|
On October 09 2012 12:13 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 11:59 cLAN.Anax wrote:Guys, GhostTK's post was totally only flamebait. I can't believe people actually responded to him.... m-( @Whitewing: It's a pretty sad state of affairs that the most lenient and tolerant people in the organization tell you to lie about your beliefs to avoid problems. Or just not bring them up in the first place?... There's a time and a place for it, and that's usually privately between parents and child. I can't fathom a reason necessary enough to broach the subject publicly at a Scout function, or even between Scout leaders. It's in their charter that religion is super important to the boy scouts. Seriously, it's one of their core values, and it says as much on their official website. Here's a link to the page: http://www.scouting.org/Visitor/WhyScouting/FaithTraditions.aspxIt's also mentioned in most of the other pages you can look at.
I'm an Eagle Scout, I know all about it, lol. You just have to believe in a God to be a Scout; it doesn't matter which religion you affiliate with. That's the only worldview thing that an adult leader should be asking when conducting a Board of Review.
On October 09 2012 12:02 Doubting wrote:
why does it matter, it isn't like they are being denied a job or something good.
Achieving the rank of Eagle Scout is kind of a big deal for a lot of young men, myself definitely included. It's highly looked upon by employers, professors, peers, etc.
On October 09 2012 12:19 MooMu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 11:59 cLAN.Anax wrote:Guys, GhostTK's post was totally only flamebait. I can't believe people actually responded to him.... m-( @Whitewing: It's a pretty sad state of affairs that the most lenient and tolerant people in the organization tell you to lie about your beliefs to avoid problems. Or just not bring them up in the first place?... There's a time and a place for it, and that's usually privately between parents and child. I can't fathom a reason necessary enough to broach the subject publicly at a Scout function, or even between Scout leaders. Life doesn't work that way. Kids talk amongst themselves, photos are shared, gossip travels around and questions are asked. It was an adult who inquired about the atheist's beliefs in that story related by the Scout a few posts back. Not the kid.
If an atheist Scout is questioned about his beliefs by other Scouts, and he doesn't want to talk about it, he shouldn't have to. I'd actually argue that the kid is being mildly bullied in that situation. Again, that specific discussion, regarding their belief or lack thereof in a God, is meant for the privacy of a Board of Review. That's different from the subject of homosexuality, which shouldn't be brought up first by the leaders at all. If the kid proactively brings it up himself (which I still think is what happened here with Mr. Andersen), then the leaders can, and have to, deal with it.
|
So i haven't read much beyond the OP, this also happens to be my 2nd post on TL. But I am an Eagle Scout of BSA Troop 200. Its a blanket opinion to just hate the BSA because the national Level leaders say things like this. Unless you have been in a Troop, you wouldn't know that the national level of BSA doesn't really do too much to affect the local troops. They are self run, and I can't speak for all troops. I know, but my troop had no problem with whatever religion, race, or sexual orientation you were. During my time in the scouts (this is 6 years ago, I'm 23 now) there were two gay scouts who were in the troop. Both were open, and we didn't give a shit.
I'm sure parents were being parents and probably not happy, but we didn't give a fuck. BSA is supposed to be BOY run troops, the Patrol leaders run the meetings, plan the campouts, organize trips. Its an organization designed for boys to become responsible and gain some independence. Obviously the adults are supposed to supervise when they have too.
I disagree with the BSA on the national level, but my troop and the Eagle award I earned have both helped shape who I am today and I am eternally grateful for that. I will always support the BSA on the local level, and their basic ideals.
ALso a scout's oath and law doesn't say anything about sexuality
Oath: On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.
Law: A Scout is, Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, Reverent.
There is nothing about specific religions, NOR sexuality, Its supposed to be a neutral meeting ground. (above may be posted elsewhere)
|
On October 09 2012 12:33 BloodNinja wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 12:19 shizaep wrote:On October 09 2012 00:47 neversummer wrote:
First of all I don't think anyone is supporting the Boy Scouts of America.
Secondly I applaud them for maintaining their position in the midst of criticism from the community; I've never really cared for what is "politically" correct and quite frankly I don't think gay men should be prancing around with large groups of 8-10 year old boys.
User was temp banned for this post. Temp ban for this post? I'm sorry but I just do not think it's fair? Sure, he didn't get the age group correctly but so now anyone who doesn't agree with having homosexuals in boy scouts should get a temp ban? The user stated their opinion and I'm sure that there are a lot of people who would agree, though obviously not openly on a forum like TL. I swear, people who have one thing to say against homosexuality get bullied 1000x more than homosexuals themselves. Why even let this thread live if the only posts that are allowed are the homosexual praising ones and agreement with OP ones? Issues with moderation go in Website Feedback not in the thread itself. You can also check the exact reason a user was banned on the Automated Ban List. OT - As an Eagle Scout myself, I cannot say I am pleased with the stance the BSA has taken.
Reason: Homophobia. Use of prancing was what got you although your assumption that gay men are also child molesters didn't earn you any credit. Your mod history is long and your posting is awful, you're on the fast track out of here.
Sounds about right.
|
If there was a group of girlscouts, would parents be comfortable with a group of all adult males going for the trip?
Just trying to firgure out a rational, any time personalopiniond get in the way of reality, we're at a loss.
So, trying to figure it out objectivley, maybe it's just the reality of men, gay or straight that scares people.
Not to get to gross here, but you have a dick that constantly builds stress to eventual eruption. This repeats almost every day and only builds up and needs to be released.
Are you gona leave it up, to the average day dolts to go about it right?
I'm just sprouting ideas, I was molested at a chucky cheese by two gay guys when I was 13 and I don't hold any grudges because I know the minute you generalize you should be brought out side and shot.
|
Good for BSA. They are an old organization with a reputation to uphold and allowing gays will blemish the brand's reputation. Acceptance [of gays] isn't universal in America. One day it will be and that will be the day when BSA changes their policy.
Also I think this thread should be closed. It's biased ban-bait.
User was warned for this post
|
On October 09 2012 05:56 Epishade wrote:This thread sure brings out the stupidity of some people, arguing that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles... We should just ban all catholic clergymen from becoming leaders as well. Lord knows they love molestin' kids. Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 03:15 qrs wrote:On October 09 2012 03:08 micronesia wrote:
There are female leaders in the BSA, and the majority of females are heterosexual, so just stop with the whole discussion on whether or not gay male leaders are more likely to molest scouts. And most rapes are committed by males, so stop trying to impose your own views on the discussion. I don't even know how to respond to this. What a ridiculous comment. "Most rapes are committed by males" implies that we should not allow any male leaders in BSA because they are more likely to rape the kids than female leaders are... No, you're taking what I said out of context. You're the second person to do this, so I want to clarify this point, but as Micronesia pointed out, the question of scout leaders is not the topic of this thread, so I'll put my response in spoilers.
+ Show Spoiler [Off-topic] +The argument runs like this:
Premise 1. Only someone who is a) attracted to young boys and b) a rapist, is a risk to rape young boys.
Premise 2. The only sets of people who are attracted to young boys are ipso facto heterosexual female pedophiles and homosexual male pedophiles.
Conclusion 1: Only heterosexual female pedophilic rapists and homosexual male pedophilic rapists are a risk to rape young boys. (from premises 1 and 2)
Premise 3. Most rapists are male.
Premise 4. In the absence of other evidence, we assume that heterosexuals and homosexuals, females and males, are all equally likely to be pedophiles.
Conclusion 2: ceteris paribis, a known homosexual male is more likely to be a risk to rape young boys than a heterosexual male, a heterosexual female, or a homosexual female. (conclusion 1, premises 3 and 4).
I omitted some steps that would make the argument more rigorous, but I trust that this is enough to convey the gist of it.
There are certainly several places where you might take issue with the argument, and certainly with the further conclusion that all known homosexual males should be denied positions that bring them into close personal contact with young boys, but the argument is not nonsensical unless you selectively quote only parts of the argument's base and pretend that they're all of it.
|
On October 09 2012 08:53 Fischbacher wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 08:39 KookyMonster wrote:
Leadership is not always a reflection of the grassroots level of the organization. The BSA have done some really wonderful things for society, so don't let this one incident ruin their reputation forever. I understand the anger felt (as I felt it too), but we have to keep it in mind that the issue is with the leaders at the national level, probably not your local boy scouts. So if the grassroots is so against it, how can the leadership get away with such policy? And that doesn't change the reality that it takes one person that doesn't overly like you to find out you are gay and/or atheist to get you kicked out of the boy scouts in the United States. If the scouts are so accepting, how can that be? And what is the grassroots concretely doing to change that? The fact that not every member of the BSA is homophobic and anti-atheist doesn't mean that the organization as a whole isn't. It clearly is.
Most scout troops really don't interact that much at all with the national organization of the BSA. It would probably be ideal if the "Boy Scouts of America" were dissolved altogether and the actual boy scouts just continued on as unofficially affiliated organizations. I mean, what would troops miss out on? Jamborees? Big whoop.
|
United States7483 Posts
On October 09 2012 13:44 Ravensong170 wrote:
So i haven't read much beyond the OP, this also happens to be my 2nd post on TL. But I am an Eagle Scout of BSA Troop 200. Its a blanket opinion to just hate the BSA because the national Level leaders say things like this. Unless you have been in a Troop, you wouldn't know that the national level of BSA doesn't really do too much to affect the local troops. They are self run, and I can't speak for all troops. I know, but my troop had no problem with whatever religion, race, or sexual orientation you were. During my time in the scouts (this is 6 years ago, I'm 23 now) there were two gay scouts who were in the troop. Both were open, and we didn't give a shit.
I'm sure parents were being parents and probably not happy, but we didn't give a fuck. BSA is supposed to be BOY run troops, the Patrol leaders run the meetings, plan the campouts, organize trips. Its an organization designed for boys to become responsible and gain some independence. Obviously the adults are supposed to supervise when they have too.
I disagree with the BSA on the national level, but my troop and the Eagle award I earned have both helped shape who I am today and I am eternally grateful for that. I will always support the BSA on the local level, and their basic ideals.
ALso a scout's oath and law doesn't say anything about sexuality
Oath: On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.
Law: A Scout is, Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, Reverent.
There is nothing about specific religions, NOR sexuality, Its supposed to be a neutral meeting ground. (above may be posted elsewhere)
How about atheism? The oath literally mentions a duty to god,
|
On October 10 2012 10:23 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 13:44 Ravensong170 wrote:
So i haven't read much beyond the OP, this also happens to be my 2nd post on TL. But I am an Eagle Scout of BSA Troop 200. Its a blanket opinion to just hate the BSA because the national Level leaders say things like this. Unless you have been in a Troop, you wouldn't know that the national level of BSA doesn't really do too much to affect the local troops. They are self run, and I can't speak for all troops. I know, but my troop had no problem with whatever religion, race, or sexual orientation you were. During my time in the scouts (this is 6 years ago, I'm 23 now) there were two gay scouts who were in the troop. Both were open, and we didn't give a shit.
I'm sure parents were being parents and probably not happy, but we didn't give a fuck. BSA is supposed to be BOY run troops, the Patrol leaders run the meetings, plan the campouts, organize trips. Its an organization designed for boys to become responsible and gain some independence. Obviously the adults are supposed to supervise when they have too.
I disagree with the BSA on the national level, but my troop and the Eagle award I earned have both helped shape who I am today and I am eternally grateful for that. I will always support the BSA on the local level, and their basic ideals.
ALso a scout's oath and law doesn't say anything about sexuality
Oath: On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.
Law: A Scout is, Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, Reverent.
There is nothing about specific religions, NOR sexuality, Its supposed to be a neutral meeting ground. (above may be posted elsewhere) How about atheism? The oath literally mentions a duty to god,
Nah, his point still stands. I think he was assuming no atheist would join/stick with Scouts. Unless, of course, you're suggesting atheism be considered a religion, which I don't think you're trying to do. X-D Perhaps he should have instead said, "It's supposed to be a neutral meeting ground for God-believing young men."
|
On October 09 2012 19:57 iTzSnypah wrote:
Good for BSA. They are an old organization with a reputation to uphold and allowing gays will blemish the brand's reputation. Acceptance [of gays] isn't universal in America. One day it will be and that will be the day when BSA changes their policy.
Blemish the brand's reputation in the eyes of bigots and bible-thumping fundamentalists. Good stuff.
|
On October 09 2012 10:35 GhostTK wrote:
I'm against gays. I don't believe you are born with a sexual orientation. it is a learned behavior. Im not a homophobe by any means. I have a gay friend and several gay girl friends. I just don't think it is right. i think there is a reason there is man and woman. you don't see gays in animals. maybe occasional but if animals were gay they would all go extinct. theres a reason gays cant' reproduce. it wasn't intended. Therefore it is wrong.
Kinda this.
I'm have zero problem with gays. I have some gay friends/knowns too. But Jesus crist, i'm fking tired of reading people trying to make it look like a normal thing. Go find "normal", "regular", "natural" in the dictionary.
And the antonym of normal, is abnormal. Being gay is indeed abnormal. Accept it.
I repeat, i have nothing aganist gay people, gay marriage, or whatever.
What have indeed became normal is commenting "gay=normal" for pure political , bureaucratic and demagogic purposes (like TV ""stars"" and politicians....yes, the best people in the world...). This is sad.
EDIT: Oh and about the "genetic tendence" vs "learned behavior", i'm honestly fking tired. Why? So-called "legit" studies keep coming sustaining both theories ¬¬
|
On October 10 2012 11:26 Belha wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 10:35 GhostTK wrote:
I'm against gays. I don't believe you are born with a sexual orientation. it is a learned behavior. Im not a homophobe by any means. I have a gay friend and several gay girl friends. I just don't think it is right. i think there is a reason there is man and woman. you don't see gays in animals. maybe occasional but if animals were gay they would all go extinct. theres a reason gays cant' reproduce. it wasn't intended. Therefore it is wrong. This. I'm have zero problem with gays. I have some gay friends/knowns too. But Jesus crist, i'm fking tired of reading people trying to make it look like a normal thing. Go find "normal", "regular", "natural" in the dictionary. And the antonym of normal, is abnormal. Being gay is indeed abnormal. Accept it. I repeat, i have nothing aganist gay people, gay marriage, or whatever. What have indeed became normal is commenting "gay=normal" for pure political , bureaucratic and demagogic purposes (like TV ""stars"" and politicians....yes, the best people in the world...). This is sad.
Maybe what is more sad is your odd motivation to so staunchly defend the status of a word as opposed to the status of the rights of another person. I'm not sure what "normal" ever did for you, but its application with intent to make needless distinction is nothing more than subtle homophobia in this case. We use the words found in the dictionary we wrote; not the other way around.
|
|
|
On October 10 2012 11:04 MooMu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 19:57 iTzSnypah wrote:
Good for BSA. They are an old organization with a reputation to uphold and allowing gays will blemish the brand's reputation. Acceptance [of gays] isn't universal in America. One day it will be and that will be the day when BSA changes their policy.
Blemish the brand's reputation in the eyes of bigots and bible-thumping fundamentalists. Good stuff.
Ok, this is getting silly. Your hatred(?) of all things religion are greatly diminishing any possibility for meaningful discussion on this topic. Lumping "bible-thumping fundamentalists" into the same category as bigots is a gross generalization and is just plain wrong, and only serves as an example of your own bigotry (in this case, against "bible-thumping fundamentalists).
Yes, there are a group(s) of people who are self proclaimed [insert religious sect here] who want to "burn gay people at the stake." But there are also a whole lot of us who don't agree with exclusion/segregation. So when you take jabs at religion with comments like this, its nothing short of insulting.
As an evangelical christian I can assure you that nobody, regardless of race, sexual orientation, criminal background, or anything else would be told they are not allowed to be a part of our church or church activities.
By the way, I know I pm'd you about this already, but you should really consider taking that "living christ" comment out of the OP. The discussion of the BSA excluding the gay kid is an interesting one, but sticking your thumb in the eye of religious people isn't necessary for that to take place.
Moving on....
The BSA is an organization, not a church. Just like PETA is an organization, not the democrat party. Do they have views that are overlapping? Yes, yes they do. Does PETA embody the democrat party and speak for it? No, no they don't. Likewise, BSA does not speak for any church, or its followers, but they do have overlapping views/beliefs/etc.
As an organization, they get to pick and choose what their model will be, the services they will provide, and the direction they will take. This includes the people they choose to play managerial roles in the organization. In BSA's case, they've chosen not to allow certain people to lead their organization. This isn't very different than PETA deciding they don't want Davy Crockett as their mascot. Both companies have every right to decide who they want to represent them and how they represent them. Another example is the CFO guy who got fired for giving the chik-fil-a drive through lady a bad time over their recent "scandal."
I don't agree with excluding gay kids from being a part of the BSA. I don't advocate driving a wedge between people because of differences in beliefs. The human race needs to come together, and isolating one another based on the labels we put on each other isn't the way.
edited (not a freudian slip ><
|
OP seems to have a problem with Christians more than he does with the Boy Scouts.
Thread name should be changed to reflect where the anger is really being directed towards IMO.
|
Boy Scouts of America is a private organization. If they don't want to allow "faggots" (per the OP) or irreligious people, why should they have to? This is a textbook example of people advocating policies of "your rights end where my feelings begin".
|
On October 10 2012 11:32 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2012 11:26 Belha wrote:On October 09 2012 10:35 GhostTK wrote:
I'm against gays. I don't believe you are born with a sexual orientation. it is a learned behavior. Im not a homophobe by any means. I have a gay friend and several gay girl friends. I just don't think it is right. i think there is a reason there is man and woman. you don't see gays in animals. maybe occasional but if animals were gay they would all go extinct. theres a reason gays cant' reproduce. it wasn't intended. Therefore it is wrong. This. I'm have zero problem with gays. I have some gay friends/knowns too. But Jesus crist, i'm fking tired of reading people trying to make it look like a normal thing. Go find "normal", "regular", "natural" in the dictionary. And the antonym of normal, is abnormal. Being gay is indeed abnormal. Accept it. I repeat, i have nothing aganist gay people, gay marriage, or whatever. What have indeed became normal is commenting "gay=normal" for pure political , bureaucratic and demagogic purposes (like TV ""stars"" and politicians....yes, the best people in the world...). This is sad. Maybe what is more sad is your odd motivation to so staunchly defend the status of a word as opposed to the status of the rights of another person. I'm not sure what "normal" ever did for you, but its application with intent to make needless distinction is nothing more than subtle homophobia in this case. We use the words found in the dictionary we wrote; not the other way around.
Tell me where i put into question the rights of another person? Fallacy at his best; really pathetic.
I have hyperthyroidism. Am i normal thyroidism wise? Nope
I consider myself inferior to other people for that? Hell, no.
Oh, and "we" do not wrote the dicctionary. At least learn it properly.
|
On October 09 2012 13:44 Ravensong170 wrote:
So i haven't read much beyond the OP, this also happens to be my 2nd post on TL. But I am an Eagle Scout of BSA Troop 200. Its a blanket opinion to just hate the BSA because the national Level leaders say things like this. Unless you have been in a Troop, you wouldn't know that the national level of BSA doesn't really do too much to affect the local troops. They are self run, and I can't speak for all troops. I know, but my troop had no problem with whatever religion, race, or sexual orientation you were. During my time in the scouts (this is 6 years ago, I'm 23 now) there were two gay scouts who were in the troop. Both were open, and we didn't give a shit.
I'm sure parents were being parents and probably not happy, but we didn't give a fuck. BSA is supposed to be BOY run troops, the Patrol leaders run the meetings, plan the campouts, organize trips. Its an organization designed for boys to become responsible and gain some independence. Obviously the adults are supposed to supervise when they have too.
I disagree with the BSA on the national level, but my troop and the Eagle award I earned have both helped shape who I am today and I am eternally grateful for that. I will always support the BSA on the local level, and their basic ideals.
ALso a scout's oath and law doesn't say anything about sexuality
Oath: On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.
Law: A Scout is, Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, Reverent.
There is nothing about specific religions, NOR sexuality, Its supposed to be a neutral meeting ground. (above may be posted elsewhere)
But in the oath it says "to do my duty to God". So I'm assuming they're talking about the Christian God? Or do they also recognize the Islamic God? It just seems like if they're talking about the Christian God, then logically they would also support what God supports and attack what God says is wrong, and you know the whole thing about links between the bible and homosexuality being wrong...
I like that your troop didn't take the oath so specifically, but it seems like if some people took the oath seriously, doing "my duty to God" could be interpreted as supporting religious stances on various issues, from homosexuality to abortion (etc.). But it also says "my country", so if there is a conflict I guess they go with what they believe.
Still if you're in a place like south USA...there probably isn't much conflict  (as far as I'm aware, I hope I'm not stereotyping, but I think all the southern states are the bible belt or something)
On October 10 2012 11:51 xAPOCALYPSEx wrote:
Boy Scouts of America is a private organization. If they don't want to allow "faggots" (per the OP) or irreligious people, why should they have to? This is a textbook example of people advocating policies of "your rights end where my feelings begin".
I'm not sure but I think it might fly in the face of human rights, that no one can discriminate against you based on your orientation. But anyways I don't think anyone is forcing them to change, its just there's overwhelming public opposition to what they stand for, which is well within everyone's rights (you can criticize something, or protest it, but still respect the organization's right to choose what members to allow).
|
On October 10 2012 12:29 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 13:44 Ravensong170 wrote:
So i haven't read much beyond the OP, this also happens to be my 2nd post on TL. But I am an Eagle Scout of BSA Troop 200. Its a blanket opinion to just hate the BSA because the national Level leaders say things like this. Unless you have been in a Troop, you wouldn't know that the national level of BSA doesn't really do too much to affect the local troops. They are self run, and I can't speak for all troops. I know, but my troop had no problem with whatever religion, race, or sexual orientation you were. During my time in the scouts (this is 6 years ago, I'm 23 now) there were two gay scouts who were in the troop. Both were open, and we didn't give a shit.
I'm sure parents were being parents and probably not happy, but we didn't give a fuck. BSA is supposed to be BOY run troops, the Patrol leaders run the meetings, plan the campouts, organize trips. Its an organization designed for boys to become responsible and gain some independence. Obviously the adults are supposed to supervise when they have too.
I disagree with the BSA on the national level, but my troop and the Eagle award I earned have both helped shape who I am today and I am eternally grateful for that. I will always support the BSA on the local level, and their basic ideals.
ALso a scout's oath and law doesn't say anything about sexuality
Oath: On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.
Law: A Scout is, Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, Reverent.
There is nothing about specific religions, NOR sexuality, Its supposed to be a neutral meeting ground. (above may be posted elsewhere) But in the oath it says "to do my duty to God". So I'm assuming they're talking about the Christian God? Or do they also recognize the Islamic God? It just seems like if they're talking about the Christian God, then logically they would also support what God supports and attack what God says is wrong, and you know the whole thing about links between the bible and homosexuality being wrong... I like that your troop didn't take the oath so specifically, but it seems like if some people took the oath seriously, doing "my duty to God" could be interpreted as supporting religious stances on various issues, from homosexuality to abortion (etc.). But it also says "my country", so if there is a conflict I guess they go with what they believe. Still if you're in a place like south USA...there probably isn't much conflict (as far as I'm aware, I hope I'm not stereotyping, but I think all the southern states are the bible belt or something)
Well Boy Scouts were started in Great Britain in the early 1900's (1907 I believe ? could be wrong) and it spread to many different countries. Each boy scout organization is going to have different cultural views on what the Boy Scouts should stand for.
I'm from north east, so not really a crazy christian area. and our scoutmaster only told us that members of his troop should believe in something. Whether that's Zeus, God, the great pumpkin etc. Atheism wasn't something that our scoutmaster was cool with, BUT our troop didn't make any open statements about atheists (there was a few atheist (or as atheist as a 11 year can be).
The BSA national charter may say something about follow christian values, but on the local level that isn't true. It's supposed to be, a much more accepting place.
In the oath and law I guess yea you could say that may be a conflict, but some people interpret their religion differently. Like for instance, I do not follow and listen to pretty much anything said in the old testament. Its a little be ridiculous and absurd. New Testament is actually (for the most part) generally good advice. Looking at the gospels that focus on what Jesus did, you'll notice he NEVER condemns homosexuality, pre-marital sex, or other religions. He doesn't create these crazy rules for living (like after having sex the man and woman must bathe for some absurd amount of time or something in the old testament, and also cannot see each other for a few days or something like that.) Jesus was a little more like a philosopher rather than the progenitor of a religion. (look only at Jesus, not at the rest of bible, before I get flamed.)
In the end it really comes down to interpretation both on the part of the BSA as well as the local troops.
|
its okay for the BSA to stick to their views.
its okay for people to boycott them for their views.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
