What have you done for me lately?

[Pie]

They lead their young by example. If you do not teach acceptance and tolerance, you teach rejection and hate.
Oh yeah, and if you have AIDS, forget being a Scout...

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by Pie

They lead their young by example. If you do not teach acceptance and tolerance, you teach rejection and hate.
Oh yeah, and if you have AIDS, forget being a Scout...

oh BS. i teach my son that stealing is wrong. i don't teach him that anyone who steals is worthy of our hate.

jinx - my gripe is that the BSA can be a valuable experience in a child's life. it is an organization that has been very positive for many many people. they aren't on the sidewalks handing out christian/buddhist/hindi tracts or proselytizng people, but because recognizing a higher power is a core value of the group they are now rejected from the assistance they have historically received.

[Pie]

Originally Posted by lookout123

oh BS. i teach my son that stealing is wrong. i don't teach him that anyone who steals is worthy of our hate.

Screw it. You can teach your son whatever you like. The Boy Scouts can teach their members whatever they like, too. But they CAN'T DO IT WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT. That's all the original ACLU case was about.
Lookout, do you teach your son that homosexuality is "wrong"? How will that impact the way he treats gays, for the rest of his life? How about us atheists?

[jinx]

Originally Posted by lookout123

jinx - my gripe is that the BSA can be a valuable experience in a child's life. it is an organization that has been very positive for many many people. they aren't on the sidewalks handing out christian/buddhist/hindi tracts or proselytizng people, but because recognizing a higher power is a core value of the group they are now rejected from the assistance they have historically received.

It's wrong that they ever received gov't assistance (regardless of how valuable you think their services are) - not wrong that they won't anymore. You can try to minimize it all you want, but requiring recognition of a higher power as a core value of the group is a major sticking point with some Americans.

[mrnoodle]

So, people are now fighting to be included in an organization whose principles they reject?

why?

[Pie]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

So, people are now fighting to be included in an organization whose principles they reject?

I can't speak for them (although I would guess they'd like to change those principles). What I am fighting for is to yank their public funding.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Pie

They lead their young by example. If you do not teach acceptance and tolerance, you teach rejection and hate.
Oh yeah, and if you have AIDS, forget being a Scout...

Official reference regarding tolerance.

Consistent with the obligations of the Scout Oath and Law, Scouting teaches youth to show tolerance and respect for all human beings. The Scout Law requires youth to be helpful, friendly, courteous, and kind to all, and Scouts are taught to be respectful of those whose views may be different from their own. Scouting teaches both tolerance and clear moral values. Tolerance for all does not mean that all behavior must be accepted as appropriate for those in Scouting.

It is possible to be tolerant, and selective. Tolerance is not anarchy. Even if it were, anarchy is not hatred. Intolerance is not the same as hatred. You wildly overstate the truth. Do you have standards? Do you hate everything that doesn't match your standards? Does your intolerance make you a hypocrite?

[Pie]

Originally Posted by BigV

It is possible to be tolerant, and selective. Tolerance is not anarchy. Even if it were, anarchy is not hatred. Intolerance is not the same as hatred. You wildly overstate the truth. Do you have standards? Do you hate everything that doesn't match your standards? Does your intolerance make you a hypocrite?

(calming down)
Yes. One should have standards. However, one cannot espouse religiously-derived standards as membership criteria for an organization and still receive government funding.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by BigV

It is possible to be tolerant, and selective.

Absolutely, it's called segregation. Except for some progroms and inquistions, Jews have been tolerated for most of the past 2000 years. Even in the early 20th century United State, we were tolerated. It was only when we tried to check into certain hotels and join certain country clubs that we found the difference between 'tolerance' and 'inclusion'.

I appreciate the good work of the Scouts. I was a Cub Scout a long time ago. However, as good citizens, the Scouting organization should be the first to understand the need to uphold principals, and one principal of this nation is that individuals should not be forced to have their taxes go to support organizations which actively discriminate against them (except for the armed forces). This includes the use of public resources.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by lookout123

because the boy scouts require all members to acknowledge the existence of God, providing them with assistance or sponsorship would be a violation of separation of church and state. apparently this was a victory for the ACLU?

Makes sense to me, I don't understand your gripe.

[Happy Monkey]

They're taught to exclude gays and atheists. Whether they're taught to hate them as well is, like so many things in Scouting, up to the individual troop. What can raise the most bad feelings is that most kids at the age in which you join the Scouts don't have set views on religion or sexuality, and they only come into their realization after several years in a troop. If at that point they are atheist or gay, they have to either quit, play along, or announce. If they announce, many troops would be happy to let them stay, but the greater organization comes down and overrules them, which never causes happy feelings.

[mrnoodle]

Oh, okay. I guess that's cool, as long as they yank the NEA's as well. The government pays for too much fluff anyway.

stick-poking aside, if the BSA's public funding is revoked, can they keep their little creed thing?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Oh, okay. I guess that's cool, as long as they yank the NEA's as well.

Totally different. While you may not value the National Endowment for the Arts (I don't really either), you can apply to get funds from that endowment, the same as every elephant dung artist out there.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Pie

I guess we disagree right here. If the Scouts say that a gay person is not "Morally Straight", then they are condemning an individual. In fact, an entire class of individuals. That opinion is most certainly transmitted to the youth they lead.

Look, Pie. What "the Scouts say" and what *I* say as a Scout leader don't match all the time. Does that make me unqualified as a Scout leader? You know, this isn't the Whitehouse with an airtight policy alignment of adherence to the party line. You make an easy mistake by short circuiting a couple of points and making a direct zap to your conclusion. Avowed homosexuals cannot be leaders in the organization --> organization says gays are not morally straight --> different==evil==worthy of hate.

Come on. It just *isn't that way*. If you know these people, these Scouters and you don't jive with them, move 10 blocks west and connect with another troop. This is a very local organization. The ideas you're so apoplectic over are coming from Irving, Texas. That's far far away from me. On purpose. You can associate with like minded people in any organization. Look at our diverse country, we all get along as a country. Look at the cellar, we get along here too, despite some unbridgeable divides. If you looked into Scouting, you'd find that there's a way to get along there too.

Your characterizations of the BSA as haters just is not true. Whether or not you choose to persue it further is entirely up to you.

[Pie]

Originally Posted by BigV

Look, Pie. What "the Scouts say" and what *I* say as a Scout leader don't match all the time.

But aren't all members of an organization responsible for the actions of that organization? In college, I read a book called "Exit, Voice and Loyalty" that had a few ideas that really stuck with me. If one fundamentally disagrees with the tenants of an organization, one has two options: exit or voice. "Loyalty" in this context is the triumph of complacency over ethos.