job, there will be a hierarchy. Deal with it. At your job, if you don't respect your boss's authority, you'll get fired.

I would instead suggest some kind of program like the Autonomous Scouts (which is a made up, figment of my imagination organization). I would take the Scout model, strip it of its rank patriotism and glorification of hierarchy and replace it with self-esteem building that emphasizes strong community and respect for individual freedoms.

I know nothing about them aside from this quote, which might not be entirely correct but the idea is there:

Kids dressed as idiots led by idiots dressed as kids.

I always feel a little sorry for the adult supervisors in their funny shorts and short-sleeved shirts, socks pulled up to their knees. They look so earnestly responsible and a part of me wants to admire them for supervising children and helping them learn some interesting things but, really, it's no longer 1920 and wearing the garb of colonial Brits in Africa isn't necessary.

Institutions glued together by blind tradition bother me, that's goes for a lot of things.

I know nothing about them aside from this quote, which might not be entirely correct but the idea is there:

Kids dressed as idiots led by idiots dressed as kids.

I always feel a little sorry for the adult supervisors in their funny shorts and short-sleeved shirts, socks pulled up to their knees. They look so earnestly responsible and a part of me wants to admire them for supervising children and helping them learn some interesting things but, really, it's no longer 1920 and wearing the garb of colonial Brits in Africa isn't necessary.

Institutions glued together by blind tradition bother me, that's goes for a lot of things.

I believe jeans are approved garb for non-ceremonial occasions. During important events, olive-green slacks are typically worn. There ARE short sleeved shirts, but long sleeves are more common now.
The wool socks up to your knees I've seen before. As I recall there was about a foot of snow on the ground at the time and I REALLY wished I was wearing inch thick wool socks that came up to my knees.

The largest Swedish scouting union is insipidly and sinisterly religious when one looks at them closely. The charter of the umbrella organisation (Svenska Scoutrådet) states as one of their goals:

"en andlig utveckling, som innebär att söka svar på livsfrågor, att söka efter sin tro samt att respektera andras tro."

"A spiritual development, which entails seeking answers to life questions, to search for one's faith and to respect the faith of others."

Their first "scout law" is:

"En scout söker sin tro och respekterar andras."

"A scout seeks his faith and respects that of others."

The five scouting organisations that are members of Svenska Scoutrådet are upon closer inspection decidedly Christian - The Salvation Army, YMCA, The Sobriety Movement, Swedish Mission Church and "Svenska Scoutförbundet", the latter's charter being representative of them all:

"Svenska Scoutförbundet hävdar en kristen livssyn och respekterar varje livsåskådning som låter sig förenas med scoutlagen och scoutlöftet."

"Svenska Scoutförbundet asserts a Christian view of life and respects every philosophy that is compatible with the scout law and scouting oath."

So, they are clearly not a very proper organisation for children to be involved in, but that is up to individual parents to decide... they are, however, not very controversial, because they are not discriminatory as the USA scouts are, for instance. They do not discriminate members and leaders on the basis of sexual orientation or religious views, not only because such a thing would be un-Swedish and would quickly render them very unpopular, but also because it is quite illegal and HomO (The Ombudsman against Discrimination on grounds of Sexual Orientation) and DO (The Ombudsman against Ethnic Discrimination - covering faith-based discrimination as well) would be on them like hawks.

So, quite suspect as they may be, they so far adhere to Swedish values of inclusion and non-discrimination, so I am not too worried about them, especially as their religious propaganda is fortunately seemingly powerless against the secularising pressures of the rest of society. I would still of course never allow my children to join them, not that I would ever have children lame enough to want to...

When I was in scouts, we prayed at the end of meetings and the leader mentioned God from time to time, but they are not like very religious.

I think scouts are cool cuz they teach children about nature, teach kids to be more responsible, teach them to count on themselves more (independence) and it was alot of fun to go camping every month.

I quit though because I though the meetings were lame. I was like, "Secret Handshake!? Thats just gay, what the fuck, I quit."

It all comes from tradition.
If I recall correctly, Scouting came over to the US from the UK some time in the early 1900's, and I'm sure we all know what Europe was like at that point.
Anyway, if you dont want your kids exposed to those ideas, dont send them to become Scouts. I'm sure other people find the ideas you hate to be the greatest thing since the invention of sex.
Obviously, I don't intend on sending my kids to either the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts.

And those who like the idea of sending their kids to revel in hierarchy, the uniform, and salutes are free to do so. More power to them...

Uniforms helps people feel a part of something, even more so in little kids. Hierarchy is every part of life, from school, to your job, there will be a hierarchy. Deal with it. At your job, if you don't respect your boss's authority, you'll get fired.
Uniforms, salutes, oaths, metals and ranks are not necessary to make people feel as though they belong to a community of loving people who voluntarily cooperate. These things are the trappings of military service, which de-emphasize voluntary cooperation.


Hierarchy is a part of everyday life, yes. It is not, however, part of all aspects of life. If you have friends, you probably have experience with functional human relationships in which hierarchy is not a factor.

One of the things I liked about my job was that I worked at an organic supermarket, where we have hippie values like egalitarianism. My "boss" was the produce manager, who I never felt coerced by. I never saw him as a boss, but as a fellow worker (which he was, as he was out unloading the trucks, doing inventory, and stocking produce like the rest of us).

Voluntary cooperation and doing good for its own sake, are a contrast to hierarchy, which need not (and does not) permeate all aspects of life.


I think scouts are cool cuz they teach children about nature, teach kids to be more responsible, teach them to count on themselves more (independence) and it was alot of fun to go camping every month.

Like I say, there are good things about the Scout model.


I quit though because I though the meetings were lame. I was like, "Secret Handshake!? Thats just gay, what the fuck, I quit."
As you should have. Such are the trappings of exclusivity rather than inclusiveness.

They do not allow atheists or open homosexuals into the Boy Scouts for religious reasons.

They don't? Then explain how it is that I was a Boy Scout?

The largest Swedish scouting union is insipidly and sinisterly religious when one looks at them closely. The charter of the umbrella organisation (Svenska Scoutrådet) states as one of their goals:

"en andlig utveckling, som innebär att söka svar på livsfrågor, att söka efter sin tro samt att respektera andras tro."

"A spiritual development, which entails seeking answers to life questions, to search for one's faith and to respect the faith of others."

Their first "scout law" is:

"En scout söker sin tro och respekterar andras."

"A scout seeks his faith and respects that of others."

The five scouting organisations that are members of Svenska Scoutrådet are upon closer inspection decidedly Christian - The Salvation Army, YMCA, The Sobriety Movement, Swedish Mission Church and "Svenska Scoutförbundet", the latter's charter being representative of them all:

"Svenska Scoutförbundet hävdar en kristen livssyn och respekterar varje livsåskådning som låter sig förenas med scoutlagen och scoutlöftet."

"Svenska Scoutförbundet asserts a Christian view of life and respects every philosophy that is compatible with the scout law and scouting oath."

So, they are clearly not a very proper organisation for children to be involved in, but that is up to individual parents to decide... they are, however, not very controversial, because they are not discriminatory as the USA scouts are, for instance. They do not discriminate members and leaders on the basis of sexual orientation or religious views, not only because such a thing would be un-Swedish and would quickly render them very unpopular, but also because it is quite illegal and HomO (The Ombudsman against Discrimination on grounds of Sexual Orientation) and DO (The Ombudsman against Ethnic Discrimination - covering faith-based discrimination as well) would be on them like hawks.

So, quite suspect as they may be, they so far adhere to Swedish values of inclusion and non-discrimination, so I am not too worried about them, especially as their religious propaganda is fortunately seemingly powerless against the secularising pressures of the rest of society. I would still of course never allow my children to join them, not that I would ever have children lame enough to want to...

Yeah the bolded are horrible...
:rolleyes:

Yeah the bolded are horrible...
:rolleyes:

I believe that, since this is Fass, his issue is with faith being respected. At all. Any kind.

I think most of thee controversy surrounding the Scouts is centered in America. Here in the UK the organisation's pretty innocent as far as I know.

Yeah the bolded are horrible...

Of course it is. It implies that religious faith is respectable. In this day and age! Zany.

I think most of thee controversy surrounding the Scouts is centered in America. Here in the UK the organisation's pretty innocent as far as I know.

There was never any controversy until the 90's with the scouts here in the states. I was one in the 70's into the early 80's and everything was just fine.

I'm actually an Eagle Scout, and I think it's a good program, but then again, I was in a moderate to liberal troop, which was awesome, so yea.

Of course it is. It implies that religious faith is respectable. In this day and age! Zany.
Well, what's the alternative? That people dump faith? Some people would lose meaning in their lives and jump off a bridge. As far as I know, that's not the goal of secular humanism.

Of course it is. It implies that religious faith is respectable. In this day and age! Zany.

As a fellow athiest, get the frick over it. I think you have been tramatized by a minority of extremists that make up the religous population for your beliefs or life style.

They do not allow atheists or open homosexuals into the Boy Scouts for religious reasons.

Im not sure about in other countries but I'm pretty sure in Australia there arn't any restriction on atheists in the scouts...

but the homosexuals thing is a bit prejudice especially as these days girls are allowed in but they still have male leaders....um.... not sure they have any logical arguments that still stand there

Well, what's the alternative? That people dump faith?

Yup, as we've dumped many antiquated and stupid phenomena.

Some people would lose meaning in their lives and jump off a bridge.

Free of the atrophying effect that religious faith has on the intellect, people would realise that "meaning" is essentially pointless and would know better than to care about something as plebeianly numinous.

As far as I know, that's not the goal of secular humanism.

Neither is the perpetuation of the patronising nonsense contained within a phrase like "some people would lose meaning in their lives and jump off a bridge" (IMO, people who hold such a tenuous bond to their lives and build them on such a flimsy foundation might as well, since they're living lies and not lives), but why you think I'd care about the goals of secular humanism...

Young Marines whup Scouts! :D

How's THAT for militaristic hierarchy? Pledging allegiance, praying, ranks based on knowledge and ability, and camo uniforms.

Seriously, lay off the scouts. What harm is there in their values and activities? If you disagree, don't participate. There is a high probability that you favor government-supported groups to which I am deeply opposed and receive a far larger sum of taxpayer dollars. Shall we have a flame war on NSG just because you don't like a program that receives almost nothing in government support? The parents of the scouts pay taxes, so why can't they use taxpayer-funded buildings?

*looks at general forums*

aw, crap. We're doomed.

As a fellow athiest,

"Athiest" - would that be athier than an athie?

get the frick over it.

Oh, I don't believe I shall, but don't think me grateful for the suggestion. Ours did not become one of the most secular societies through inaction - it took a lot of continuous erosion of the superstitious to get where we are, and the task is far from accomplished. Diligence - it's ironically protestant!

I think you have been tramatized by a minority of extremists that make up the religous population for your beliefs or life style.

Actually, all of the traumatisation has been on their part, I am happy to say.

Actually, all of the traumatisation has been on their part, I am happy to say.

Methinks thou doth protest overmuch, mayhap?

Young Marines whup Scouts! :D

How's THAT for militaristic hierarchy? Pledging allegiance, praying, ranks based on knowledge and ability, and camo uniforms.

Seriously, lay off the scouts. What harm is there in their values and activities? If you disagree, don't participate. There is a high probability that you favor government-supported groups to which I am deeply opposed and receive a far larger sum of taxpayer dollars. Shall we have a flame war on NSG just because you don't like a program that receives almost nothing in government support? The parents of the scouts pay taxes, so why can't they use taxpayer-funded buildings?

*looks at general forums*

aw, crap. We're doomed.

The difference being that those organizations you might not like don't actually discriminate. Any agency receiving government funds cannot discriminate based on religion or sexual orientation, as the mainline/official Boy Scouts of America do. So long as that's the case, they deserve no taxpayer money.

I was a Cub Scout myself, and enjoyed the various things we got to do. Then I witnessed a WeBeLos ceremony and looking back on it, it made me think of a fraternity hazing ritual (at the time, I just thought it was creepy). All candles and prayers and lots of boys. I wasn't going to go any further.

Oddly enough, the Girls Scouts do not discriminate.

Fassitude, I feel that the cause of atheism is not helped by attitudes like this, which are unduly dismissive of all religious faith (including those which do not lead people to immoral political positions).

Yup, as we've dumped many antiquated and stupid phenomena.

We don't know whether God exists or not, and we will never know. Although I agree with you in stating that the notion of God is exceedingly silly, I would say that it is misplaced to condemn all religious faith as such. It's only worth condemning faith which leads to immoral beliefs.


Free of the atrophying effect that religious faith has on the intellect, people would realise that "meaning" is essentially pointless and would know better than to care about something as plebeianly numinous.

Meaning satisfies a basic psychological need people have to feel some kind of grounding in the world.


Neither is the perpetuation of the patronising nonsense contained within a phrase like "some people would lose meaning in their lives and jump off a bridge" (IMO, people who hold such a tenuous bond to their lives and build it on such a flimsy foundation might as well, since their living lies),

My hyperbole... It is not patronizing to say that people want to feel grounded in some way; "meaning" is what makes life worth living for some people.


but why you think I'd care about the goals of secular humanism...

Because it seems obvious, at least to me, that the whole point of atheism is to improve people's lives by suggesting an alternative to morally regressive belief.


Seriously, lay off the scouts. What harm is there in their values and activities?

Socialization to hierarchy, de-emphasis on voluntary cooperation, and the co-opting of community service by the language of patriotism and the State. Those seem like substantial harms to me.



If you disagree, don't participate.

Done.


There is a high probability that you favor government-supported groups to which I am deeply opposed and receive a far larger sum of taxpayer dollars.

Try me.


Shall we have a flame war on NSG just because you don't like a program that receives almost nothing in government support?

What flame war?

Methinks thou doth protest overmuch, mayhap?

1. Do not use (Early) Modern English unless you know it. "Thou doth" is grammatically incorrect. The proper second person present indicative conjugation is "thou dost".

2. Do not use Shakespearian quotes of which you obviously do not understand the meaning and applicability, let alone their precise phrasing (being: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks.").

1. Do not use (Early) Modern English unless you know it. "Thou doth" is grammatically incorrect. The proper second person present indicative conjugation is "thou dost".

2. Do not use Shakespearian quotes of which you obviously do not understand the meaning and applicability, let alone their precise phrasing (being: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks.").

Oh dear. Bait and switch. Or is that ad hominem? Sometimes its hard to tell.

Oh dear. Bait and switch. Or is that ad hominem? Sometimes its hard to tell.

Of course, your understanding of "ad hominem" is also incorrect, and not just of the applicability of the quote you butchered.

Of course, your understanding of "ad hominem" is also incorrect, and not just of the applicability of the quote you butchered.
Do you plan to return to the issue?

Of course, your understanding of "ad hominem" is also incorrect, and not just of the applicability of the quote you butchered.

'Against the man', yes? Because of my failure to properly quote Shakespear, my arguement was not worthy of being addressed, yes?
Regardless, you seem to have no response.

Oh dear. Bait and switch. Or is that ad hominem? Sometimes its hard to tell.

Uh, no, that's Fass rendering the fat of your inaccurate post into a candle by which you might see that he's correct.

He may be a bastard, but he's a painstakingly accurate one.

Fassitude, I feel that the cause of atheism is not helped by attitudes like this, which are unduly dismissive of all religious faith (including those which do not lead people to immoral political positions).

There is no such thing as "unduly dismissive" when it comes to religious faith, and the "cause of atheism" is hindered only by according respect to that which should never have been granted it.

We don't know whether God exists or not, and we will never know.

That which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

Although I agree with you in stating that the notion of God is exceedingly silly, I would say that it is misplaced to condemn all religious faith as such. It's only worth condemning faith which leads to immoral beliefs.

I find it quite immoral to stand by and twiddle one's thumbs as people, most often children and in this very case precisely them, are duped into something so wretched.

Meaning satisfies a basic psychological need people have to feel some kind of grounding in the world.

Poppycock.

My hyperbole... It is not patronizing to say that people want to feel grounded in some way; "meaning" is what makes life worth living for some people.

It is patronising to say their lives would would be emptier when they've ceased doing something bonkers and have embraced rationality, because how could their little brains handle something so sane?

Because it seems obvious, at least to me, that the whole point of atheism is to improve people's lives by suggesting an alternative to morally regressive belief.

And you seem to think that atheism's way of doing that is "secular humanism". Kooky.

I don't think they should be able to act as a religious organization if they receive governmental support. They should have to forsake one or the other.

WTF are you talking about. Is that the way it is in the US, yet another reason why the US is fucked.

I believe that, since this is Fass, his issue is with faith being respected. At all. Any kind.

I m sure that the bolded parts that Fass has decide to decry would also be talking about those that have no particular faith should also be respected for that. Fass wouldn't agree with me but then again I don't really care what his twisted mind has to say

They don't? Then explain how it is that I was a Boy Scout?

Your troop was in violation of BSA policy, the reasoning being that:

“The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise the member declares, ‘On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law.’ The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members. No matter what the religious faith of the members may be, this fundamental need of good citizenship should be kept before them. The Boy Scouts of America, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and the organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life.”
Link (http://www.bsalegal.org/duty-to-god-cases-224.asp)

Further, consider the Scout Oath and Law. It's been a while, but as I recall, the Oath requires you to swear that you will do your duty to "God and [your] country" and the last point of the Scout Law is that a scout is "reverent" towards God.

Now, some scouting groups may violate the BSA's policy on denying (open, of course... they have to know who they are) atheists and agnostics membership, but officially, they aren't supposed to be allowed in.

WTF are you talking about. Is that the way it is in the US, yet another reason why the US is fucked.

Yes, in the US, Boy Scouts are required to say prayers. (Indeed, a requirement for promotion to one rank is to lead your patrol in saying grace at a meal... either 1st or 2nd class, IIRC. It annoyed me even at the time, when I was religious.) They also, officially, do not allow atheists or agnostics to join.

But they still get government resources, such as land.

'Against the man', yes?

And herein lies your problem. You take "ad hominem" or a botched version of a quote, not even qualifying as a paraphrase, and read them either literally or not at all, and completely miss what they mean.

"Ad hominem" would be a personal attack on you used as a way to dismiss your argument - sort of like "you're a poopiehead and that's why what you said is incorrect". No "ad hominem" attack was made by me - in fact I didn't impugn your person or character at all - what I impugned was not just your knowledge of (Early) Modern English, pertinent to your understanding of it, but also your understanding of what the Shakespearian quote means and how it can be used. You did not use it correctly, and it wouldn't have been applicable to what I said even if you had. You get it now?

Because of my failure to properly quote Shakespear, my arguement was not worthy of being addressed, yes?

I shall repeat it once again, so that it comes across sufficiently clearly now: your "argument" is not worthy of being addressed because you did not have an argument. You had a misused and inapplicable failed quote. I shared with you, generous chap as I am, all the ways in which it failed; grammatical, syntactical as well as topical.

Regardless, you seem to have no response.

Hopefully this will be where you understand why I cannot respond to that which has nothing that can be responded to other than by stating that it has nothing to which one can respond.

Your troop was in violation of BSA policy, the reasoning being that:


Link (http://www.bsalegal.org/duty-to-god-cases-224.asp)

Further, consider the Scout Oath and Law. It's been a while, but as I recall, the Oath requires you to swear that you will do your duty to "God and [your] country" and the last point of the Scout Law is that a scout is "reverent" towards God.

Now, some scouting groups may violate the BSA's policy on denying (open, of course... they have to know who they are) atheists and agnostics membership, but officially, they aren't supposed to be allowed in.

But they do anyway because they don't let silly little things like that get in the way. Official doesn't really count if no one cares about it.

I actually didn't really think about this and is a good point. In Australia Scout HQ changed the Scout Oath because of some lefties out there having a little fit because it says "I will do my duty to the Queen of Australia" that bit has been made optional and you could say "Do my duty to Australia" which doesn't have the same sort of ring to it. No one has brought up the fact that God is in the Scout Oath, but I suppose Australians aren't as hung up about religion as the Yanks are

But they do anyway because they don't let silly little things like that get in the way. Official doesn't really count if no one cares about it.

I actually didn't really think about this and is a good point. In Australia Scout HQ changed the Scout Oath because of some lefties out there having a little fit because it says "I will do my duty to the Queen of Australia" that bit has been made optional and you could say "Do my duty to Australia" which doesn't have the same sort of ring to it. No one has brought up the fact that God is in the Scout Oath, but I suppose Australians aren't as hung up about religion as the Yanks are

Depends on the troop. Some enforce it, others don't. They should not even have the option to enforce it if they are to receive public resources.

And herein lies your problem. You take "ad hominem" or a botched version of a quote, not even qualifying as a paraphrase, and read them either literally or not at all, and completely miss what they mean.
"Ad hominem" would be a personal attack on you used as a way to dismiss your argument - sort of like "you're a poopiehead and that's why what you said is incorrect". No "ad hominem" attack was made by me - in fact I didn't impugn your person or character at all - what I impugned was not just your knowledge of (Early) Modern English, pertinent to your understanding of it, but also your understanding of what the Shakespearian quote means and how it can be used. You did not use it correctly, and it wouldn't have been applicable to what I said even if you had. You get it now?
I shall repeat it once again, so that it comes across sufficiently clearly now: your "argument" is not worthy of being addressed because you did not have an argument. You had a misused and inapplicable failed quote. I shared with you, generous chap as I am, all the ways in which it failed; grammatical, syntactical as well as topical.
Hopefully this will be where you understand why I cannot respond to that which has nothing that can be responded to other than by stating that it has nothing to which one can respond.

And now we start with the splitting up and multi-quoting. Never a good sign.

In any case, it seems to me that the goal was to divert attention from the subject at hand via an attack on my knowledge of Shakespear, 'though to be honest, I had no idea the quote in question came from Shakespear, except perhaps in the existential sort of 'oh, thats some sort of early sounding English, must be Shakespear' fashion.
Of course, none of that has any bearing at all on the actual subject, which would be some traumatic event in your early childhood (perhaps) involving religion of some kind or other.
Not that that matters, since you've decided that thats not what I was talking about at all. I'll leave you to your ramblings.

There is no such thing as "unduly dismissive" when it comes to religious faith, and the "cause of atheism" is hindered only by according respect to that which should never have been granted it.

An assertion without justification. Why should you have a problem with religious faith that doesn't lead to immoral beliefs and political positions?


That which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

That which cannot be proved cannot be known.


I find it quite immoral to stand by and twiddle one's thumbs as people, most often children and in this very case precisely them, are duped into something so wretched.

Then what would moral action be?


Poppycock.

Good argument.


It is patronising to say their lives would would be emptier when they've ceased doing something bonkers and have embraced rationality, because how could their little brains handle something so sane?

If I say that the invisible pink unicorn created the universe, and it operates according to fundamental laws which we can observe, I am not being irrational. I am choosing to believe something I can never have knowledge of, but I am assuming it to be true for my benefit, which is harmless to others. Then, I'm saying that observation is the way to knowledge. So what?



And you seem to think that atheism's way of doing that is "secular humanism". Kooky.
Yes, I believe secular theories provide the only legitimate bases for moral theory, and moral theory which is worth following affirms the dignity of human beings and the primacy of the physical world in all considerations.

EDIT: I really don't understand why I'm arguing with another atheist over the relative merits of religious tolerance in a thread about the Boy Scouts. Last post on that.

I'm an Eagle Scout, actually. I thoroughly approve of it. In the current day and age, few people learn any practical skills outside of their given speciality. Boy Scouts gives you a good general grasp of a lot of very useful skills. You might not be able to cure cancer, but knowing how to stop bleeding, treat heat stroke, pitch a tent, row a boat, and shoot a rifle are handy skills. It also provides some leadership 'education' and a good environment, provided the right troop.
Yes, I know from personal experience that the 'wrong troop' can be a rather unpleasant experience.
Yes, I realize that you COULD learn these skills outside of Boy Scouts, and many people do.
But all organizations have their flaws. And MANY troops are willing to take people regardless of sexuality or religion. What a bunch of old farts at the top say has little impact on the local level unless the local leaders choose to let it.

I enjoyed most of my time in Boy Scouts, made some friends, and learned a great deal I wouldnt have otherwise.


I couldn't say it any better. My two oldest sons are Eagle Scouts and it was a fantastic experience for them. Our program was the only one in the county, a very rural community and the kids in it learned a lot, had great fun doing so, and contributed a lot to the community. Most kids there come up through it from Tigers through Eagle. They have made life long friends through scouting also. It is an excellent program that teaches boys to achieve goals in a structured fun environment.

Yes, in the US, Boy Scouts are required to say prayers. (Indeed, a requirement for promotion to one rank is to lead your patrol in saying grace at a meal... either 1st or 2nd class, IIRC. It annoyed me even at the time, when I was religious.) They also, officially, do not allow atheists or agnostics to join.

But they still get government resources, such as land.

But that's different to having religious doctrine in the Scouts, and if that is the only problem then get over it. Since the US has God in the constitution and the motto also mentions God, then I am not surprised that they get to use government land, (because all those organisations that don't mention God don't get use of government land :rolleyes: ) because they say grace.

But that's different to having religious doctrine in the Scouts, and if that is the only problem then get over it. Since the US has God in the constitution and the motto also mentions God, then I am not surprised that they get to use government land, (because all those organisations that don't mention God don't get use of government land :rolleyes: ) because they say grace.

Wrong.
1) The only place in the Constitution even comes close to mentioning God is to prohibit the establishment of a state church or favoring one religion over another (or no) religion.
2) Yes, the motto was changed from E Pluribus Unum to In God We Trust, a move that I disagree with because it violates the establishment clause by endorsing monotheism over all other beliefs.
3) It's not just that they say grace-- they require their members to lead prayer, and discriminate in membership eligibility based on religious beliefs and sexual preference.

Any organization that endorses any particular religion over another, or religion over nonreligion is not supposed to get government support. You can say "it's not that bad a violation" but it still is a violation, and one that should not be allowed to stand.

3) It's not just that they say grace-- they require their members to lead prayer.


Who is 'they'?
The troop I was last associated with was mostly Mormon, and based in a Mormon church.
The only religious overtones were the standard mentions of God in the various pledges and such, and a prohibition against masks during Halloween (apparently some official decided that masks were 'graven images' or something. Dont ask me.)

Who is 'they'?
The troop I was last associated with was mostly Mormon, and based in a Mormon church.
The only religious overtones were the standard mentions of God in the various pledges and such, and a prohibition against masks during Halloween (apparently some official decided that masks were 'graven images' or something. Dont ask me.)

Well, unless I recall incorrectly, it's either for promotion to 1st or 2nd Class that you must lead your patrol in saying grace. It's been a while for me, so I can't be sure, but I remember being quite annoyed at it, even being religious back then.

Who is 'they'?

As PC already stated, official by-laws, i.e. BSA is the "they".

Well, unless I recall incorrectly, it's either for promotion to 1st or 2nd Class that you must lead your patrol in saying grace. It's been a while for me, so I can't be sure, but I remember being quite annoyed at it, even being religious back then.

Never did it myself.

As PC already stated, official by-laws, i.e. BSA is the "they".

As I recall, the BSA leadership has about as much power over the various troops as the Pope has over your everday Catholic. They're basically a funny hat on an old guy a long way away.

Wrong.
1) The only place in the Constitution even comes close to mentioning God is to prohibit the establishment of a state church or favoring one religion over another (or no) religion.
2) Yes, the motto was changed from E Pluribus Unum to In God We Trust, a move that I disagree with because it violates the establishment clause by endorsing monotheism over all other beliefs.
3) It's not just that they say grace-- they require their members to lead prayer, and discriminate in membership eligibility based on religious beliefs and sexual preference.

Any organization that endorses any particular religion over another, or religion over nonreligion is not supposed to get government support. You can say "it's not that bad a violation" but it still is a violation, and one that should not be allowed to stand.

1) Yes ok, I was confusing myself with the Declaration of Independence, which is still ingrained in my mind that they are the same as that is how it was taught to me in school, I know that it is not but when you type out something fast sometimes you don't think.
2) Ok, so I was correct about one thing
3) Ok, but' that is that not really only a guide, to 'discriminate' based on religious beliefs and sexuality how many groups actually follow that to the letter, as I said official doesnt really count if no one cares about it.

As for that last part is the Government policy or law or is that just your opinion? If it is law then it may be something you should be reporting, if it is your opinion then you should get involved with politics and attempt to change the law.

Yes, in the US, Boy Scouts are required to say prayers. (Indeed, a requirement for promotion to one rank is to lead your patrol in saying grace at a meal... either 1st or 2nd class, IIRC. It annoyed me even at the time, when I was religious.) They also, officially, do not allow atheists or agnostics to join.

But they still get government resources, such as land.

I have been part of four different councils in BSA and none of those councils 'get' government land. They rented the council and district buildings. Camp grounds were on lease agreements with the government parks systems and the Corp of Engineers, but BSA paid to use those grounds. I would be curious as to who in BSA is 'getting' land.

Never did it myself.

Then you never should have been promoted to 1st Class, because you did not fulfill requirement (I dug it up) 4e: "# On one campout, serve as your patrol's cook. Supervise your assistant(s) in using a stove or building a cooking fire. Prepare the breakfast, lunch, and dinner planned in requirement 4a. Lead your patrol in saying grace at the meals and supervise cleanup"


As I recall, the BSA leadership has about as much power over the various troops as the Pope has over your everday Catholic. They're basically a funny hat on an old guy a long way away.

The BSA certainly does have power. The requirements for membership and awards are, for the most part, followed.

But the point is, troops should not even have the option to discriminate.

Well, unless I recall incorrectly, it's either for promotion to 1st or 2nd Class that you must lead your patrol in saying grace. It's been a while for me, so I can't be sure, but I remember being quite annoyed at it, even being religious back then.

I suppose that just be an American thing, because I was promoted up the ranks in both cubs and scouts, without having to mention a prayer, I do remember having to say grace at one point when I was already a section leader, but then all i said was "Rub a dub dub Thanks for the grub"

Oh, here's one.

Bobcat Cub Scout
A boy is required to promise to do his best to do his “duty to God,” which means “Put God first. Do what you know God wants you to do.” (http://www.bsalegal.org/duty-to-god-cases-224.asp)

"Put others first" sounds like a better maxim to me.

Then you never should have been promoted to 1st Class, because you did not fulfill requirement (I dug it up) 4e: "# On one campout, serve as your patrol's cook. Supervise your assistant(s) in using a stove or building a cooking fire. Prepare the breakfast, lunch, and dinner planned in requirement 4a. Lead your patrol in saying grace at the meals and supervise cleanup"

Come on dude does it really matter if they say grace its not like during the meetings they have tests on how they Earth was formed and the only correct answer is that God made it in seven days, or attend services.

Then you never should have been promoted to 1st Class, because you did not fulfill requirement (I dug it up) 4e: "# On one campout, serve as your patrol's cook. Supervise your assistant(s) in using a stove or building a cooking fire. Prepare the breakfast, lunch, and dinner planned in requirement 4a. Lead your patrol in saying grace at the meals and supervise cleanup"

The BSA certainly does have power. The requirements for membership and awards are, for the most part, followed.

But the point is, troops should not even have the option to discriminate.

I mentioned earlier, I'm an Eagle Scout.

And the Pope certainly has power as well. The current one has done a fine job if pissing off every other religion on the planet. That doesnt mean that every bishop/priest/what-have-you follows his opinion.

As I recall, the BSA leadership has about as much power over the various troops as the Pope has over your everday Catholic. They're basically a funny hat on an old guy a long way away.

I know, I experienced none of the stuff that he's talked about.

1) Yes ok, I was confusing myself with the Declaration of Independence, which is still ingrained in my mind that they are the same as that is how it was taught to me in school, I know that it is not but when you type out something fast sometimes you don't think.
2) Ok, so I was correct about one thing
3) Ok, but' that is that not really only a guide, to 'discriminate' based on religious beliefs and sexuality how many groups actually follow that to the letter, as I said official doesnt really count if no one cares about it.

Enough groups follow it that people feel it necessary to create such groups as Scouting For All, which advocates allowing homosexuals into Scouting.

Anyway, imagine it was unenforced. Now, imagine a similar scenario: What if the BSA by-laws said "black people shall not be allowed in" but nobody followed the rule. Do you really think they'd just let it sit?


As for that last part is the Government policy or law or is that just your opinion? If it is law then it may be something you should be reporting, if it is your opinion then you should get involved with politics and attempt to change the law.

It's a violation of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, actually. Too bad nobody wants to enforce that antiquated document anymore...

Come on dude does it really matter if they say grace its not like during the meetings they have tests on how they Earth was formed and the only correct answer is that God made it in seven days, or attend services.

Irrelevant. The point is, by requiring prayer, they are endorsing religion over nonreligion, and thus cannot receive government resources, according to the Establishment Clause.

Even if it is often not enforced, they should be required to remove discriminatory by-laws from the books (such as those that discriminate against gays and atheists) or automatically lose government aid.

Enough groups follow it that people feel it necessary to create such groups as Scouting For All, which advocates allowing homosexuals into Scouting.

Anyway, imagine it was unenforced. What if the BSA by-laws said "black people shall not be allowed in" but nobody followed the rule. Do you really think they'd just let it sit?...

I'm sure it wouldn't but I'm not supporting that they shouldn't allow atheists and homosexuals in anyway.

It's a violation of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, actually. Too bad nobody wants to enforce that antiquated document anymore...

Well ok then, but as I said maybe you should report it or something to ensure that the Government is breaking its own laws

I'm sure it wouldn't but I'm not supporting that they shouldn't allow atheists and homosexuals in anyway.



Well ok then, but as I said maybe you should report it or something to ensure that the Government is breaking its own laws

People have said things about it... but the government refuses to enforce its own laws because nobody cares about nonreligious people.

Come on dude does it really matter if they say grace its not like during the meetings they have tests on how they Earth was formed and the only correct answer is that God made it in seven days, or attend services.

Here's the thing with the 'does it really matter' argument.

It doesn't matter to you. Yet that's probably because you're white, male and heterosexual, nothing against white males per se, simply that in this context, it surely doesn't seem to matter to you.

And, in the grand scheme of things, no, it doesn't really matter in this particular case - you have the choice to enter the scouts or not, I'm sure there's alternatives.

Yet religion permeates nearly every country, helping to provide grounds for discrimination against people whose only fault is that they are people who's lifestyle does not fit in with the accords of a higher being, not even that, the translation of a possible higher being by mere mortal men.

If you're one of those people then it absolutely does matter - it's all very well saying 'if it's just someone's personal belief' yet in nearly every example I can think of, it's not just personal belief, it affects legislation, provides grounds for otherwise baseless arguments for discriminatory practice.

First they came for who? Only where it's not you does it not seem to matter.

This thread shouldn't be about religion, and there's surely great work done by the Scouts but the fact remains that it was founded by a particular type of Christian who believed that being 'manly' brought one closer to God - whether that's good or bad in your book is opinion but to suggest things 'don't really matter' often comes from those for whom it doesn't.

EDIT: Oops, point being that it does matter when a government, which should be on the lookout for all its citizens, shows a preference for a particular type, especially when it's religious in nature.

People have said things about it... but the government refuses to enforce its own laws because nobody cares about nonreligious people.

Well for starters is it really discriminating against non-religious people, for starters it is a voluntary organisation, so people don't have to join if they disagree, also if you are a member and it is a requirement to say grace before u are promoted, and you refuse then you are not promoted, in the same way that if you refuse to cook because you believe that only women should cook then you would also fail to be promoted.

Taught to rebel against what, exactly?

Whatta ya got?

Well for starters is it really discriminating against non-religious people, for starters it is a voluntary organisation, so people don't have to join if they disagree, also if you are a member and it is a requirement to say grace before u are promoted, and you refuse then you are not promoted, in the same way that if you refuse to cook because you believe that only women should cook then you would also fail to be promoted.

"it's not really discrimination for me to say black people can't work at my restaurant, because they don't have to join if they disagree."

And with that, I really must be going to bed.

A decent organization, capable of carrying out plenty of good things and forming strong and healthy character and civic dedication. It is hampered by a lack of uniformly applied standards, and oftentimes crippling bureaucracy within individual troops, as well as the reliance on hard-to-replace individual leaders.

You forgot institutionalized bigotry against Atheists and homosexuals.

Irrelevant. The point is, by requiring prayer, they are endorsing religion over nonreligion, and thus cannot receive government resources, according to the Establishment Clause.

Even if it is often not enforced, they should be required to remove discriminatory by-laws from the books (such as those that discriminate against gays and atheists) or automatically lose government aid.

Agreed

They don't? Then explain how it is that I was a Boy Scout?

Either you didn't tell anyone or your troop didn't follow the rules. You can be (and many are) kicked out for being an atheist.

Here's the thing with the 'does it really matter' argument.

It doesn't matter to you. Yet that's probably because you're white, male and heterosexual, nothing against white males per se, simply that in this context, it surely doesn't seem to matter to you in this case.

And, in the grand scheme of things, no, it doesn't really matter in this particular case - you have the choice to enter the scouts or not, I'm sure there's alternatives.

Yet religion permeates nearly every country, helping to provide grounds for discrimination against people whose only fault is that they are people who's lifestyle does not fit in with the accords of a higher being, not even that, the translation of a possible higher being by mere mortal men.

If you're one of those people then it absolutely does matter - it's all very well saying 'if it's just someone's personal belief' yet in nearly every example I can think of, it's not just personal belief, it affects legislation, provides grounds for otherwise baseless arguments for discriminatory practice.

First they came for who? Only where it's not you does it not seem to matter.

This thread shouldn't be about religion, and there's surely great work done by the Scouts but the fact remains that it was founded by a particular type of Christian who believed that being 'manly' brought one closer to God - whether that's good or bad in your book is opinion but to suggest things 'don't really matter' often comes from those for whom it doesn't.

Yes legislation is dictated by peoples beliefs whether they are religious or not. But what I am saying is that why is saying grace a big deal, indeed you could say it without any meaning just to make a few people happy. As I said it probably doesn't mean much to me not because I am white, male or heterosexual but because it is not really in my culture to be hung up about religion, as it isn't really a big a deal in Australia as it seems to be in the US.

But I do see your point Barringtonia

"it's not really discrimination for me to say black people can't work at my restaurant, because they don't have to join if they disagree."

And with that, I really must be going to bed.

Goodnight

But who's talking about race, I am talking about people not deciding to join an organisation because there is the word God mentioned in the Oath. As I said I wasn't supporting the BSA of not allowing Atheists and homosexuals into their organisation

Uniforms helps people feel a part of something, even more so in little kids. Hierarchy is every part of life, from school, to your job, there will be a hierarchy. Deal with it. At your job, if you don't respect your boss's authority, you'll get fired.

My boss wouldn't dare fire me! I'm sleeping with his wife! :D

I dislike the Boy Scouts, because I believe it is a militaristic organization dedicated to immoral and regressive conservative Christian values, and it socializes youngsters to become dedicated to the State, when they should instead be taught to rebel.

Wow. Were you ever in boy scouts?

Cause that's not the experience I had.

Pretty much everyone in my scout troop was left-wing. A couple guys were even anarchists. I learned a lot of really useful skills in boy scouts, but then again, my troop was fairly old school, harking back to the time before the Mormons took over it nationally. I've had a very easy time living on my own because of learning how to do things back then. And I'm certainly no "regressive, conservative Christian," myself, I'm a liberal pagan.

I used to be in Beavers, in England it goes Beavers Cub Scouts and then Scouts, and we had to swear that we'd do the best to love our Queen and our God and also our country. We had to pray every Friday in assembly at Primary school too.

I used to be in Beavers, in England it goes Beavers Cub Scouts and then Scouts, and we had to swear that we'd do the best to love our Queen and our God and also our country. We had to pray every Friday in assembly at Primary school too.

Lawl, I don't recall praying in boy scouts. Or school.

I used to be in Beavers, in England it goes Beavers Cub Scouts and then Scouts, and we had to swear that we'd do the best to love our Queen and our God and also our country. We had to pray every Friday in assembly at Primary school too.

I used to be in Beavers, but it was in Tijuana, not Mexico.


**struck by complete absent of laugher***


Alright, fine, hell with you people.

I used to be in Beavers, but it was in Tijuana, not Mexico.


**struck by complete absent of laugher***


Alright, fine, hell with you people.

Michael Jackson used to be in the boy scouts.

....


:)

I used to be in Beavers, but it was in Tijuana, not Mexico.


**struck by complete absent of laugher***


Alright, fine, hell with you people.

If not Mexico, which Tijuana?

Michael Jackson used to be in the boy scouts.

....


:)

I think they should teach those kids how to UNtie knots.

If not Mexico, which Tijuana?

Canada. Tijuana, Canada.

McAdelita's Bar. Lots of sultry, dusky eyed Mexican chicks who came over the border, but fell asleep in the back of the 18 wheeler, and woke up an extra country North.

Cool thing is, they'll put an ice cube in their mouth and hum "Oh, Canada" on your junk for $60 Canadian dollars.

Canada. Tijuana, Canada.

McAdelita's Bar. Lots of sultry, dusky eyed Mexican chicks who came over the border, but fell asleep in the back of the 18 wheeler, and woke up an extra country North.

Cool thing is, they'll put an ice cube in their mouth and hum "Oh, Canada" on your junk for $60 Canadian dollars.

Nothing sexier than a Mexican saying 'aboot'.

Canada. Tijuana, Canada.

McAdelita's Bar. Lots of sultry, dusky eyed Mexican chicks who came over the border, but fell asleep in the back of the 18 wheeler, and woke up an extra country North.

Cool thing is, they'll put an ice cube in their mouth and hum "Oh, Canada" on your junk for $60 Canadian dollars.

*starts up Google Earth* Gotta find that place!

Nothing sexier than a Mexican saying 'aboot'.

Heh, joking aside, last time I was down in Zona Norte in TJ, the Federales and the Mexican Army were out in force, with black masks, armor, and some heavy ass hardware, trying to keep the local police and gangsters (essentially one unit) from fucking things up too bad...

Now you've got me thinking of the Mounties doing the same in a red light district up in Vancouver, hah.

Michael Jackson used to be in the boy scouts.

....


:)

:p Jackson still is in a boy scout

*starts up Google Earth* Gotta find that place!

Just google "The happiest place on Earth" AND "rusty trombone from a chicana" OR "hockey fuck"

Just google "The happiest place on Earth" AND "rusty trombone from a chicana" OR "hockey fuck"

Don't you have these bookmarked yet?

Heh, joking aside, last time I was down in Zona Norte in TJ, the Federales and the Mexican Army were out in force, with black masks, armor, and some heavy ass hardware, trying to keep the local police and gangsters (essentially one unit) from fucking things up too bad...

Now you've got me thinking of the Mounties doing the same in a red light district up in Vancouver, hah.

I saw the 'Mounties' in Tijuana, Canada but they were teenage strippers, sure did some mounting though.

Don't you have these bookmarked yet?

Straughn won't let me bookmark anything, says it fucks up his browser settings. I asked him if I could create a separate user id on his system and he responded by calling me a "bitch ass negro".

I saw the 'Mounties' in Tijuana, Canada but they were teenage strippers, sure did some mounting though.

Actually, a canuck I met in Japan told me that a few cities up there have tolerated areas where you can get your knob polished for a reasonable price. Girls up there probably have better healthcare than the girls in the zona.

Straughn won't let me bookmark anything, says it fucks up his browser settings. I asked him if I could create a separate user id on his system and he responded by calling me a "bitch ass negro".

He already has em bookmarked and doesn't want you to find out. ;)

He already has em bookmarked and doesn't want you to find out. ;)

That'd be hilarious. He was just giving me shit the other day about how his browser history is all "The Trial of Socrates" and "Irrigation Methods of Antiquity and Their Applications In Contemporary Africa", whereas mine is more like "Chix with Dix" and "Polish Teenage Girls with Mustaches".

That'd be hilarious. He was just giving me shit the other day about how his browser history is all "The Trial of Socrates" and "Irrigation Methods of Antiquity and Their Applications In Contemporary Africa", whereas mine is more like "Chix with Dix" and "Polish Teenage Girls with Mustaches".

And even more hilariously, they are the same sites! :D

I saw the 'Mounties' in Tijuana, Canada but they were teenage strippers, sure did some mounting though.

...bet they always get their man.

I just thought of that, like a punch line 5 minutes too late, I never did go down well at parties....

.....man, everything is sounding like a sexual innuendo now - this is not Scout talk people!

...bet they always get their man.

I just thought of that, like a punch line 5 minutes too late, I never did go down well at parties....

.....man, everything is sounding like a sexual innuendo now - this is not Scout talk people!

They don't have a sexual innuendo merit badge? :eek:

...bet they always get their man.

I just thought of that, like a punch line 5 minutes too late, I never did go down well at parties....

.....man, everything is sounding like a sexual innuendo now - this is not Scout talk people!

First of all, better late than never, it was a good one.

Second, some dude said "I was in the Beavers."

What the fuck were we supposed to do?

...bet they always get their man.

I just thought of that, like a punch line 5 minutes too late, I never did go down well at parties....

.....man, everything is sounding like a sexual innuendo now - this is not Scout talk people!

Or is it. ;)

I enjoyed my time in Scouts (and preceding groups below it), camps especially were great fun and taught me a lot of useful things. Religion was never a bit part of it, I expect it was in the scout oath, but you only had to say that once when you joined.

And to whoever said about archaic dress - you must've seen a really traditional troop, things have become a lot more liberalised in the past decade, partly due to dwindling numbers and troops shutting down.

I'm currently a Asst. Cub Leader in the UK, after having a great time with the scout movement from Beavers onwards (including two changes in the uniform, it's much more practical/activity orientated now).

The guidline for the UK is that the religion of the members doesn't matter as long as they are ok with saying the promise. The rule for Leaders is that they should have some sort of religious or spiritual identity - due to Leaders being expected to have sorted their views out and the 'To do my duty to God and the Queen' part of the promise is taken a touch more seriously (the word 'God' is changed on an individual level depending on the belief of the person, but I do know a few 'out' warrented athiest Leaders in the area)

The Policy n Rules over here have no issues with homosexuals either (being gay myself, and out to Group and District Leaders since before becoming a Leader).

Most of the Groups I've been involved with have always tried to push the practical sides of scouting through the programme - camping, axes & saws, first aid, orienteering, shooting/archery etc, and as they're the parts I enjoyed, that's what I'm teaching the Cubs now.

And apols for the long post...

Yes legislation is dictated by peoples beliefs whether they are religious or not. But what I am saying is that why is saying grace a big deal, indeed you could say it without any meaning just to make a few people happy. As I said it probably doesn't mean much to me not because I am white, male or heterosexual but because it is not really in my culture to be hung up about religion, as it isn't really a big a deal in Australia as it seems to be in the US.

But I do see your point Barringtonia
Well, some of us value our integrity and don't want to swear an oath to serve a deity that we do not believe in.

Goodnight

But who's talking about race, I am talking about people not deciding to join an organisation because there is the word God mentioned in the Oath. As I said I wasn't supporting the BSA of not allowing Atheists and homosexuals into their organisation
Ah, but you asked if it really was discrimination. Clearly, not letting people join an organization on the basis of their religion is discrimination, no?


I enjoyed my time in Scouts (and preceding groups below it), camps especially were great fun and taught me a lot of useful things. Religion was never a bit part of it, I expect it was in the scout oath, but you only had to say that once when you joined.

I dunno about you, but in my troop we had to say the scout oath every week.


And to whoever said about archaic dress - you must've seen a really traditional troop, things have become a lot more liberalised in the past decade, partly due to dwindling numbers and troops shutting down.
Heh, my troop rarely wore the actual uniforms except for ceremonial occasions. The most uniform-y thing we'd wear would be a T-Shirt with our troop number on it.

I would still of course never allow my children to join them, not that I would ever have children lame enough to want to...

Interesting. I wouldn't have thought you the type to have children at all.

As for my opinion: there's nothing wrong with the basic ideas behind scouting and whatnot. It's a good way for kids to socialize.

The problem with the BSA and other similar organizations in the United States is, as usual, a serious exclusion of atheists and homosexuals and over-emphasis on religious beliefs. I was kicked out of my own troupe in Ohio because of my atheism, which really pissed me off because right up until I admitted it(which took awhile at the time because I was still figuring it out) everyone in the troupe loved hanging out with me and we were all really great friends. Instant I admitted that though and I was despised and outcast. That's not right. Not at all.

If the intolorance and other problems are removed, I'd support the scouting movement. Until then I have to frown upon it.

(And for the record, the BSA barely qualify as quasi-military, if you bother to compare them to a real military. Sure, there a couple of things vaguely in common--such as uniforms--but when you consider a huge number of occupations and whatnot also have uniforms, it's not as good a point as one might think at first.)

I've always been very appalled at the US scouts. Segregation of boys and girls, too much emphasis on religion.

Just written a long reply, but needs to mod approved.

I don't see why the BSA is so different on it's policy of religion and sexuality to how the UK runs things. While athiests aren't meant to be Leaders over here (and even then it depends on the District Commisioner) it's not such a big problem with the Scouts themselves, and the whole homosexual thing isn't an issue at all.

The only real issue over this side is the huge changes in child protection (especially for the younger sections) and some of the changes of the sections ages.

Lawl, I don't recall praying in boy scouts. Or school.

I, on the other hand, do recall praying in Boy Scouts. Specifically, at summer camp over meals. The prayers, though, were based more in local Native American tradition than any imported religious tradition.

Also, I may be mistaken, but if I recall correctly, people are not denied membership for being homosexual, rather, homosexuals are not permitted to be adult leaders.

The logic behind this prohibition is broken all to hell, because it's some sort of paranoia about pedophilia and some such nonsense. Southpark succeeded in bashing this all to hell.

I don't think they should be able to act as a religious organization if they receive governmental support. They should have to forsake one or the other.

If you want a scouting organization in the US that is what the Boy Scouts used to be like (actually religions, and not watered down), you can send your boys to the Royal Rangers.

Royal Rangers receive no government funds of any kind, and do not use any government facilities. Therefore, as a completely private (and religious organization), they adhere to no government imposed rules and pay no taxes.

The Boy Scouts problem is that they do a lot of their activities on government property (schools, government military bases for their yearly jamboree) for free. If they were to do their activities elsewhere, they could tell the government to shove it up their ass.

Well, some of us value our integrity and don't want to swear an oath to serve a deity that we do not believe in.

Ahh you are back I hope you had a good sleep PC, I am about to go myself.

Doesn't that prove my point don't join if you disagree with the direction they are heading.

Ah, but you asked if it really was discrimination. Clearly, not letting people join an organization on the basis of their religion is discrimination, no?

Well you tell me, would it be discrimination for the Mormon Church not to baptise someone into the Church if they held different religious beliefs? Now as I said I don't support the fact that they wouldn't let people in because of their religious beliefs, but shouldn't people understand before joining that in order to become a member you must say Grace.

In the following order

I wish to become a member of the Scouts.
Yes here you are sign up we have recently abolished our policy of not allowing atheists to join (thus ending the discrimination against atheists) but you are aware that in order to be promoted you must say Grace.

Pretty much everyone in my scout troop was left-wing. A couple guys were even anarchists. I learned a lot of really useful skills in boy scouts, but then again, my troop was fairly old school, harking back to the time before the Mormons took over it nationally. I've had a very easy time living on my own because of learning how to do things back then. And I'm certainly no "regressive, conservative Christian," myself, I'm a liberal pagan.
Well of course you learn useful skills. It's not like it's a useless and thoroughly evil organization.

I, on the other hand, do recall praying in Boy Scouts. Specifically, at summer camp over meals. The prayers, though, were based more in local Native American tradition than any imported religious tradition.

Also, I may be mistaken, but if I recall correctly, people are not denied membership for being homosexual, rather, homosexuals are not permitted to be adult leaders.

The logic behind this prohibition is broken all to hell, because it's some sort of paranoia about pedophilia and some such nonsense. Southpark succeeded in bashing this all to hell.

It's mostly because the national leadership has been hijacked to shit by the fundamentalist Christians. Just like the country.

Ahh you are back I hope you had a good sleep PC, I am about to go myself.

Doesn't that prove my point don't join if you disagree with the direction they are heading.



Well you tell me, would it be discrimination for the Mormon Church not to baptise someone into the Church if they held different religious beliefs? Now as I said I don't support the fact that they wouldn't let people in because of their religious beliefs, but shouldn't people understand before joining that in order to become a member you must say Grace.

In the following order

I wish to become a member of the Scouts.
Yes here you are sign up we have recently abolished our policy of not allowing atheists to join (thus ending the discrimination against atheists) but you are aware that in order to be promoted you must say Grace.

You completely miss the point. They get governmental support. Institutions who get governmental support are prohibited by the US Constitution from endorsing any religion over another or over no religion.
By endorsing the BSA, as things stand, the US Government endorses theism over atheism. That violates my rights as an atheist.

The Mormon Church doesn't get free use of government land or other official governmental endorsement. BSA does.

It's mostly because the national leadership has been hijacked to shit by the fundamentalist Christians. Just like the country.

No, the fundamentalist Christians have already left, and created other organizations such as the Royal Rangers.

It was founded as a Christian organization by Robert S. S. Baden-Powell, a British man who first founded it in Britain.

By any examination, Baden-Powell would appear to you as an ultra-nationalist fascist Christian fundamentalist.

I have been part of four different councils in BSA and none of those councils 'get' government land. They rented the council and district buildings. Camp grounds were on lease agreements with the government parks systems and the Corp of Engineers, but BSA paid to use those grounds. I would be curious as to who in BSA is 'getting' land.

The BSA are getting land. Have a look at the rental rates for federal land when the Scouts hold their jamborees, and the other uses of tax dollars (http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/bsa.html).

Canada. Tijuana, Canada.

McAdelita's Bar. Lots of sultry, dusky eyed Mexican chicks who came over the border, but fell asleep in the back of the 18 wheeler, and woke up an extra country North.

Cool thing is, they'll put an ice cube in their mouth and hum "Oh, Canada" on your junk for $60 Canadian dollars.

Your mind, sir, is not just twisted, but actually sprained. I love it, and laughed my ass off.

You completely miss the point. They get governmental support. Institutions who get governmental support are prohibited by the US Constitution from endorsing any religion over another or over no religion.
By endorsing the BSA, as things stand, the US Government endorses theism over atheism. That violates my rights as an atheist.

The Mormon Church doesn't get free use of government land or other official governmental endorsement. BSA does.

First of all I used the Mormon Church as an example and as I also said, if they are breaking the law take it up the authorities.

Also can you please explain how it violates your rights as an atheist. Yes it may sound like you are banging your head against a brick wall, but not being an American I find this entire concept strange and slightly amusing

No, the fundamentalist Christians have already left, and created other organizations such as the Royal Rangers.

It was founded as a Christian organization by Robert S. S. Baden-Powell, a British man who first founded it in Britain.

By any examination, Baden-Powell would appear to you as an ultra-nationalist fascist Christian fundamentalist.

I'm not talking about that far back. When my dad was in it, they didn't really give a shit about the whole god thing. Hell, the scoutmaster was an atheist when he was in scouts, and nobody seemed to care.

I'm not talking about that far back. When my dad was in it, they didn't really give a shit about the whole god thing. Hell, the scoutmaster was an atheist when he was in scouts, and nobody seemed to care.

At the national level, they always have cared. Your local scoutmaster may be making exceptions. As long as the local parents don't complain, you could all be doing whatever you wanted.

No, the fundamentalist Christians have already left, and created other organizations such as the Royal Rangers.

It was founded as a Christian organization by Robert S. S. Baden-Powell, a British man who first founded it in Britain.

By any examination, Baden-Powell would appear to you as an ultra-nationalist fascist Christian fundamentalist.

Perhaps you have some proof of how he was a fundamentalist.

And it was founded as a Christian organisation, but rather an organisation in order to teach boys, how to become more independent and to become more skillful.

Just because the BSA have decide to take control on how they operate things doesn't mean that is the way it always was, nor does it mean that is the way it is run in other countries.

First of all I used the Mormon Church as an example and as I also said, if they are breaking the law take it up the authorities.

Also can you please explain how it violates your rights as an atheist. Yes it may sound like you are banging your head against a brick wall, but not being an American I find this entire concept strange and slightly amusing

Congress shall make no law respecting religion, or the free exercise thereof.

The Rules (constitution) say that the US government is not allowed to engage in religious discrimination or favoritism.

Therefore, giving money and land to an organization that discriminates or favors on religious grounds is illegal.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Personally, I think the boy scouts would be greatly improved if the whole religious thing was removed and the organization just focused on the good thing they do, which is teaching useful skills, instead of all this crap.

Perhaps you have some proof of how he was a fundamentalist.

And it was founded as a Christian organisation, but rather an organisation in order to teach boys, how to become more independent and to become more skillful.

Just because the BSA have decide to take control on how they operate things doesn't mean that is the way it always was, nor does it mean that is the way it is run in other countries.

Compared to what Callisdrun views as fundamentalist, Baden-Powell's Church of England at the time would be pretty fundamentalist.

His original manual is full of God and Christianity. It would probably make Callisdrun barf.

At the national level, they always have cared. Your local scoutmaster may be making exceptions. As long as the local parents don't complain, you could all be doing whatever you wanted.

Actually that would not fly in today's organization. It was okay for the scoutmaster to be openly an atheist 40 years ago, but the entire organization has been taken over by Mormons today, and they have their local lackeys in place to make sure that people toe the line officially.

I guess you didn't read my post, as it was pretty clear that I was talking about a time in the past, specifically when my father was in scouts.

They should be used as military reserves during wartime, instead of re-instituting a draft.

Because they will always 'Be Prepared!'.They may not represent a specific religion, but they do exclude the non-religious. As well as representing that old Judeo-Christian bias against homosexuals. I was happy to see the city of Philadelphia stop their special lease deal with them. They used to rent the Boy Scouts a building at $1 a year. But they decided taxpayers shouldn't subsidize discrimination.

It's mostly because the national leadership has been hijacked to shit by the fundamentalist Christians. Just like the country.

Specifically, the Mormons.

I was lucky to come from an old-school troop, in an old-school council. Religion was minimized, whilst concepts of duty, especially to your community, were emphasized.

First of all I used the Mormon Church as an example and as I also said, if they are breaking the law take it up the authorities.

Also can you please explain how it violates your rights as an atheist. Yes it may sound like you are banging your head against a brick wall, but not being an American I find this entire concept strange and slightly amusing

Because the US Government is, by the Constitution, supposed to be completely religiously neutral. It can not endorse any particular religion. We have a separation of church and state. The government is, with the BSA, endorsing a specific religion at the expense of nonreligion. Government funds are being used to support religion. What if I wanted to use government funds to spread atheism, would that be okay?

Congress shall make no law respecting religion, or the free exercise thereof.

The Rules (constitution) say that the US government is not allowed to engage in religious discrimination or favoritism.

Therefore, giving money and land to an organization that discriminates or favors on religious grounds is illegal.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Personally, I think the boy scouts would be greatly improved if the whole religious thing was removed and the organization just focused on the good thing they do, which is teaching useful skills, instead of all this crap.

For crying out loud, I want it explained to me how the BSA receiving some funds from the government is discriminating against someone being an atheist not just paraphrasing of the first amendment.

I agree with you on your last part that is what they should be doing, Americans have this big hang up on religion from both sides, seriously why do you even care relax a little.

Most Christian fundamentalists I know left Boy Scouts long ago, and went to another organization, free of any obligation to the Federal government.

So I don't see where Callisdrun is getting his fundamentalists, unless he somehow imagines that Mormons are fundamentalist Christians...

Specifically, the Mormons.

I was lucky to come from an old-school troop, in an old-school council. Religion was minimized, whilst concepts of duty, especially to your community, were emphasized.

My council and especially my troop was similar. Everyone hated the National Council's local watchdog, he was a dick.

Most Christian fundamentalists I know left Boy Scouts long ago, and went to another organization, free of any obligation to the Federal government.

So I don't see where Callisdrun is getting his fundamentalists, unless he somehow imagines that Mormons are fundamentalist Christians...

But...they are.

Compared to what Callisdrun views as fundamentalist, Baden-Powell's Church of England at the time would be pretty fundamentalist.

His original manual is full of God and Christianity. It would probably make Callisdrun barf.

Which would have what to do with Baden Powell?

The manual he founded the scouts on was a revision for boys on his original book for soldiers on how to think for themselves and move around the India and African plains, and to survive.

Most Christian fundamentalists I know left Boy Scouts long ago, and went to another organization, free of any obligation to the Federal government.

So I don't see where Callisdrun is getting his fundamentalists, unless he somehow imagines that Mormons are fundamentalist Christians...

They hate all the same things. The vote the same way. For all practical purposes, they are fundies, albeit odd ones. And they're running the BSA into the ground.

Because the US Government is, by the Constitution, supposed to be completely religiously neutral. It can not endorse any particular religion. We have a separation of church and state. The government is, with the BSA, endorsing a specific religion at the expense of nonreligion. Government funds are being used to support religion. What if I wanted to use government funds to spread atheism, would that be okay?

Well I don't see why not.

The question is would the government?

For crying out loud, I want it explained to me how the BSA receiving some funds from the government is discriminating against someone being an atheist not just paraphrasing of the first amendment.

I agree with you on your last part that is what they should be doing, Americans have this big hang up on religion from both sides, seriously why do you even care relax a little.

It doesn't matter that they only discriminate "a little bit." The US government cannot give them funds if they discriminate on a religious basis. While I hate to make this comparison, the KKK also discriminates on a religious basis. The government cannot fund them, either, due to the first amendment. It has to be religiously neutral.

Which would have what to do with Baden Powell?

The manual he founded the scouts on was a revision for boys on his original book for soldiers on how to think for themselves and move around the India and African plains, and to survive.

Obviously, you need to read it. Callisdrun was implying that somehow, Boy Scouts was not a Christian organization with Christian ideals.

It certainly was, and it was Baden Powell's input.

this is somthing that i have been pondring for a while now.

what is everyone's thoughts on the Boy Scouts of America. or the Boy Scout programm in their country.

and if u have a Boy Scout program in your country how is it set up?
In my country, the Boy Scouts are a pretty awful organization. They use government funding and public property for their activities, yet they discriminate based on sex and sexual orientation and they blatantly proselytize for a particular religion. I think it's horrible to put children in that kind of environment, where they're basically being taught the precise opposite of some of the core values of our country at the tax payers' expense. That's a lame example to set.

Compared to what Callisdrun views as fundamentalist, Baden-Powell's Church of England at the time would be pretty fundamentalist.

His original manual is full of God and Christianity. It would probably make Callisdrun barf.

I lurk and sometimes post on 4chan. Very little upsets my stomach these days.

activities, yet they discriminate based on sex

Isn't that why the Girl guides were created?

Regardless, and from memory you are American, it seems the BSA have completely changed what the original meaning for the Scouts were, I know in Australia while there are the girl guides, females can join the scouting movement if they wish.

Obviously, you need to read it. Callisdrun was implying that somehow, Boy Scouts was not a Christian organization with Christian ideals.

It certainly was, and it was Baden Powell's input.

More than 100 years ago. Note that I have not once mentioned what it was upon its founding, I am talking about what it was in living memory, thirty to forty years ago. Things progress, you know. Unless you are somehow implying that my father is so old that he was a scout immediately upon BSA's founding, which I certainly hope you are not, because that would be quite ridiculous and stupid.

Obviously, you need to read it. Callisdrun was implying that somehow, Boy Scouts was not a Christian organization with Christian ideals.

It certainly was, and it was Baden Powell's input.

Fancy that back in the early 1900's (if what you say is completely true) a organisation in a Christian country, where all boys joining up were christian anyway and some of it was had some Christian ideals. Regardless the organisation can change, look at scouting movements in places where other religions are the dominant religion I doubt that they are enforcing Christian ideals (even those countries which do have it) on to their members

More than 100 years ago. Note that I have not once mentioned what it was upon its founding, I am talking about what it was in living memory, thirty to forty years ago. Things progress, you know. Unless you are somehow implying that my father is so old that he was a scout immediately upon BSA's founding, which I certainly hope you are not, because that would be quite ridiculous and stupid.

No, I'm saying it was founded as a Christian organization.

It was Christian (to which I was exposed) in the 1960s and early 1970s.

I think it varied by scout troop at that time. But you weren't going to make Eagle scout at the time claiming to be an atheist (you might lie, and say you believed in God, and were in good standing with your church).

I think you don't have much to worry about from the Boy Scouts - all of the Christian fundamentalists have long since left - unless the Mormons took it over, and they are not Christian fundamentalists.

As I posted before the fundies have their own organization now, and it doesn't take any government funds or use any government facilities.

Isn't that why the Girl guides were created?

Regardless, and from memory you are American, it seems the BSA have completely changed what the original meaning for the Scouts were, I know in Australia while there are the girl guides, females can join the scouting movement if they wish.
"Separate but equal" was rejected a generation ago, just FYI.

No, I'm saying it was founded as a Christian organization.
Founded in a country in which almost everyone was Christian at the time. If what you say is true, which it may or may not be, considering the quantity of bullshit you've piled onto this thread, it would hardly be surprising if it had the same values as the majority of the population. Shocking.

It was Christian (to which I was exposed) in the 1960s and early 1970s.

I think it varied by scout troop at that time. But you weren't going to make Eagle scout at the time claiming to be an atheist (you might lie, and say you believed in God, and were in good standing with your church).
There were people in my council who had been with the council long enough to remember when the national council didn't make you ask about spiritual beliefs for Eagle boards of review. So, basically, you're full of shit.

I think you don't have much to worry about from the Boy Scouts - all of the Christian fundamentalists have long since left - unless the Mormons took it over, and they are not Christian fundamentalists.
Um... yes they are. They believe basically the same things, hate the same people, vote the same way and just have an extra set of weird beliefs on top of the normal fundy ones.

As I posted before the fundies have their own organization now, and it doesn't take any government funds or use any government facilities.
Except for the mormons, who control BSA now.

"Separate but equal" was rejected a generation ago, just FYI.

You would notice that I said regardless.

And yet boys still cannot join the guides

In our Scout organization, (in the Isle of Man) it isn't that Christian based, we say prayers at the end and that's it really. We do general activities like Wide Game and challenges. The best thing has to be helping out at the scoreboard at the T.T Races. (For those who don't know what the T.T is, 2 things;

1. You're dumb.
2. Search Wikipedia)

Wow, from what I've read so far people are equating discipline to the military. While discipline is certainly part of the military, it's by no means the only place where it's found. If that were the case, all good parents would be running their households like it's the military, which just isn't true at all.

As an Eagle Scout, I can tell you there are people from all walks of life in the BSA. I've known Jews, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, who were in the BSA along with Christians.

Boy Scouts doesn't teach you to be a mindless drone of the state either. Rather, it teaches you to be a good citizen in your respective country. A good citizen is someone who doesn't just take the government's word for it and takes an active role in society...

Boy Scouts also teaches a variety of skills that you can use in many different fields... The one recurring theme I found that the BSA teaches is responsibility. In a society that passes the buck all the time, I believe that's extremely important.

Aside from that with the national obesity rates, you'd think that more liberals would be more supportive of the BSA considering it gets youths outside where they get all sorts of exercise. That's not saying that all liberals are against the BSA, I've known plenty of liberals who are all for it... But the anti-BSA sentiment definitely comes out of the left-wing camp.

Wow, from what I've read so far people are equating discipline to the military. While discipline is certainly part of the military, it's by no means the only place where it's found. If that were the case, all good parents would be running their households like it's the military, which just isn't true at all.

As an Eagle Scout, I can tell you there are people from all walks of life in the BSA. I've known Jews, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, who were in the BSA along with Christians.

Boy Scouts doesn't teach you to be a mindless drone of the state either. Rather, it teaches you to be a good citizen in your respective country. A good citizen is someone who doesn't just take the government's word for it and takes an active role in society...

Boy Scouts also teaches a variety of skills that you can use in many different fields... The one recurring theme I found that the BSA teaches is responsibility. In a society that passes the buck all the time, I believe that's extremely important.

Aside from that with the national obesity rates, you'd think that more liberals would be more supportive of the BSA considering it gets youths outside where they get all sorts of exercise. That's not saying that all liberals are against the BSA, I've known plenty of liberals who are all for it... But the anti-BSA sentiment definitely comes out of the left-wing camp.

Pretty sweet. Which country are Eagle Scouts from again? Is it Canada?

Wow, from what I've read so far people are equating discipline to the military. While discipline is certainly part of the military, it's by no means the only place where it's found. If that were the case, all good parents would be running their households like it's the military, which just isn't true at all.

As an Eagle Scout, I can tell you there are people from all walks of life in the BSA. I've known Jews, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, who were in the BSA along with Christians.

Boy Scouts doesn't teach you to be a mindless drone of the state either. Rather, it teaches you to be a good citizen in your respective country. A good citizen is someone who doesn't just take the government's word for it and takes an active role in society...

Boy Scouts also teaches a variety of skills that you can use in many different fields... The one recurring theme I found that the BSA teaches is responsibility. In a society that passes the buck all the time, I believe that's extremely important.

Aside from that with the national obesity rates, you'd think that more liberals would be more supportive of the BSA considering it gets youths outside where they get all sorts of exercise. That's not saying that all liberals are against the BSA, I've known plenty of liberals who are all for it... But the anti-BSA sentiment definitely comes out of the left-wing camp.

Pretty sweet. Which country are Eagle Scouts from again? Is it Canada?

Wow, from what I've read so far people are equating discipline to the military. While discipline is certainly part of the military, it's by no means the only place where it's found. If that were the case, all good parents would be running their households like it's the military, which just isn't true at all.

As an Eagle Scout, I can tell you there are people from all walks of life in the BSA. I've known Jews, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, who were in the BSA along with Christians.

Boy Scouts doesn't teach you to be a mindless drone of the state either. Rather, it teaches you to be a good citizen in your respective country. A good citizen is someone who doesn't just take the government's word for it and takes an active role in society...

Boy Scouts also teaches a variety of skills that you can use in many different fields... The one recurring theme I found that the BSA teaches is responsibility. In a society that passes the buck all the time, I believe that's extremely important.

Aside from that with the national obesity rates, you'd think that more liberals would be more supportive of the BSA considering it gets youths outside where they get all sorts of exercise. That's not saying that all liberals are against the BSA, I've known plenty of liberals who are all for it... But the anti-BSA sentiment definitely comes out of the left-wing camp.

Pretty sweet. Which country are Eagle Scouts from again? Is it Canada?

(For those who don't know what the T.T is, 2 things;

1. You're dumb.

Now that's a bit unfair. Especially since most people in the world would probably be hard pressed to locate Where the Isle of Man is, let alone identify the motorsport that takes place there annually.

Also re:

Pretty sweet. Which country are Eagle Scouts from again? Is it Canada?

The phrase about taking the log out of your own eye before pointing out the mote in your brother's springs to mind ;)

An "Eagle Scout" is the highest level attained by a Scout in the BSA program.

They do not allow atheists or open homosexuals into the Boy Scouts for religious reasons.

Actually, regarding homosexuality, it is for practical reasons not religious ones. similar to the same ones why at girl scout camps men are not allowed the same access as women. Also, not many people would be willing to send their adolescent daughters to camp with adolescent boys or vice-versa.

Not all homosexuals are sex fiends waiting for a chance to jump, nor are all men. Nor are opposite-sex adolescents... but if anyone falls foul it is not just on them - it is on the Scouts. And overnight trips in the thick of the forest - a primary component of Scouting, is an undeniable risk.

It is easy to segregate boys from girls / men from women and it reduces substantially the risk of sexual impropriety. However, homosexuals would throw a wrench into the whole thing. Even an all homosexual troop would not work for a camp out. Would you send your homosexual adolescent on a camping trip with an adult homosexual troop leader (who is a stranger) in the thick of the forest for a week? I strongly doubt it. No more than you'd send your adolescent daughter off with a strange man on such a trip.

Homosexuals need to get off their high-horse and realize that children's safety is far more important than their agenda. Does it suck that they can't join Scouts? Sure. Got a better alternative? Didn't think so. That's a sorry reason to prevent Scouts from existing.

I've just decided to give the Boy Scouts of America $5,000, if for no other reason than to annoy the posters on this forum. It's a bunch of kids camping in the woods, for crying out loud! It isn't mandatory, it isn't an arm of the State (although I agree it shouldn't receive government money), and it doesn't instill a sense of juvenile fascism into the youth. I don't think I would have liked it as a child, but evidently plenty of kids do. I see no reason to stop them from doing something they enjoy.

Actually, regarding homosexuality, it is for practical reasons not religious ones. similar to the same ones why at girl scout camps men are not allowed the same access as women. Also, not many people would be willing to send their adolescent daughters to camp with adolescent boys or vice-versa.

Not all homosexuals are sex fiends waiting for a chance to jump, nor are all men. Nor are opposite-sex adolescents... but if anyone falls foul it is not just on them - it is on the Scouts. And overnight trips in the thick of the forest - a primary component of Scouting, is an undeniable risk.

It is easy to segregate boys from girls / men from women and it reduces substantially the risk of sexual impropriety. However, homosexuals would throw a wrench into the whole thing. Even an all homosexual troop would not work for a camp out. Would you send your homosexual adolescent on a camping trip with an adult homosexual troop leader (who is a stranger) in the thick of the forest for a week? I strongly doubt it. No more than you'd send your adolescent daughter off with a strange man on such a trip.

Homosexuals need to get off their high-horse and realize that children's safety is far more important than their agenda. Does it suck that they can't join Scouts? Sure. Got a better alternative? Didn't think so. That's a sorry reason to prevent Scouts from existing.

OK, it's not just religious reasons, it is bigotry and misconceptions as well. Thank you for demonstrating for us MS.

Actually, regarding homosexuality, it is for practical reasons not religious ones. similar to the same ones why at girl scout camps men are not allowed the same access as women.

Which is why they don't have co-ed programs like Venture Scouts, right?


Also, not many people would be willing to send their adolescent daughters to camp with adolescent boys or vice-versa.

How quaint.


Not all homosexuals are sex fiends waiting for a chance to jump, nor are all men. Nor are opposite-sex adolescents... but if anyone falls foul it is not just on them - it is on the Scouts. And overnight trips in the thick of the forest - a primary component of Scouting, is an undeniable risk.

:rolleyes:
Yeah. "Not all gays are sex fiends... just most are."


It is easy to segregate boys from girls / men from women and it reduces substantially the risk of sexual impropriety. However, homosexuals would throw a wrench into the whole thing. Even an all homosexual troop would not work for a camp out. Would you send your homosexual adolescent on a camping trip with an adult homosexual troop leader (who is a stranger) in the thick of the forest for a week? I strongly doubt it. No more than you'd send your adolescent daughter off with a strange man on such a trip.

Why wouldn't I? People send their kids on overnight school trips that are chaperoned by teachers of the opposite gender.


Homosexuals need to get off their high-horse and realize that religious bigotry is far more important than their agenda. Does it suck that they can't join Scouts? Sure. Got a better alternative? Didn't think so. That's a sorry reason to prevent Scouts from existing.

Fixed.

I've just decided to give the Boy Scouts of America $5,000, if for no other reason than to annoy the posters on this forum. It's a bunch of kids camping in the woods, for crying out loud! It isn't mandatory, it isn't an arm of the State (although I agree it shouldn't receive government money), and it doesn't instill a sense of juvenile fascism into the youth. I don't think I would have liked it as a child, but evidently plenty of kids do. I see no reason to stop them from doing something they enjoy.

I have no problem with scouting on principle.

I do have a problem with government endorsed discrimination and bigotry, though.

I have no problem with scouting on principle.

I do have a problem with government endorsed discrimination and bigotry, though.

That's true. I don't think the Boy Scouts should discriminate based on sexual orientation, even if it is legal. And like you said, I don't think they should receive government funding if they want to continue being quasi-religious.

I guess it's Boy Scout of America official policy I disagree with. But like some other poster said, it depends more on the individual lodges than what the higher-ups say.

OK, it's not just religious reasons, it is bigotry and misconceptions as well. Thank you for demonstrating for us MS.

explain for me please, on what planet refusing to send your daughter off camping with a strange man is bigotry and/or a misconception? Maybe the strange land of Udunnoshit? You apparently are so full of your agenda that common sense has taken permanent leave of your skull.

explain for me please, on what planet refusing to send your daughter off camping with a strange man is bigotry and/or a misconception? Maybe the strange land of Udunnoshit? You apparently are so full of your agenda that common sense has taken permanent leave of your skull.

Ah, but that is not what you are arguing...
This is:
explain for me please, on what planet refusing to send your son off camping with another boy who might be gay is bigotry and/or a misconception?

Which is why they don't have co-ed programs like Venture Scouts, right?
The minimum age for ventures is 14-15. At that age a person is much more capable of determining and deciding appropriate behavior to accept from an adult. The minimum age for Boy Scouts is 10. For Cub Scouts it goes as young as 5. Girl Scouts also go as young as 5. Also, VentureScouts do separate genders for sleeping arrangements.


How quaint.
Spoken like someone who does not have adolescent children nor relate as an adult to people who do.


:rolleyes:
Yeah. "Not all gays are sex fiends... just most are."
Straw man - that is not a claim made nor implied - quite contrary in fact. Do try to keep up - it is not that difficult.


Why wouldn't I? People send their kids on overnight school trips that are chaperoned by teachers of the opposite gender.
There are no overnight trips until high-school where I am from, and once there many same-sex chaperones are present. I believe there is a required ratio of chaperones to youths, and youths are segregated by gender.



Fixed.
Umm, not. Your selective reading completely misses the comparable restrictions on men around girl scouts. Would you also label that as discrimination? If you prefer name-calling and bumper-sticker slogans to constructive discussion then you have already lost and this conversation is over.

Ah, but that is not what you are arguing...
This is:

No, it is not. I would kindly ask that you refrain from changing the contents of my messages when you quote me.

No, it is not. I would kindly ask that you refrain from changing the contents of my messages when you quote me.
Sure looks like it to me \/
Actually, regarding homosexuality, it is for practical reasons not religious ones. similar to the same ones why at girl scout camps men are not allowed the same access as women. Also, not many people would be willing to send their adolescent daughters to camp with adolescent boys or vice-versa.

Not all homosexuals are sex fiends waiting for a chance to jump, nor are all men. Nor are opposite-sex adolescents... but if anyone falls foul it is not just on them - it is on the Scouts. And overnight trips in the thick of the forest - a primary component of Scouting, is an undeniable risk.

It is easy to segregate boys from girls / men from women and it reduces substantially the risk of sexual impropriety. However, homosexuals would throw a wrench into the whole thing. Even an all homosexual troop would not work for a camp out. Would you send your homosexual adolescent on a camping trip with an adult homosexual troop leader (who is a stranger) in the thick of the forest for a week? I strongly doubt it. No more than you'd send your adolescent daughter off with a strange man on such a trip.

Homosexuals need to get off their high-horse and realize that children's safety is far more important than their agenda. Does it suck that they can't join Scouts? Sure. Got a better alternative? Didn't think so. That's a sorry reason to prevent Scouts from existing.
(Emphasis mine)

Oh, and as far as changing the content of your post, what exactly is the problem? I made it perfectly clear that I had made the changes.

So what if athiests and homosexuals can't join it?

Would I care if black people couldn't join the Boy Scouts?
Would I care if white people couldn't join the Boy Scouts?
Would I care if second generation Italian-Americans with glasses couldn't join the Boy Scouts?

No.
I don't think it particularly matters either since it is a voluntary organization and not mandated by any law. (Though it would be amusing to have an involuntary organization that didn't allow people to join, despite the fact that it was mandatory..)

The Boy Scouts just shouldn't recieve government funding or whatever..

Sure looks like it to me \/

(Emphasis mine)

Oh, and as far as changing the content of your post, what exactly is the problem? I made it perfectly clear that I had made the changes.

You didn't need to add the highlights, it was already obvious how selective your reading is. Here try this;


Actually, regarding homosexuality, it is for practical reasons not religious ones. similar to the same ones why at girl scout camps men are not allowed the same access as women. Also, not many people would be willing to send their adolescent daughters to camp with adolescent boys or vice-versa.

Not all homosexuals are sex fiends waiting for a chance to jump, nor are all men. Nor are opposite-sex adolescents... but if anyone falls foul it is not just on them - it is on the Scouts. And overnight trips in the thick of the forest - a primary component of Scouting, is an undeniable risk.

It is easy to segregate boys from girls / men from women and it reduces substantially the risk of sexual impropriety. However, homosexuals would throw a wrench into the whole thing. Even an all homosexual troop would not work for a camp out. Would you send your homosexual adolescent on a camping trip with an adult homosexual troop leader (who is a stranger) in the thick of the forest for a week? I strongly doubt it. No more than you'd send your adolescent daughter off with a strange man on such a trip.

Homosexuals need to get off their high-horse and realize that children's safety is far more important than their agenda. Does it suck that they can't join Scouts? Sure. Got a better alternative? Didn't think so. That's a sorry reason to prevent Scouts from existing.

Whoa - it's a three dimensional world, Homer.

You didn't need to add the highlights, it was already obvious how selective your reading is. Here try this;

Not a matter of selective reading, a matter of highlighting what was directly pertinent. Or did you not mean any of the things that I highlighted?

Not a matter of selective reading, a matter of highlighting what was directly pertinent. Or did you not mean any of the things that I highlighted?

um, it is ALL directly pertinent, particularly in reference to my meaning. - but thanks for illustrating selective reading so well.

So what if athiests and homosexuals can't join it?

Would I care if black people couldn't join the Boy Scouts?
Would I care if white people couldn't join the Boy Scouts?
Would I care if second generation Italian-Americans with glasses couldn't join the Boy Scouts?

No.
I don't think it particularly matters either since it is a voluntary organization and not mandated by any law. (Though it would be amusing to have an involuntary organization that didn't allow people to join, despite the fact that it was mandatory..)

The Boy Scouts just shouldn't recieve government funding or whatever..
Not caring and thinking it should be legal are separate issues

I care that an organization that I think has some significant merit has also significant flaws in it and is being used to perpetrate those flaws on a younger generation sure

I would care in all your above scenarios

Now while I think they have the legal right to do it I still care when so many choose to not do the right thing

Not caring and thinking it should be legal are separate issues

I care that an organization that I think has some significant merit has also significant flaws in it and is being used to perpetrate those flaws on a younger generation sure

I would care in all your above scenarios

Now while I think they have the legal right to do it I still care when so many choose to not do the right thing

I agree that it is a flaw, however, I don't actually care and I feel it should be/stay legal.

Maybe I'm a misanthropist.
Or maybe it just doesn't affect me personally and I have problems relating.

this is somthing that i have been pondring for a while now.

what is everyone's thoughts on the Boy Scouts of America. or the Boy Scout programm in their country.

and if u have a Boy Scout program in your country how is it set up?

I was in scouts for a year (Webelos). I didn't get along with one of the other scouts, and he was the scoutmaster's son. So since he wasn't going anywhere, I left scouts (I do regret it, as it was pretty fun when I did go). We moved a year or so after that, and there was no scout troop (that I was aware of) in my new hometown.

Now while I think they have the legal right to do it I still care when so many choose to not do the right thing

Regardless the topic, that is a dangerous concept. It is the same argument fundamentalists use against homosexuality, and countless others have used to oppress those which they found 'flawed'.

Caring is not so much the problem - it is when people decide to 'enforce' their 'morality' on others - regardless of the nature - that problems begin.

You always have the choice of whom you wish to associate with, but no matter how pure your intentions - you just don't get to chose their values for them - better to chose them for their values.

Regardless the topic, that is a dangerous concept. It is the same argument fundamentalists use against homosexuality, and countless others have used to oppress those which they found 'flawed'.

Caring is not so much the problem - it is when people decide to 'enforce' their 'morality' on others - regardless of the nature - that problems begin.

You always have the choice of whom you wish to associate with - you just don't get to chose their values for them - no matter how pure your intentions.

Thats exactly why I said they had the legal right even though I care that they choose what I feel is incorrect

How is that dangerous? the statement was rather explicit (I thought) that there was no wish for enforcement of my view of what is right

Sure looks like it to me \/

(Emphasis mine)

Oh, and as far as changing the content of your post, what exactly is the problem? I made it perfectly clear that I had made the changes.

No. You didn't. I apparently accidentally skipped a page and when I ran across your quote it looked as if it were a direct quote of what he said.

Not all homosexuals are sex fiends waiting for a chance to jump, nor are all men. Nor are opposite-sex adolescents... but if anyone falls foul it is not just on them - it is on the Scouts. And overnight trips in the thick of the forest - a primary component of Scouting, is an undeniable risk.

It is easy to segregate boys from girls / men from women and it reduces substantially the risk of sexual impropriety. However, homosexuals would throw a wrench into the whole thing. Even an all homosexual troop would not work for a camp out. Would you send your homosexual adolescent on a camping trip with an adult homosexual troop leader (who is a stranger) in the thick of the forest for a week? I strongly doubt it. No more than you'd send your adolescent daughter off with a strange man on such a trip.

What about closeted gay and bisexual men? Should we ban them too?


Homosexuals need to get off their high-horse and realize that children's safety is far more important than their agenda. Does it suck that they can't join Scouts? Sure. Got a better alternative? Didn't think so. That's a sorry reason to prevent Scouts from existing.
Except that your argument applies equally well to closeted gay and bisexual men. The possibility of sexual impropriety can never be eliminated or even reduced by such a measure, so what is your point?

No. You didn't. I apparently accidentally skipped a page and when I ran across your quote it looked as if it were a direct quote of what he said.

Come now. "Fixed" is a frequently used expression on this forum, and I think it beggars belief when some with c.1,500 post pretends not to understand it.

Especially because the part "fixed" was bolded.

um, it is ALL directly pertinent, particularly in reference to my meaning. - but thanks for illustrating selective reading so well.

Please. It is pretty obvious that you are trying to shift the emphasis away from homosexuals in particular with your largely irrelevant comparison to girls on school trips.

Though they are similar, the comparison is irrelevant and only serves to muddy the waters.

Please. It is pretty obvious that you are trying to shift the emphasis away from homosexuals in particular with your largely irrelevant comparison to girls on school trips.

Though they are similar, the comparison is irrelevant and only serves to muddy the waters.

Even if the comparison is relevant, I'd have no problem sending a teenage daughter on a trip with a responsible male leader.

And scoutmasters aren't "some stranger," you typically get to know them quite well.
Perhaps instead of "ban teh ebul gayz" they could, y'know, screen applicants and filter out child molesters?

They do not allow atheists or open homosexuals into the Boy Scouts for religious reasons.Actually, regarding homosexuality, it is for practical reasons not religious ones. similar to the same ones why at girl scout camps men are not allowed the same access as women. Also, not many people would be willing to send their adolescent daughters to camp with adolescent boys or vice-versa.

Not all homosexuals are sex fiends waiting for a chance to jump, nor are all men. Nor are opposite-sex adolescents... but if anyone falls foul it is not just on them - it is on the Scouts. And overnight trips in the thick of the forest - a primary component of Scouting, is an undeniable risk.

It is easy to segregate boys from girls / men from women and it reduces substantially the risk of sexual impropriety. However, homosexuals would throw a wrench into the whole thing. Even an all homosexual troop would not work for a camp out. Would you send your homosexual adolescent on a camping trip with an adult homosexual troop leader (who is a stranger) in the thick of the forest for a week? I strongly doubt it. No more than you'd send your adolescent daughter off with a strange man on such a trip.

Homosexuals need to get off their high-horse and realize that children's safety is far more important than their agenda. Does it suck that they can't join Scouts? Sure. Got a better alternative? Didn't think so. That's a sorry reason to prevent Scouts from existing.um, it is ALL directly pertinent, particularly in reference to my meaning. - but thanks for illustrating selective reading so well.

So you weren't responding to someone about homosexuals in the BSA?

As I said, whether you want to admit it or not you were justifying not allowing homosexuals into the Boy Scouts. Thusly the directly pertinent parts were the bits about gays.

No. You didn't. I apparently accidentally skipped a page and when I ran across your quote it looked as if it were a direct quote of what he said.

Then you need to work on your reading skills.


explain for me please, on what planet refusing to send your daughter off camping with a strange man is bigotry and/or a misconception? Maybe the strange land of Udunnoshit? You apparently are so full of your agenda that common sense has taken permanent leave of your skull.

Ah, but that is not what you are arguing...
This is:
explain for me please, on what planet refusing to send your son off camping with another boy who might be gay is bigotry and/or a misconception?
If you look at the 2 quotes you see that with the exception of the bolded parts they are word for word.

Even if the comparison is relevant, I'd have no problem sending a teenage daughter on a trip with a responsible male leader.

And scoutmasters aren't "some stranger," you typically get to know them quite well.
Perhaps instead of "ban teh ebul gayz" they could, y'know, screen applicants and filter out child molesters?

Female teachers fuck their male students too...

Child molestation isn't just for homosexuals - every "orientation" does it.

I'd not put my faith in background checks though - a lot of active and as yet uncaught molesters will pass a background check.

In the current Boy Scouts, most troops impose a rule that at least one parent must be present with the boy at all times - usually your dad, but your mom will do.

I ran a Boy Scout troop for two years - I never allowed boys to be alone with any adult except their own parent. It's a simple rule - that way, if there's any child abuse, it's the parent who did it. The rest of us are witnesses to see that nothing happened.

It also makes sure that the parents are involved in the boy's activities - there's nothing worse than parents who treat Scouting as "free babysitting".

I'm less concerned with molestation than I am with parents who are douches raising a boy to be an asshole.

It also makes sure that the parents are involved in the boy's activities - there's nothing worse than parents who treat Scouting as "free babysitting".

I'm less concerned with molestation than I am with parents who are douches raising a boy to be an asshole.

QFT

In the UK there is set ratio of Leaders to members - and a minimum of two Leaders present at all times. The only exception is if a member needs aprivate word, but even then that has to be in eyesight of the other Leader(s).

There are also rules about contact with kids which have to be followed even they get hurt (parents are the only ones allowed to hug their kid to make them feel better if they get hurt etc, otherwise only contact is for first aid.)

And 3rd'd for the making sure parents get involved, makes the group a whole lot more fun.

I am a proud Eagle Scout. Some times I really want to lie but I took that damn oath. That is my only real regreat but I guess this is a pretty embarassing thing to regret and it is all for the best. I sometimes think of the Boy Scouts as the think khaki like that keeps the morality of our young men from being totally depraved by pop culture and all of the wierdos out there.

Some earlier poster said something along the lines of Boy Scouts being anti-rebellion. There are three required merit badges that provide civics training to our young men. I am not exactly certain about what the earlier poster meant by rebelling but I think that being an active and good citizen requires acting to keep our government honest and to influence the political process.

I think that any organization that encourages good health, duty to one's faith, duty to one's community, duty to one's nation, and a sense of duty to the world as a whole is a good one. I have heard the rumors that Lord Baden-Powell was a pedo and all that but even if that is true, the organization that he created, even if he was a perv, is an excellent one and I am a big fan of Scouting.

In the UK there is set ratio of Leaders to members - and a minimum of two Leaders present at all times. The only exception is if a member needs aprivate word, but even then that has to be in eyesight of the other Leader(s).

There are also rules about contact with kids which have to be followed even they get hurt (parents are the only ones allowed to hug their kid to make them feel better if they get hurt etc, otherwise only contact is for first aid.)

And 3rd'd for the making sure parents get involved, makes the group a whole lot more fun.

The very existence of these rules disturb me. They disturb me for the rampant paranoia as well as the fairly rare incidents that made them seem prudent.

:(

The very existence of these rules disturb me. They disturb me for the rampant paranoia as well as the fairly rare incidents that made them seem prudent.

:(

Blame the lawyers.

The very existence of these rules disturb me. They disturb me for the rampant paranoia as well as the fairly rare incidents that made them seem prudent.

:(

You arn't the only one - when I was in Cubs and Scouts (which wasn't that long ago) the only rules were not be alone with scout, and if you have to drive just one scout anywhere the scout has to be in the back seat.

It was perfectly fine to give a hug for a scraped knee or whatever, but overzealous media reporters and knee jerk reactions have bought it all downhill.

I've still to meet a Leader who actually agrees with all these new rules over the old ones, but other than the child PC zone Scouts still seems more open for members over here where it all started...