NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/03/critics-boy-scouts-urge-obama-denounce-group/

There's irony in here somewhere, I'm just not sure exactly where.

Meh.

Federal funding of the Boy Scouts is fiscally irresponsible.

:tongue:

Thing about the Boy Scouts not allowing atheists or gays in there... so what? It's the Boy Scouts. When was the last time they did anything relevant?

he is going to take the honor.
this is an issue every presidency.
this group or that group says the president shouldn't take the honor.

cough I'm a boyscout and I'm an atheist cough. lol.

cough I'm a boyscout and I'm an atheist cough. lol.

I think you violated the trustworthy part as well.

cough I'm a boyscout and I'm an atheist cough. lol.

all you got to do to be considered a non atheist is say under god in the pledge.

Meh.

^This

The thing is that once you start looking at the individual scout troops, or venture crews, or sea scout ships, no one really cares about the policys that natinal puts into the place. they follow the saftey procedures and such but the descrimitory policys from natinal are totally ignored.

wow...really? Its not discrimination against gays and non believers, it has to do with the common good. Seriously...omg...how many people would enjoy their kid being eyed, or even touched by a homosexual leader. Its just wrong. and the non believers thing...gimme a break. i have an athiest in my troop. no one has a problem.

wow...really? Its not discrimination against gays and non believers, it has to do with the common good. Seriously...omg...how many people would enjoy their kid being eyed, or even touched by a homosexual leader. Its just wrong.

Yep, much better off being eyed and touched by the straight leaders. ;)

The thing is that once you start looking at the individual scout troops, or venture crews, or sea scout ships, no one really cares about the policys that natinal puts into the place. they follow the saftey procedures and such but the descrimitory policys from natinal are totally ignored.

I dunno about that. I wouldn't put it past my old troop to enforce discrimination against gays and atheists, were they to publicly admit that they were such. But then, this is Georgia. Of course, I was a Christian back then, especially when I was actually active(my last few years I'd show up once every few months or so), so it didn't really come up for me.

We should obviously ban the Boy Scouts from using public land or public money to further their nazi like agenda.

We should obviously ban the Boy Scouts from using public land or public money to further their nazi like agenda.

no no. we should nationalize the boy scouts and put them under government control.

no no. we should nationalize the boy scouts and put them under government control.

Sell them to taiwan to make cheap sneakers. ;)

wow...really? Its not discrimination against gays and non believers, it has to do with the common good. Seriously...omg...how many people would enjoy their kid being eyed, or even touched by a homosexual leader. Its just wrong. and the non believers thing...gimme a break. i have an athiest in my troop. no one has a problem.

Yeah, gays are all child molesters who cannot control their need to run over and fuck the nearest member of their sex, be they of age or not. :rolleyes:

And also yeah, atheists aren't ever kicked out of the scouts for their non-belief. That's why there's no controversy about the issue.

Yep, much better off being eyed and touched by the straight leaders. ;)

Don't you know?! Statistics show that most child abusers are homosexual!





Oh wait, that's not true at all. In fact, most child molestation is by men who identify as heterosexual and prefer adult women over adult men. (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_attitudes_toward_homosexuality#Association_with_child_abuse_and_pedophilia). I know it's wiki but they cite good sources)

Sell them to taiwan to make cheap sneakers. ;)

or make all the badges related to doing free factory work here in the US and make cheaper sneakers the Taiwan.

Yeah, gays are all child molesters who cannot control their need to run over and fuck the nearest member of their sex, be they of age or not. :rolleyes:

And also yeah, atheists aren't ever kicked out of the scouts for their non-belief. That's why there's no controversy about the issue.



Don't you know?! Statistics show that most child abusers are homosexual!





Oh wait, that's not true at all. In fact, most child molestation is by men who identify as heterosexual and prefer adult women over adult men. (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_attitudes_toward_homosexuality#Association_with_child_abuse_and_pedophilia). I know it's wiki but they cite good sources)

Those pesky facts always getting in the way of nice healthy irrational fear! Damn them!

"We're a voluntary, private organization for families that share our values," he added.

I just wanted to highlight the important part from the article. The BSA is a private organization, and thus can make whatever insane rules they want. Individual scouts can either force the national head office (or whatever it's called) to either change the rules to allow gay or people of other faith, or they can GTFO.

BTW: I am an Eagle Scout, got it in 2002.

no no. we should nationalize the boy scouts and put them under government control.

Yes. I agree totally. We must form a Department of Youth Affairs to create a proper scouting agenda.

Yes. I agree totally. We must form a Department of Youth Affairs to create a proper scouting agenda.

Just don't let it turn into this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Youth)

If the administration is to folow through on the rheotric committing them to open and respectful dialogue, even with groups it disagrees with, then he should accept the honour

Yes. I agree totally. We must form a Department of Youth Affairs to create a proper scouting agenda.

I will be in charge. to make sure i Properly handle the profits.

if the administration is to folow through on the rheotric committing them to open and respectful dialogue, even with groups it disagrees with, then he should accept the honour

BUT OMGZ, IF HE DOES, THEN HE'S AGAINST GAYZ! i

Just don't let it turn into this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Youth)

Well of course they should also train to be an auxiliary to the military. and they are likely going to align with the republicans due to beliefs. seems inevitable that we get such an organization for youth.

I will be in charge. to make sure i Properly handle the profits.

And I shall be in charge of ideological programming. After all, we don't want out boy scouts to grow up and make the Organization look bad.

I just wanted to highlight the important part from the article. The BSA is a private organization, and thus can make whatever insane rules they want. Individual scouts can either force the national head office (or whatever it's called) to either change the rules to allow gay or people of other faith, or they can GTFO.

BTW: I am an Eagle Scout, got it in 2002.

They always trot this line out when they want to be able to be bigots (and yes, the organization champions bigotry, so I won't phrase it any more politely.), yet when they want use of state property, they're suddenly not so private anymore. They shouldn't be allowed the best of both worlds. If they want continued government support, they should be required to stop discriminatory practices.

They always trot this line out when they want to be able to be bigots (and yes, the organization champions bigotry, so I won't phrase it any more politely.), yet when they want use of state property, they're suddenly not so private anymore. They shouldn't be allowed the best of both worlds. If they want continued government support, they should be required to stop discriminatory practices.

I agree.

There's something to be said about an organization that bans openly gay males from joining but has its moments of sex offenders slipping past screening to become scoutmasters or other such important posts.

There's something to be said about an organization that bans openly gay males from joining but has its moments of sex offenders slipping past screening to become scoutmasters or other such important posts.

Well there's only so many openings for priests. ;)

:eek:

:D

There's something to be said about an organization that bans openly gay males from joining but has its moments of sex offenders slipping past screening to become scoutmasters or other such important posts.

Hey, we're talking about Boy Scouts, not the Catholic Church....oh....carry on....

Edit: Damn you LG!

:p

Hey, we're talking about Boy Scouts, not the Catholic Church....oh....carry on....

Yep because the sex offence is the organisations fault and not the actual person committing the crime.

There's something to be said about an organization that bans openly gay males from joining but has its moments of sex offenders slipping past screening to become scoutmasters or other such important posts.

In their defence, it is a misguided (if not completely illogical) attempt to prevent child abuse

Yep because the sex offence is the organisations fault and not the actual person committing the crime.

Click (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Jokes)

Yep because the sex offence is the organisations fault and not the actual person committing the crime.

No, it's the organization's fault for covering it up. Which until recently, both did.

Click (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Jokes)

Is that meant to be some kind of joke?

:p, yeah real funny, prick. :)

No, it's the organization's fault for covering it up. Which until recently, both did.

Yes it is but not because people in the organisation actually did it.

Hey, we're talking about Boy Scouts, not the Catholic Church....oh....carry on....

Edit: Damn you LG!

:p

Actually, providing a priest has been chaste for three years, they can be ordained

Is that meant to be some kind of joke?

:p, yeah real funny, prick. :)

Hey, I'm an ass, get it right.

Hey, I'm an ass, get it right.

And a smart one at that.

"Nondiscriminatory" groups suck.

Why would you even join a group if it wasn't discriminating? You're already in one - The Humanity. The rest discriminate. By place of birth, age, physique, mentals, whatever. It's the whole point.

Seriously...omg...how many people would enjoy their kid being eyed, or even touched by a homosexual leader.

Considering YOU are the one that brought up pedophilia, it makes me wonder if YOU have something to hide.

Methinks the fundie doth complain too much.

Considering YOU are the one that brought up pedophilia, it makes me wonder if YOU have something to hide.

Methinks the fundie doth complain too much.

I mean, it's not like all the sex offenders that got caught openly proclaimed themselves as gay before slipping into positions of authority they could use to take advantage of young boys.

all you got to do to be considered a non atheist is say under god in the pledge.

Us North Americans are really handcuffed in the "I'm patriotic, but don't believe in God" department..

No, it's the organization's fault for covering it up. Which until recently, both did.

True. By enabling the offenders by covering up such offences, the organization can be held quite responsible- to a point.

Us North Americans are really handcuffed in the "I'm patriotic, but don't believe in God" department..

i am always in the school of if you don't believe in it why worry about saying under god department.

I just wanted to highlight the important part from the article. The BSA is a private organization, and thus can make whatever insane rules they want.

Except that they are sponsored by federal funding, aren't they?

If the administration is to folow through on the rheotric committing them to open and respectful dialogue, even with groups it disagrees with, then he should accept the honour

No, he should tell them there's no honour in being offered an accolade by an organisation that discriminates based on gender orientation or religion.

But he won't. He'll accept it, anyway.

No, he should tell them there's no honour in being offered an accolade by an organisation that discriminates based on gender or religion.

But he won't. He'll accept it, anyway.

they do have girl scouts.

i am always in the school of if you don't believe in it why worry about saying under god department.

So Christians should be forced to say 'hail Satan'?

they do have girl scouts.

There's a lost 'orientation' in there somewhere. Gender orientation.

So Christians should be forced to say 'hail Satan'?

This is just me, but I think "God" as more of a title than the Christian God, Yahweh.

So Christians should be forced to say 'hail Satan'?

if you join the satanic scouts id expect so.

Yep, much better off being eyed and touched by the straight leaders. ;)

Yay. Just to remove any suspect of gaytude: from now on, straight male leaders shall be in charge of girlies and straight female leaders shall be in charge of lil'boyses.

Meh.

There's a lost 'orientation' in there somewhere. Gender orientation.

that makes more sense now.

I just wanted to highlight the important part from the article. The BSA is a private organization, and thus can make whatever insane rules they want.

Correct. That is why the group is asking the leader of the country to not associate with them or give them funding that suggests the administration agrees with their insane rules - instead of demanding that the scouts themselves change their ways.

if you join the satanic scouts id expect so.

All scouts are satanic.

There is nothing intrinsically christian about scouting, except that some wish it to be so. Fine - I wish all Christians to be compelled to bend the knee to great lord Satan. Should they be compelled to?

from the article in the OP
Because of the Boy Scouts' exclusionary practices, some public schools across the country tried to limit or end their ties with the organization. But in 2001 the federal government ordered public schools to keep their doors open to the Scouts. And Congress, responding to the threat of campus lockouts, voted to cut federal funding to any school that banned the Scouts or any similar group from "open forum" access.

Taxpayers also fund Boy Scout activities with several millions of dollars through military personnel, federal land use and other assistance. Taxpayers doled out roughly $8 million for the 2005 Jamboree, held every four years.

So basically, schools US-wide have to let in an anti-gay organisation funded by the taxpayer... OR be banned from receiving federal subsidies?

My.

This is just me, but I think "God" as more of a title than the Christian God, Yahweh.

There are no other gods, silly.

if you join the satanic scouts id expect so.

There actually is an alternative to Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts. It's called Spiral Scouts.

http://www.spiralscouts.org/

There actually is an alternative to Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts. It's called Spiral Scouts.

http://www.spiralscouts.org/

Hearths and circles and the like? It all sounds very Wiccan to me.

Hearths and circles and the like? It all sounds very Wiccan to me.

Well....it is Pagan....

Well....it is Pagan....

And yet, despite hating and denying the one true god, in the service of their dark master, they DON'T require an oath of allegiance to Great Lord Satan?

And yet, despite hating and denying the one true god, in the service of their dark master, they DON'T require an oath of allegiance to Great Lord Satan?

SpiralScouts™ International is a program for girls and boys of all faiths working, growing and learning together.

So I guess if a scout wanted to, they could swear an oath to Satan.

Hasn't Obama already gotten support from, oh, the Black Panthers, a terrorist organization, etc. etc.?

Yeah, gays are all child molesters who cannot control their need to run over and fuck

You can't say "fuck" on the Internet...

Hasn't Obama already gotten support from, oh, the Black Panthers, a terrorist organization, etc. etc.?

The Black Panthers aren't a terrorist organization. They also disbanded years ago.

President Obama says he wants to be president of all the people.

:eek:

You can't say "fuck" on the Internet...

Why the fuck not?

I just wanted to highlight the important part from the article. The BSA is a private organization, and thus can make whatever insane rules they want. Individual scouts can either force the national head office (or whatever it's called) to either change the rules to allow gay or people of other faith, or they can GTFO.

BTW: I am an Eagle Scout, got it in 2002.

That's perfectly fine. They can make whatever retarded rules they want to just as soon as they're not federally subsidized. Don't want to play by the rules, then don't take the money.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/03/critics-boy-scouts-urge-obama-denounce-group/

There's irony in here somewhere, I'm just not sure exactly where.


"We're gonna spread happiness! We're gonna spread freeeeeeeeedommmmm! Obama's gonna change it! Obamas gonna leeeeeeeeead 'emmmm! We're gonna change itttttt! And rearrange itttttttt! We're gonna change the world..." ~Obama Youth Brigade, California

That's perfectly fine. They can make whatever retarded rules they want to just as soon as they're not federally subsidized. Don't want to play by the rules, then don't take the money.
Wrong. They can make whatever rules the feds approve of, as long as they're federally subsidized.

So, they do.

Wrong. They can make whatever rules the feds approve of, as long as they're federally subsidized.

So, they do.


We're already taxed a percentage of our income to go to the churches...if they want to federally subsidize the boy scouts let 'em take that, since the Boy Scouts ARE a Christian organization.

The Black Panthers aren't a terrorist organization. They also disbanded years ago.

The Black Panthers and a terrorist organization and etc.

First relevant Black Panther news article I found (http://sweetness-light.com/archive/new-black-panther-party-supports-obama).

First relevant Hamas news article I found (http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDRkMDBlMGY4MWIzMGFhYTRjZTNhNmZhMjVlZjYzNjY=).

Ack! I am an Eagle Scout and a Republican I do not want Obama involved with my organization!

That's perfectly fine. They can make whatever retarded rules they want to just as soon as they're not federally subsidized. Don't want to play by the rules, then don't take the money.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/28/scotus.gay.boyscouts/

The rules say that gays can be barred from being scoutmasters.

Ack! I am an Eagle Scout and a Republican I do not want Obama involved with my organization!
Might I suggest you write to him and ask him to ensure that cancelling federal funds and access to public lands is speedily is on this year's legislative agenda?

He should accept it, and then use his newfound status as honorary president to order an end to the discriminatory policies.

The Black Panthers and a terrorist organization and etc.

First relevant Black Panther news article I found (http://sweetness-light.com/archive/new-black-panther-party-supports-obama).

First relevant Hamas news article I found (http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDRkMDBlMGY4MWIzMGFhYTRjZTNhNmZhMjVlZjYzNjY=).

The New Black Panther Party isn't the Black Panther Party, and declaring the political wing of Hamas to be a terrorist organization is bloody stupid and is necessarily untrue regardless of any actions the political wing takes, as terrorism refers to actions by a non-state entity.

Edit: Although I'm not entirely sure what this whole discussion has to do with the topic.

I just wanted to highlight the important part from the article. The BSA is a private organization, and thus can make whatever insane rules they want.
Then they need to stop taking public subsidies and expecting public endorsements.
BTW: I am an Eagle Scout, got it in 2002.
I was in the Scouts back before they made a point of making my kind unwelcome. It is not the same organization any more. A lot of the local troops, as has been pointed out, do ignore the discrimination commanded from above, but gradually this is changing, which is a shame.

I was in the Scouts back before they made a point of making my kind unwelcome. It is not the same organization any more. A lot of the local troops, as has been pointed out, do ignore the discrimination commanded from above, but gradually this is changing, which is a shame.

I agree, back when I was in Boy Scouts, it was basically guys hanging out, going camping and learning how to do useful stuff. Now I think propaganda is starting to seep into the Scouts, which suck.

I mean Hell, we had a Bisexual guy in my troop, we all knew about it, and to us, he was just one of the guys.

Why the fuck not?

Oh, fuck you...

In their defence, it is a misguided (if not completely illogical) attempt to prevent child abuseNo, according to them that is not the rationale at all. They say that having an openly gay scoutmaster would make it more difficult to teach the boys that gay people are inherently immoral.

No, according to them that is not the rationale at all. They say that having an openly gay scoutmaster would make it more difficult to teach the boys that gay people are inherently immoral.

Not to speak of the radiation of gayness that all gay people radiate and make little boys gay.

(And since irony is quite hard to tell in text I was ironic.)

We should obviously ban the Boy Scouts from using public land or public money to further their nazi like agenda.
explain "nazi like agenda." what proof do you have on that? The NHS for the Boy Scouts is based on Native Americans. Boy Scouts was introduced to the world by the Brits. where in the world did u get nazi from?

Ack! I am an Eagle Scout and a Republican I do not want Obama involved with my organization!

Hmmm a white republican doesn't want a black man in his organization? :D

I kind of doubt you are an Eagle scout.

I was in the Scouts back before they made a point of making my kind unwelcome. It is not the same organization any more. A lot of the local troops, as has been pointed out, do ignore the discrimination commanded from above, but gradually this is changing, which is a shame.

Ok I have to ask. Your kind?

Boy Scouts was introduced to the world by the Brits.

Funny story about that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Baden-Powell%27s_sexual_orientation)

explain "nazi like agenda." what proof do you have on that? The NHS for the Boy Scouts is based on Native Americans. Boy Scouts was introduced to the world by the Brits. where in the world did u get nazi from?

Oh comon, don't you know this by now? If an organization doesn't believe what you believe, then they're either Nazis or Terrorist! Jeez, don't let things like "facts" and "rational thoughts" get in the way!

Hmmm a white republican doesn't want a black man in his organization? :D

I kind of doubt you are an Eagle scout.

Eh you'd be surprised.... >.> <.<

Ok I have to ask. Your kind?

He's either gay or non-Christian.

Funny story about that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Baden-Powell%27s_sexual_orientation)

Wow....so the founder of Scouts was a possible pedophile....just..wow....

Well, at least he never acted on it, and didn't want the scout masters to act on it.

since I have only skimmed a few words I will put something competently off topic.

Obama caught molesting Boy scouts IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH !!!!! rawrawraw

He's either gay or non-Christian.

Since when has the BSA required its membership to be Christian?

Since when has the BSA required its membership to be Christian?

Religious is supposed to be the rule. However, the main council seems to be filled with Bible thumpers these days. One of our neighbors said her boy had to sign a "morality" pledge.....

Since when has the BSA required its membership to be Christian?

Oh trust me, BSA has strong Christian Overtones. One of the patches on my BSA uniform has a golden cross on it. Also at every camp out, and meal at the camp outs, we'd pray to God or Yahweh. They even had Sunday morning Church. Of course towards the end, I just started going off on hikes, which my Scout masters didn't like because they wanted the whole troop to represent.

Oh trust me, BSA has strong Christian Overtones.
Having been a Scout, Arrowman, and Scoutmaster before I renounced not just my Christianity but theism in general and stepped down., I'm quite familiar with how the BSA works.

The only connection to Christianity we had was that we met in a Baptist church. That was it. The only requirement was that you believe in a god; it didn't even have to be the god of Abraham.

they do have girl scouts.

Interestingly, from what I understand, the Girl Scouts has allowed lesbian leaders for quite some time now.

Having been a Scout, Arrowman, and Scoutmaster before I renounced not just my Christianity but theism in general and stepped down., I'm quite familiar with how the BSA works.

The only connection to Christianity we had was that we met in a Baptist church. That was it. The only requirement was that you believe in a god; it didn't even have to be the god of Abraham.

Ahh, where did you do your scouting at? I did mine in the South, so maybe it's geological differences.

Interestingly, from what I understand, the Girl Scouts has allowed lesbian leaders for quite some time now.

Yea, but Lesbians = hawt. Gays = Icky. :p

If you can't tell I was kidding, then you are a sad sad person and need to be shot.

We're already taxed a percentage of our income to go to the churches...

Huh? We are?

No, he should tell them there's no honour in being offered an accolade by an organisation that discriminates based on gender orientation or religion.

But he won't. He'll accept it, anyway.

I think that would be an extreme sign of disrespect to an organisation whose policy, though misguided, is not intended as hateful, or mean-spirited. It sends a horribly mixed message to on one hand claim that eight years of not talking to groups we disagree with has come to an end, but then spit in the face of groups which disagree with you, but choose to honour the office you serve in anyway

Ahh, where did you do your scouting at? I did mine in the South, so maybe it's geological differences.

In the Midwest, but the extreme southern part (I'm from Southwestern Indiana, just along the border with Kentucky).

In the Midwest, but the extreme southern part (I'm from Southwestern Indiana, just along the border with Kentucky).

Yea, maybe it's the fact that my troop was in the Baptist Bible Belt.....

I think that would be an extreme sign of disrespect to an organisation whose policy, though misguided, is not intended as hateful, or mean-spirited. It sends a horribly mixed message to on one hand claim that eight years of not talking to groups we disagree with has come to an end, but then spit in the face of groups which disagree with you, but choose to honour the office you serve in anyway

What kind of message does choosing to take an honorary position from a group that is (whether that is their intention or not) hateful towards both gay people and atheists send?

Obama has made a point of including non-believers when he talks about the various beliefs in the US. Why should he voluntarily become a part of a group that won't?

What kind of message does choosing to take an honorary position from a group that is (whether that is their intention or not) hateful towards both gay people and atheists?
I know quite a few gay people who don't find the position offencive, though many of them disagree with it, and wish the BSA would reconsider their stance. Closing down dialogue, and backhanding a group trying to respect you, is not how you change hearts and minds. Why does no one see the magnificent potential in having a progressive honorary head of BSA; the potential for reformers and moderates to work together on a compromise to the legitimate concerns of BSA over the safety of the children in their care

Obama has made a point of including non-believers when he talks about the various beliefs in the US. Why should he voluntarily become a part of a group that won't?

Obama is a Christian, but will include people who fundamental disagree with beliefs he considers paramount to salvation when discussing religious belief, but if a group has a conservative position: that is a bridge to far, I see.

The New Black Panther Party isn't the Black Panther Party,

The New Black Panther Party self-identifies with the original Black Panther Party and claims to uphold its legacy.

and declaring the political wing of Hamas to be a terrorist organization is bloody stupid

Hamas: a Palestinian Islamic movement engaged in grass-roots organizing and terrorism against Israel.

and is necessarily untrue regardless of any actions the political wing takes, as terrorism refers to actions by a non-state entity.

terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

(Note the distinct lack of anything to do with which organization is doing it.)

Edit: Although I'm not entirely sure what this whole discussion has to do with the topic.

As much as belly button lint has to do with scientific research.

You know, RhynoD, I generally agree with you there vis-a-vis CF's remarks, but...

1. "Because some random joker who figured out how to edit Wikipedia said so" isn't really a valid argument
2. Using the dictionary is not an argument; it is a substitute for an argument. Dictionaries define words, but (unless you're actually operating within the field of lexicography) arguments are over concepts. Instead of simply parroting a dictionary definition, try to find a logical flaw with his conception of "terrorism." It's a much more valid argument.

As much as belly button lint has to do with scientific research.

hey now! quantum string theory is based almost soely on one person's observation of (his/her) belly button lint lol

(Note the distinct lack of anything to do with which organization is doing it.)



As much as belly button lint has to do with scientific research.
The New Black Panther Party may claim the legacy of the Black Panther Party, however the former membership and leadership have long condemned this claim.

You know, RhynoD, I generally agree with you there vis-a-vis CF's remarks, but...

1. "Because some random joker who figured out how to edit Wikipedia said so" isn't really a valid argument

Neither is "LOLWIKISUCKSOMG".

2. Using the dictionary is not an argument; it is a substitute for an argument. Dictionaries define words, but (unless you're actually operating within the field of lexicography) arguments are over concepts. Instead of simply parroting a dictionary definition, try to find a logical flaw with his conception of "terrorism." It's a much more valid argument.

The flaw in his argument is semantic, ie: how to define the word "terrorist" (does it include "official" entities or not?). To counter that argument I appealed to a higher authority. Is it the highest authority? No. But it's higher than NSG.

The New Black Panther Party may claim the legacy of the Black Panther Party, however the former membership and leadership have long condemned this claim.

The meaning of my post was clear. You're arguing trivial semantic details.

The meaning of my post was clear. You're arguing trivial semantic details.

Your claim the New Black Panther Party has a legitimate legacy with the Black Panther Party is false, that is not a "trivial semantic detail [sic]"

I know quite a few gay people who don't find the position offencive, though many of them disagree with it, and wish the BSA would reconsider their stance.

There are always people of any group who think it's perfectly ok to treat them poorly.

Closing down dialogue, and backhanding a group trying to respect you, is not how you change hearts and minds.

It's not a matter of closing down dialogue. If the BSA wants to talk about their position on this, great! But that doesn't mean that anyone who actually values equal treatment of the LGBT community should voluntarily join them so long as they still choose this path.

Why does no one see the magnificent potential in having a progressive honorary head of BSA; the potential for reformers and moderates to work together on a compromise to the legitimate concerns of BSA over the safety of the children in their care

An honorary head has no actual power in the organization.

Obama is a Christian, but will include people who fundamental disagree with beliefs he considers paramount to salvation when discussing religious belief, but if a group has a conservative position: that is a bridge to far, I see.

As I pointed out, Obama includes non-believers when discussing religion. The BSA, on the other hand, does not extend that courtesy.

It has nothing to do with whether or not the BSA is conservative or liberal. It is a matter of bigotry and discrimination, and whether or not those things should be condoned.

I think that would be an extreme sign of disrespect...


It would be an affront, certainly - it would be an obvious and effective boycott. That's how you effect change.


...to an organisation whose policy, though misguided, is not intended as hateful, or mean-spirited.


I don't care why they are motivated. Acting like and asshole is acting like an asshole, no matter why.


It sends a horribly mixed message to on one hand claim that eight years of not talking to groups we disagree with has come to an end, but then spit in the face of groups which disagree with you, but choose to honour the office you serve in anyway

You're right. He should also accept the KKK's "Coolest Ni**er in Washington" award.

Your claim the New Black Panther Party has a legitimate legacy with the Black Panther Party is false, that is not a "trivial semantic detail [sic]"

I don't care whether or not there is a legitimate legacy. I care that people are intelligent enough to assume that when I say "The Black Panthers endorsed Obama" I obviously mean the New Black Panther Party, since it's the one around to endorse him.

You're right. He should also accept the KKK's "Coolest Ni**er in Washington" award.

It's really an odd analogy, really. Obama wants to talk to diplomats from countries like Iran, not become an Iranian citizen or the honorary head of the Iranian government.

It isn't as if Obama couldn't refuse this honorary position and still talk to the BSA.

the potential for reformers and moderates to work together on a compromise to the legitimate concerns of BSA over the safety of the children in their care

According to the Boy Scouts' position in the Supreme Court case, their "concern" has nothing whatsoever to do with "safety". YOU may think gays = pedophiles, but that is not the position of the Boy Scouts.
an organisation whose policy, though misguided, is not intended as hateful, or mean-spirited.
According to the Boy Scouts, their concern is solely that allowing gay scoutmasters will make it more difficult to teach the boys to regard us as inherently immoral. The policy IS, indeed, intended to be hateful and mean-spirited: they want the boys to grow up thinking of us as monsters, and are afraid that if the boys actually see us as real people, it will be more difficult to instil the proper hateful attitude in them.

I dunno about that. I wouldn't put it past my old troop to enforce discrimination against gays and atheists, were they to publicly admit that they were such. But then, this is Georgia. Of course, I was a Christian back then, especially when I was actually active(my last few years I'd show up once every few months or so), so it didn't really come up for me.

It largely depends upon the troop, from my experience. As a youngin' I was in scouts, and we were a fairly intense troop when it came to service, camping, education and sports, but we never touched on sexuality, although religion (specifically, a manifestation of a Jeffersonian civic religion) was occasional. The usual reference was to a "Great spirit" rather than a god.

Wow....so the founder of Scouts was a possible pedophile....just..wow....

Well, at least he never acted on it, and didn't want the scout masters to act on it.

Possible or possibly not.

But regardless Baden-Powell was British and well you know the rest. What we are talking about here is the American Branch of the international scouting movement, and like a lot of things Americans tend to change things around and act as seperate entities.

Critics, outraged that the Boy Scouts of America are allowed to exclude gays and atheists while receiving federal funding

Fuck, is that true?

He's either gay or non-Christian.
Both.
Fuck, is that true?
Of course it is. Non-discrimination statutes do not cover sexual orientation, and while they do cover religious discrimination, it doesn't apply to discrimination against the non-religious.

Might I suggest you write to him and ask him to ensure that cancelling federal funds and access to public lands is speedily is on this year's legislative agenda?

I can understand federal funds, but access to federal lands? While the ideal solution is to privatize the lands and cut taxes by the relevant amount, in the meantime shouldn't everyone whose wealth is being taken at gunpoint to pay for BLM and NPS lands be entitled to use them?

I realize that they're different institutions, but here in Canada we pretty much ignore the issues of religion and even gender in the scouts. We still have both Scouts and Guides (the female age-range equivalent), but it's not uncommon for the more outdoorsy, adventurous girls to sign up for Scouts (which is awesome, as any fourteen year-old male with an eye for outdoorsy, adventurous ladies will tell you).

In my troop we did have a leader or two who were more religious, but at the core of it we were more concerned with camping, hiking, fishing, canoing, and other useful skills.

I can understand federal funds, but access to federal lands? While the ideal solution is to privatize the lands and cut taxes by the relevant amount, in the meantime shouldn't everyone whose wealth is being taken at gunpoint to pay for BLM and NPS lands be entitled to use them?

The BSA receives special access to federal lands above and beyond that of any other civilian group. This access should be revoked and they should be subject to exactly the same regulations and restrictions on such use as everyone else.

The BSA receives special access to federal lands above and beyond that of any other civilian group. This access should be revoked and they should be subject to exactly the same regulations and restrictions on such use as everyone else.

Making such a decision would violate a Supreme Court decision.

Making such a decision would violate a Supreme Court decision.

You're telling me that the Supreme Court found some clause in the Constitution that gives special consideration to the BSA - notwithstanding the fact that the BSA did not exist when it was written and none of the amendments specifically mention it?

You're telling me that the Supreme Court found some clause in the Constitution that gives special consideration to the BSA - notwithstanding the fact that the BSA did not exist when it was written and none of the amendments specifically mention it?

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/28/scotus.gay.boyscouts/

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the Boy Scouts of America can bar homosexuals from being troop leaders.

The justices by a 5-4 vote overturned a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that the dismissal of a gay Scout leader had been illegal under the state's anti-discrimination law.

The Boy Scouts, which also exclude atheists and agnostics as leaders, said it has the right to decide who can join its ranks.

Forcing it to accept gays would violate its constitutional right of freedom of association and free speech under the First Amendment, it said.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist agreed. He said for the court majority that applying a state public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit a gay troop leader violates the group's constitutional right of expressive association.

He added, however, "We are not, as we must not be, guided by our views of whether the Boy Scouts' teaching with respect to homosexual conduct are right or wrong."

Rehnquist's opinion was joined by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Dissenting were Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

The case was brought by James Dale, who wanted to become an adult leader of the local Boy Scouts after distinguishing himself as a member. He was admitted to Order of the Arrow honor camping society and earned the Eagle Scout badge, Scouting's highest honor and one that only 3 percent of Scouts receive.

When he was fired as assistant Scout master of the Matawan, New Jersey, troop in 1990, Dale was 20.

Now 29, he sued the Boy Scouts in 1992 after the Boy Scouts of America rejected his application for the adult leadership position and subsequently fired him. The Boy Scouts told him in writing that homosexuality was contrary to the organization's values.

The Scout oath requires members to be "morally straight." The organization "takes the position that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the Scout oath ... and contrary to the Scout Law to be 'clean' in word and deed," according to Thomas E. Baker, a constitutional scholar at the Drake University Law School in Des Moines, Iowa, who wrote an impartial analysis of the case for the American Bar Association.

The Boy Scouts found out that Dale was gay after a newspaper article revealed that fact. Dale, as co-president of Rutgers University's Lesbian/Gay Alliance, gave a speech in July 1990, which was the subject of the article, and later that month, he received a dismissal letter from the Boy Scouts.

Dale sued under New Jersey's anti-discrimination act, which bars discrimination based on race, national origin or sexual orientation, among others, in places of "public accommodation."

Last year, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the Boy Scouts illegally terminated Dale in violation of the "public accommodation" provision and ordered the organization to reinstate him.

The court ruled that the Boy Scouts, whose membership is vast and varied, is not essentially a private club that can exclude members based on this criterion or that.

The court ruled that the anti-discrimination law applies because "Scouting was not sufficiently personal or private," according to Baker's analysis.

In other words, the New Jersey high court rejected the Boy Scouts' arguments that it was a private group and therefore the anti-discrimination law does not apply in the case.

Boy Scouts' arguments based on First Amendment

The Boy Scouts appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which accepted the case on January 14 of this year and heard oral arguments on April 26, the last day for arguments this term.

The Supreme Court has ruled that James Dale can be barred from serving as a Boy Scout leader because he is gay

The Boy Scouts argued that its First Amendment free speech and freedom of association rights were violated by the New Jersey high court.

The Boy Scouts insisted that it is up to them, not to any court, to decide who will be an adult Scout leader and who will not and who is an appropriate role model for younger Scouts and who is not.

The Boy Scouts have been sued many times before in state courts, but the organization has consistently won judgments that say it does not fall under state public accommodations laws.

State courts in California, Connecticut, Oregon and Kansas have ruled in the Boy Scouts' favor in similar public-accommodation cases brought by girls, atheists, homosexuals and the like. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has also ruled similarly, according to Baker.
Oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court

During oral arguments, George A. Davidson, an attorney for the Boy Scouts, argued that the Scouts were right in firing Dale because he "had created a reputation for himself" by publicizing his sexual preference and that his being gay hampered his ability to be a role model for Scouts.

Evan Wolfson, Dale's lawyer, argued that because the Boy Scouts are not specifically an "anti-gay organization," Dale's presence did not taint the group's message. He added that Dale did not seek to use his position as a Scout leader to advocate homosexuality.

"For 12 years they said, 'You're perfect, just what we want, get involved, it's family,'" Dale said before the case was argued. "Then they found one small thing about who you are and kicked me out."

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/28/scotus.gay.boyscouts/

You realize this has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said, right?

Nothing in this decision says that treating the BSA like every other private group when it comes to use of public lands would violate the Constitution.

Try again.

You realize this has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said, right?

Nothing in this decision says that treating the BSA like every other private group when it comes to use of public lands would violate the Constitution.

Try again.

The Boy Scouts, as a private group, who are not a "public accomodation", have no reason to comply with government regulations concerning discrimination.

And, as a private group, they can use public lands. Without having to worry about discrimination laws.

If what you say was true, they wouldn't be holding their yearly jamboree at Ft. A.P. Hill every year - a piece of Federal land.

http://www.bsajamboree.org/staff.html

I'll let reality speak for itself.

I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying that ever since Roe v. Wade, people have figured out that the best and most permanent way to "win" what they want is to take it to the Supreme Court.

After that, no one can pass anything short of a Constitutional Amendment that would offer relief.

Not to mention that "use of public lands" for Scouts usually involves things like pitching tents and white-water rafting. Terrible offenses, I know. Plus they generally leave the place cleaner than when they arrived! Horror!

In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that the Scouts can bar homosexuals from being troop leaders.

Because of the Boy Scouts' exclusionary practices, some public schools across the country tried to limit or end their ties with the organization. But in 2001 the federal government ordered public schools to keep their doors open to the Scouts. And Congress, responding to the threat of campus lockouts, voted to cut federal funding to any school that banned the Scouts or any similar group from "open forum" access.

Taxpayers also fund Boy Scout activities with several millions of dollars through military personnel, federal land use and other assistance. Taxpayers doled out roughly $8 million for the 2005 Jamboree, held every four years.

The fact that the US Supreme Court ruled that gay people could be banned from being troop leaders I find repulsive and disgraceful - the fact that the US Congress voted to cut federal funding to public schools if they cut ties with the Boy Scouts I also find disgraceful.

Although I'm not in the least surprised - the US Government seems to have been largely anti-democratic (lul..) and anti-human rights and anti-science over the past 8-9 years.

The Boy Scouts, as a private group, who are not a "public accomodation", have no reason to comply with government regulations concerning discrimination.

And, as a private group, they can use public lands. Without having to worry about discrimination laws.

You seem to have missed a part of this conversation, so I'll say it again.

The BSA currently gets special access to federal lands above and beyond that of other private groups.

What I said was that this special access should be revoked, such that the BSA would be treated like any other private organization.. Nothing you have said or linked shows any reason that this could not be done.

If what you say was true, they wouldn't be holding their yearly jamboree at Ft. A.P. Hill every year - a piece of Federal land.

What I said was what I think should be done. In fact, you've just supported what I said. The reason that the BSA holds their yearly jamboree there is that they get special access to that particular bit of federal land - and the taxpayers basically fund their jamboree. What other private organization gets that type of consideration?

I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying that ever since Roe v. Wade, people have figured out that the best and most permanent way to "win" what they want is to take it to the Supreme Court.

In this case, the BSA was allowed to continue their discriminatory practices. The decision did not address the special access they currently get to federal lands or the federal funding they get - both of which should be revoked.

They should be treated just like any other private group.

The fact that the US Supreme Court ruled that gay people could be banned from being troop leaders I find repulsive and disgraceful

You find the freedom to refuse to associate with those one does not wish to associate "repulsive and disgraceful"?

wow...really? Its not discrimination against gays and non believers, it has to do with the common good. Seriously...omg...how many people would enjoy their kid being eyed, or even touched by a homosexual leader. Its just wrong. and the non believers thing...gimme a break. i have an athiest in my troop. no one has a problem.

Yeah, because all us gay people are pedophiles.
Your ignorance is showing, you should remain silent while you fix that problem.

My kid brother was a Boy Scout for several years. My partner is actually an Eagle Scout. (Yes, I tease him unmercifully about this.)

Scouting had a lot of good aspects for my brother and for my boyfriend, but at this point I pretty much think it's disgraceful for any parent to allow their child to join the Scouts. The Scouts are openly homophobic, sexist, and bigoted against atheists. Letting your child join a group like that is no different--in my eyes--than letting your kid join a group that is openly racist.

Saying, "Oh, well, that's just the NATIONAL policy, individual troupes don't pay attention to it" is cowardly and foolish. Would you put your child in an organization where their national policy was that black people can't join? Or that black men can't be troupe leaders because they'll rape all the Scouts?

You find the freedom to refuse to associate with those one does not wish to associate "repulsive and disgraceful"?

When it's from a completely private organization with private funding and resources, they can do whatever the hell they want. When they do it with government funding and government resources, it becomes government sponsored belief, which is what the whole bit on Separation of Church and State is supposed to clamp down on.

You find the freedom to refuse to associate with those one does not wish to associate "repulsive and disgraceful"?

Only if and when they accept government funding. If they relied on private donations and funding, then they can discriminate against whomever they wish. But when they accept my tax dollars, they should and are held to a different standard, because then they amount to a government-sponsored organization. And yes, I find the government sponsoring the exclusion of anyone for reasons not based on merit to be "repulsive and disgraceful".

I don't care whether or not there is a legitimate legacy. I care that people are intelligent enough to assume that when I say "The Black Panthers endorsed Obama" I obviously mean the New Black Panther Party, since it's the one around to endorse him.

Similarly, when I say "Hussein", I am obviously talking about Barack Hussein Obama, and not the late head of Iraq.

The thing is that once you start looking at the individual scout troops, or venture crews, or sea scout ships, no one really cares about the policys that natinal puts into the place. they follow the saftey procedures and such but the descrimitory policys from natinal are totally ignored.

Truth. Even the safety procedures aren't always followed, at least in my old troop. I carried a bowie knife with me all the time.

However, Bottle brings up an excellent point, and it was actually why, even though I was the "ideal" scout in that troop, I quit instead of getting my Eagle Scout. I'm agnostic and bisexual, and I saw too many people who just went through the motions get the award, instead of, you know, having good character.

However, scouting ultimately is about drilling in obedience to the state and extreme nationalism, all under the guise of "duty to god and country." I'm happy not being a brownshirt.

Only if and when they accept government funding. If they relied on private donations and funding, then they can discriminate against whomever they wish. But when they accept my tax dollars, they should and are held to a different standard, because then they amount to a government-sponsored organization. And yes, I find the government sponsoring the exclusion of anyone for reasons not based on merit to be "repulsive and disgraceful".

Don't forget the audacity of asking someone to be your "patron", when you (as the article pointed out) consider his beloved mother unworthy to join.

"You don't like my momma ? Why should I like you ?"

Not to mention that "use of public lands" for Scouts usually involves things like pitching tents and white-water rafting. Terrible offenses, I know. Plus they generally leave the place cleaner than when they arrived! Horror!

/thread

I can understand federal funds, but access to federal lands? While the ideal solution is to privatize the lands and cut taxes by the relevant amount, in the meantime shouldn't everyone whose wealth is being taken at gunpoint to pay for BLM and NPS lands be entitled to use them?
I'm assuming that the US Scouts have special access to federal and state parks. We did in the UK, at least, and the government doesn't even own those.

When it's from a completely private organization with private funding and resources, they can do whatever the hell they want. When they do it with government funding and government resources, it becomes government sponsored belief, which is what the whole bit on Separation of Church and State is supposed to clamp down on.

Only if and when they accept government funding. If they relied on private donations and funding, then they can discriminate against whomever they wish. But when they accept my tax dollars, they should and are held to a different standard, because then they amount to a government-sponsored organization. And yes, I find the government sponsoring the exclusion of anyone for reasons not based on merit to be "repulsive and disgraceful".

Agreed.

Similarly, when I say "Hussein", I am obviously talking about Barack Hussein Obama, and not the late head of Iraq.

Except Obama is most well known as Obama and Saddam is the best known of the Husseins running around.

Except Obama is most well known as Obama and Saddam is the best known of the Husseins running around.

Conspiracy theorist. Saddam was killed, no matter what you people say!

The Scouts are openly homophobic,
Unfortunately true. They got rather hard core lately. In my time, we didn't enforce it.

sexist,
What because they don't allow girls? Well if the Girl Scouts didn't exist; I would agree with you.

and bigoted against atheists.
How many atheists actually want to join? I really don't know. Are there atheists being tossed or denied? Is it a case of "Evangelistic" atheists on the hunt for anything that would deny them? In my day, I can't recall an incident. As I said I don't know.

Letting your child join a group like that is no different--in my eyes--than letting your kid join a group that is openly racist.
Well that is your opinion.

If the organization is going to change; it will be from an effort from within. The old codgers on the main council came from other troops. If the policies will change, it will be from an "enlightened" individual from one of the troops.....

Saying, "Oh, well, that's just the NATIONAL policy, individual troupes don't pay attention to it" is cowardly and foolish. Would you put your child in an organization where their national policy was that black people can't join? Or that black men can't be troupe leaders because they'll rape all the Scouts?

You really don't know what's going on at the local troops? Everybody just marches lock and step; right? There is an internal fight going on.....

Since you like analogies. Do you throw the whole barrel out because of a couple bad apples?

Except Obama is most well known as Obama and Saddam is the best known of the Husseins running around.

And the New Black Panther Party is best known as the New Black Panther Party.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/03/critics-boy-scouts-urge-obama-denounce-group/

There's irony in here somewhere, I'm just not sure exactly where.

Meh I guess I would take the award as it is supposedly indented as a complement

I would also cut all federal funding to the organization based on its discriminatory view.

I had a gay friend who was an Eagle Scout. I always supposed it was like the military today - "don't ask, don't tell."

I had a gay friend who was an Eagle Scout. I always supposed it was like the military today - "don't ask, don't tell."

I was about 75 percent of the way there when my interests wandered to other pursuits.

I guess sexuality never a topic of discussion but I find it disturbing that a simple act of reasonable disclosure to anyone would be grounds for dismissal

Strike that not disturbing, disgusting

Both for the military as well as boyscouts