BoyandGirlScouts.com – News, Opinion, Advice

admin Says:

2 October 2008 at 1:08 pm.

I guess “Shame on the other members of Congress” doesn’t sound too friendly to me. I don’t begrudge his position, but if you’re going to have a blog that is constantly attacking religion a better name might be “The Antagonistic Atheist” or “The Umbrage of the Unbeliever” or “Resisting Religion” or “Against the 90% of the Country that Supports Religion”. Well, that last one might be too long to really get Google hits, but you get my point.

And his readers. Phew! Tossing out genital references as a debating tactic, strawman arguments that say BSA supporters believe that all gays are pedophiles, calling Scouts bigots while technically true also applies to any group that excludes anyone (but who cares if it’s not one’s particular issue), but my biggest problem was quoting a lie in his post stating that tax dollars are being given to the Scouts with this bill. The coins are being sold with the surcharge being paid by willing buyers not by taxation to the population at large. If it in any way could be considered a tax it would be a tax that only applies to those who support Scouts.

I consider attacking and lying unfriendly. That’s why.

admin Says:

2 October 2008 at 3:12 pm.

I think a friendly person can manage to disagree with another without using petulant phrases like “shame on you” so I think that still stands. I did note what he said, but the presence of so many antagonistic comments just adds to my point. The fact that the tone is somewhat low on a consistent basis reflects back on the blogger because he doesn’t ever seem to correct misstatements made on his site. It’s not really a big point for me, it just is an addition to the atmosphere I picked up.

Your comment about school charters and the inability to exclude based on the government’s policies versus Scout policies brings up two things. First, most units exist quasi-independently from the national council. It’s a unifying force, but unless pressed units tend to operate on the values of the members and neighborhood of that unit. Pretty much everyone I know has a kind of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy. If no one makes an issue out of something others aren’t going to do it for them. I know leaders who vehemently disagree with some of the controversial stances the BSA has taken. It doesn’t figure into our program and so we don’t make a big deal out of it. I figure that 99% of the time friends and neighbors in the same unit are willing to overlook differences of opinion or even orientation on things they don’t believe influence the way the unit works. If another unit has a leader in charge of teaching Scoutcraft and he doesn’t believe in God and doesn’t demand everyone acknowledge his right to do so then I’ll never know about it and it will never affect me. Is that 100% honest? I guess not. I’m not interested in witch hunts. I want to teach our boys good values and fun skills. I’m not out to convert others.

The second issue is the role of the sponsoring institution. The schools are using Scouts as one of a variety of tools to improve the community and teach the children. If there is a girls’ glee club then they would be enforcing the policy of excluding boys. If there is a African American study group then they’re enforcing the policy of excluding other races. Scouting doesn’t exist in a vacuum with no other after school opportunities available to kids. It’s just this particular program that has its rules while others have theirs and hopefully the school is using any program that enhances the education and quality of life for its students. And this is for that 1% who are making an issue out of enforcing everything all the time.

Mostly we in Scouting are just saying, “Stop trying to force your values down my throat”. If you don’t want to support us then that’s your prerogative. If you don’t like us then that’s your right, too. Just stop trying to force our millions of members to publicly embrace your personal values because you think you know what’s best for everyone. Far more disagree with your stance on changing the BSA than agree with it, but we’re not trying to get you shut out of public life and we’re certainly not asking the courts and government to make you change your values.

Mostly, the kids just need a room that can fit 15 to 30 people at a time and schools have that kind of room. They know that Scouting keeps kids safe both physically and mentally and the principals and board members aren’t willing to give that up just to make others feel more warm and cozy in their righteous indignation.

So, I’m totally cool with schools being sponsors. Wish we had more of them.

admin Says:

2 October 2008 at 6:08 pm.

Your statement is like a guy standing a millimeter from a tree trunk saying how ugly the forest is. You say that the laws were enacted without an intent to make the BSA change and then used as a method to intimidate the BSA to force them to change how they operate.

The fact of the matter is that people in your camp who strongly believe that their position is right have been using the courts and threats of lawsuits to force change. Of course you think your position is the correct one; why would you work for a position you don’t believe in? In your zealotry, however, you’ve decided that you don’t care who you hurt in the process.

I acknowledged that national BSA has authority. I also stated that local units try to adhere to their own vaules, too, and they’ve worked to find a balance between not condoning certain beliefs and kicking leaders out for something that most people don’t want to know about and may not have anything to do with the unit’s program. That’s not enough for people like you. It has to be completely black or completely white with no possibility of any shade of grey. What’s more, anybody who doesn’t agree with you must be forced into the same viewpoint. Never mind that the organization in question is 100% voluntary with only those who like it attempting to be a part of it. Never mind that the net effect to society is a monetary profit from all of the free services being performed by these volunteers. And never mind that the great majority of the country doesn’t agree with your extreme position.

Your side is a big bully. You intimidate to fix the rules to create an inevitable outcome and then place yourself on a pedastal and try to pretend that you’re just doing what’s right and legal.

You know that the purpose of the laws you bash others over the head with was to prevent government agencies from discriminating, but you twist and mangle the leaglese to promote your agenda. That’s why you’re able to convince judges who are looking for excuses to rule against the BSA. All during this process you try portray the BSA as a mean-spirited awful thing and you’ve succeeded with some. I’ve had people sneer and insult me while I smiling stood in front of a store trying to do fundraising with my young son.

So you’ll drive this organization into extinction in an effort to make it better. If that isn’t missing the forest for the trees I don’t know what is.

Brian Westley Says:

2 October 2008 at 7:37 pm.

“You say that the laws were enacted without an intent to make the BSA change and then used as a method to intimidate the BSA to force them to change how they operate.”

It isn’t “forcing” them to change — notice how they aren’t changing. It will lose them special deals like $1/year rent.

“In your zealotry, however, you’ve decided that you don’t care who you hurt in the process.”

Look, you’re the one who has said that public schools running private clubs that exclude atheists is OK with you. Public schools running private clubs that exclude atheists is just like public schools running private clubs that exclude Jews, or Catholics. That’s a violation of civil rights.

“I acknowledged that national BSA has authority. I also stated that local units try to adhere to their own vaules, too, and they’ve worked to find a balance between not condoning certain beliefs and kicking leaders out for something that most people don’t want to know about and may not have anything to do with the unit’s program. That’s not enough for people like you.”

Not for public schools, no, of course not. Do you think public schools can (or should) run private clubs that exclude Jews, but allow Jews to join as long as they don’t make it obvious they’re Jews, by, say, refusing to eat bacon?

“It has to be completely black or completely white with no possibility of any shade of grey.”

The BSA started down this road; when the issue of atheists getting kicked out came up years ago, they should have realized that, with public schools being the largest chartering partner of cub scout packs, they either had to admit atheists or lose all public schools as chartering partners. They chose the latter.

And sorry, public schools can’t infringe on civil rights. That’s a black & white issue too.

“Your side is a big bully.”

YOUR side kicked out 12-year-olds for being atheists (the Randall twins)
YOUR side actively lies to kids by using flyers that say “any boy can join”, and then doesn’t admit atheists.

I’d say your side is the big bully.

“You know that the purpose of the laws you bash others over the head with was to prevent government agencies from discriminating, but you twist and mangle the leaglese to promote your agenda. That’s why you’re able to convince judges who are looking for excuses to rule against the BSA.”

Sorry, it’s about time you realize that being a “private club” that practices religious discrimination creates all kinds of problems with special government arrangements.

“All during this process you try portray the BSA as a mean-spirited awful thing and you’ve succeeded with some. I’ve had people sneer and insult me while I smiling stood in front of a store trying to do fundraising with my young son.”

When the BSA insists on kicking out 12-year-olds, and testifies in court that six-year-olds can’t join, I’d say that counts as mean-spirited. You’re on the receiving end of public scorn because of the BSA’s policies, not me. A lot of people are repelled by the national BSA’s insistence on perpetuating discrimination; you don’t seem very supportive of it yourself. About the least supportive of the BSA’s policies are the scouts themselves.

“So you’ll drive this organization into extinction in an effort to make it better. If that isn’t missing the forest for the trees I don’t know what is.”

You know, as far as atheists are concerned, the BSA is already extinct, since they can’t join. You don’t appear to be concerned about them; you don’t appear to even see them.