Have anyone else taken note concerning the Boy Scouts

You're clueless . . . bye . . .

Bye right back.............

Really?

So there could be a god but you can choose not to believe?

What is even more interesting is that there been no showings that being a non-believer have any tied in to not being a moral and upright citizen with the percents of atheists in prison for example being far far lower then their percents in the general population any more then being gay for that matter had a tied in to not being useful and moral citizens.

The KKK and the Boy Scouts have far too must now in common and neither should have a Federal charter or any support from the taxpayers that included gay and atheist taxpayers.

Your equating the Boy Scouts with the KKK is just absurd. The attempt to associate the two groups is clearly designed to be inflammatory rather than logical. No matter how one feels about the Boy Scouts exclusionary membership policies, or even their stated organizational principles, they are not the equivalent of a virulent hate group with a historical track record of terrorist tactics. Drumming up the images of white-hooded mobs burning crosses, fire-bombing homes, and hanging people from tree limbs, does not serve to advance your argument opposing the Boy Scouts policies, it simply makes you seem like an overly histrionic fool who is trying to persuade through smear tactics rather than reason.

This topic is also disingenuous because, in your opening post, you assume that the Boy Scouts exclusion of atheists and agnostics has received little attention or note. If you are so concerned with this issue, you surely should be aware that considerable litigation and public discussion of this matter has already taken place, and, if you're not aware of that fact, you should acquaint yourself with the court rulings, and public and corporate discussions, and decisions, on the topic ASAP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies

Congress has voted, overwhelmingly, in support of continuing the Scouts federal charter, so, grumbling about that to your Senator or Congressional Representative is likely to get you nowhere, particularly in a country that has the word "God" plastered on its money, displayed in its courthouses, and, in the 1950's, inserted it into the Pledge of Allegiance. And, virtually all recent Presidents have ended addresses to the nation by saying, "God bless the United States." The emphasis on the spiritual elements within our secular government is strong, and, therefore, not really at odds with, or inconsistent with, similar spiritual elements in the Boy Scouts formal Statement of Religious Principles. Spirituality is quite distinct from religion, and atheists and agnostics are confronted with government sponsored and endorsed spiritual messages rather constantly, and that has been the case since our country's inception. It is unlikely that these spiritual messages and references to "God" will ever entirely vanish from our government discourse, and non-believers generally learn to live with that because it is part of the fabric of our particular American culture.

Personally, I see a distinct difference between the Boy Scouts discrimination against homosexuals and their exclusion of atheists and agnostics. I see the antipathy toward gays as stemming from interpretations of particular religious beliefs and mind-set, and an attempt to promote morality and conduct which is in line with such religious beliefs, just as is done by many churches--and such beliefs are not intended to be all-embracing or all-accepting . The exclusion of atheists and agnostics, on the other hand, is essentially directed toward those people who are at odds with the basic spiritual core values espoused and promoted by the organization, and, if admitted, such individuals could well have an undesirable, and divisive, and corrosive, influence on the spiritual values which comprise an essential element of the organization's foundation. While I might disagree with both of these policies, I would uphold the right of a private non-profit group to have Freedom of Assembly with members of their own choosing.

In terms of its spiritual elements, I see the Boy Scouts as far more akin to a group like Alcoholics Anonymous, in the sense of promoting, or advocating, belief in some higher power among members, than I do with your attempts to link it to virulent hate groups. And, simply based on its exclusion of atheists and agnostics, without getting into the homosexual issue, I would not necessarily deny the Boy Scouts equal access, with a group like AA, when it comes to the use of public facilities for activities and meetings.

Look, if you don't like the Boy Scouts policies, don't let your children or grandchildren join, don't contribute money to them, don't support or patronize their corporate sponsors, write to your elected representatives protesting the Scouts receipt of any government benefits, and try to support alternative youth organizations with policies more to your liking. Trying to force a private group, with many positives in its favor, to alter its basic spiritual belief structure, and to abandon one of its foundational elements, simply to accommodate those who disagree with, or oppose, its core spiritual values, not only is an unreasonable demand, it reveals your own anti-religious bias and intolerance. Your own intolerance is no better than, or more noble than, or more defensible than, that of the Boy Scouts.

Certainly.

LOL sorry while it is true that the Scouts do not have a history of setting off bombs in churches to blow up children over blacks drive for civil rights for example in the 1950s they do share the idea that shunning other citizens for their characters such as being gay or being an atheist in the case of the scout is acceptable.

As far as changes will never happen take note that the scouts are now losing memberships and funding over the gay scout issue and the courts are likely to act to protect gays rights and congress members are in the process of backtracking over the issue of gay rights.Something that even ten years ago would not had been dream of.

Now the idea of your that unlike gays citizens atheists or agnostic can not be moral citizens is indeed interesting so the scouts have some ground to rejected them on religion/moral grounds.The same grounds they had are now rejecting gays as scouts as a matter of fact.

Now unlike the percent of gays in the society the percents of non-believers are growing in the US so I would not be so sure that the right wing religions politicians will hold their own concerning non-believers anymore then when it come to gays. Gays that the Christian bible call for killing.

Also take note that a belief in a god or gods to be a scout is not strangely require when it come to a billion or so Buddhists for example.

Yes the scouts have a right to be as bigots as the KKK in picking it membership however it does not have a right then to take funds or other benefits from the taxpayers when a not small fraction of those taxpayers are either gay or non-believers or both.

Times are a changing both for gays and for non-believers rights.

If I were the scouts leadership I would bit the bullet on both the gay issue and the non-believer issue at the same time because if they do not the problem of losing funding from major companies over them being bigots is not going to go away and the attacks on them being granted public benefits is not going to go away either.

Can you quote where I allegedly said that?

If you can't accurately understand, or interpret, my posts, you really should refrain from commenting on them.

I made no statements regarding the morality, or lack of it, on the part of those who are atheists or agnostics.

Since when do "non-believer's rights" include their "right" to be accepted into a private organization that includes a commitment to spiritual beliefs as one of their major guiding principles?

Doesn't your conception of civil rights include the freedom to assemble, in private groups and organizations, with like-minded people, who share your views and organizational aims? Why should the Boy Scouts, welcome atheist and agnostic members, or leaders, who do not subscribe to their guiding spiritual principles and aims?

So, what's the big deal if the Boy Scouts do lose members and funding because of their stance on atheists and agnostics? If it's more important to them to retain their essential spiritual principles and aims, rather than compromise in a way that could destroy or erode these values, such as by accepting agnostics and atheists as members, it would show a true commitment to what they believe.

You seem to be dragging the homosexual issue into this thread, where it really is irrelevant and separate, simply because your argument regarding atheists and agnostics is so weak. See if you can stick to your own topic, which is the Boy Scouts exclusion of agnostics and atheists from membership, and whether this is a justifiable, and acceptable, and legally legitimate, action on the part of a private non-profit organization which seeks to promote spiritual aims.



The Boy Scouts have a perfect right to take private donations and funds from any taxpayer who wishes to contribute to their work.

Exactly how much in taxpayer funds do the Boy Scouts receive directly from the U.S. government?

You've got an interesting perspective on atheists and agnostics.

Most that I know share core values espoused by Boy Scouts - they're just not attaching those values to a god or particular religion.

I'm with Bill on most of this. Thank goodness that many scouting movements and scouting alternatives have evolved to become more modern and inclusive.

If they would give up their Federal charter that among other things allow them to keep anyone else from using the word scout in their organization title and accepting that they have no rights to special/prefer treatments from any level of government at the expense of all the taxpayers I would have no problem with them being bigots.

Their attempts to have it both ways that on the one hand they are a private organization and on the other they are enjoying all kind of special benefits at the hands of governments is morally wrong to say the least.

Either they should be force to give up being bigots or all their special ties with governments. One way or another pick door one or pick door two.

But a core value of the Boy Scouts of America involves an oath to do one's duty to "God and my country." Either one takes an oath honestly or one doesn't.



The Boy Scouts of America seem to be somewhat in a class by themselves when it comes to the religious issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Scouting#Boy_Scouts_of_America

But, as a private non-profit organization, I support their civil right to be exclusionary when they feel that best serves their spiritual principles and aims, even though I might personally find their position regrettable or even offensive. There are many other youth organizations and groups which provide alternatives for those who are either excluded from the Boy Scouts, or those who disagree with their policies.

My mother was excluded from membership in the Girl Scouts when she was a child because the only troop in her area was restricted to only one religious group. When I was a Girl Scout, I don't remember my troop ever being concerned about any religious/spiritual issues and those were never discussed or emphasized, nor were my spiritual "credentials" for membership ever questioned. Had there been a strong spiritual or quasi-religious element, I don't think I'd have wanted to be involved with them.

Thank for the supports and take note however that those scouting alternatives are not allowed to use the word scout anywhere in their title thanks to the Boy Scouts of American federal charter.

It would be nice to be able to have Organizations with such titles as for example The Open Boy Scouts of American or OBSA instead of BSA.

It's the elected representatives of the taxpayers who have overwhelmingly voted to continue their federal charter. Your beef is really with Congress and not with the Boy Scouts. Why should the Boy Scouts give up a federal charter that an overwhelming percentage of Congress wants them to retain? How are the Boy Scouts "morally wrong" in holding onto the federal charter the government has knowingly and voluntarily granted to them?

Does the federal charter give the Boy Scouts any special benefits not shared by other private organizations with federal charters, like the American Red Cross? Is the American Red Cross "morally wrong" to retain their federal charter, along with the benefits it carries, because they are a private non-profit too?

LOL Firelfy the fact that congress up to this point at least had allow the BOA to be both bigots and still enjoy special benefits from all taxpayers does not make it either morally correct or constitutional or in the best tradition of our nation.

Once more I have no problem with them being bigots just not being bigots at the same time as having their hands into my pockets while stating that I would not be a fit person to be a member.

It is the same as before the civil right movement where blacks taxpayers found themselves in the south paying for infrastructures that they was bare from enjoying for themselves and their families.

Once more I had no problem if the Scouts wish to be bigots as long as they keep their hands out of my pockets and other nonbelievers and gays under the principle that if we are not worthy of being members then we are not worthy of helping them fund their programs.

To sum up they are no more entitle to public fundings under their current policies then the KKK happen to be or for special protections.

So once more they should be given two choices one being an open organization or being a private one with no ties to the government of any type.

As I said, your beef is really with Congress regarding the federal charter and the other benefits the government has chosen to provide to the Boy Scouts.

In fact, the votes in Congress have sometimes been at odds with court rulings against continuing some of the privileges the Boy Scouts enjoy. But, it's Congress that represents the will of the people...

LOL well 15 percents of the people agree with you concerning congress representing the will of the people.

If this were really true, you would see more turnover in Congress, but for some reason people keep getting re-elected.

Sorry, the Supreme Court has already ruled that some discriminatory practices by the Boy Scouts are Constitutional.


And the vote in Congress, not to revoke the Boy Scouts federal charter, wasn't even close...


If the issue was the Boy Scouts discrimination against nontheists, like atheists and agnostics, rather than gays, I'm not sure the proposal to revoke their federal charter would have even gotten those 12 votes.

Lot of reasons why there is little turn over in Congress even those the people as a whole are very unhappy with Congress as a whole and that could take more then a side issue on this thread to cover.

Well aware of that Firefly along with the SC ruling at one point in it history that held that separate but equal should be the standards for race relations or that blacks even free blacks could not be citizens of the US or..........................

As long as the scouts are taking many special benefits from the government that is not open to other private organizations then turning around and claiming a private organization rights to discrimination it is a problem SC ruling or no SC ruling.

In fact as soon as possible I am going to look up that SC ruling and see what kind of logic the majority happen to employed and to see what the minority opinions stated.

Should be interesting to say the least.