Optional

Mmmm.... Can't quite figure out the public funding bit, as the article linked here tending to use the term 'Explorer' and 'Boy Scout' interchangeably, which they are not. However, I will say this: if the BSA is accepting public funds, it should not.

That Helms Amendment deal looks idiotic too. Has it come before the Supremes yet?

However... I guess what I get tired of is people who believe that the BSA is uniquely and specifically bigoted and ignorant and evil and etc for its stance on atheists and gays.

The thing is, the BSA is essentially a religious organisation. The focus is not on religion, but it is nonetheless an integral part of the program. These policies follow from the POV of religious conviction... And that is something you will need to change all of society to get at, not just the BSA.

-me

Fr.Andrew

(Optional): Mmmm.... Can't quite figure out the public funding bit, as the article linked here tending to use the term 'Explorer' and 'Boy Scout' interchangeably, which they are not. However, I will say this: if the BSA is accepting public funds, it should not.
(Fr Andrew): "Exploring" (now "Venturing") is part of the BSA program. They accept public funds indirectly (at least), as the article explained.

(Optional): That Helms Amendment deal looks idiotic too. Has it come before the Supremes yet?
(FR Andrew): No one has contested it to my knowledge.

(Optional): However... I guess what I get tired of is people who believe that the BSA is uniquely and specifically bigoted and ignorant and evil and etc for its stance on atheists and gays.
(Fr Andrew): But the BSA is bigoted for it's stance on atheists and gays. Very specifically. No one has said that they're unique. The Aryan Nation has a similar policy.

(Optional): The thing is, the BSA is essentially a religious organisation. The focus is not on religion, but it is nonetheless an integral part of the program. These policies follow from the POV of religious conviction... And that is something you will need to change all of society to get at, not just the BSA.
(Fr Andrew): I think you'll get some argument from the BSA that they're "essentially a religious organization", but in any case, that hardly excuses them from very valid charges of bigotry and intolerance, does it? Unless you're suggesting that we accept bigotry when it's done from religious conviction.
I think every brick taken from the wall is helpful...if the BSA were to change it's discriminatory policy, and admit all those interested in the scouting adventure, society will improve that much quicker.
Imo.

TollHouse

And of course the Christbots at Christian Forums , never missing a beat, give us their take on the issue...



I'm astounded that there is people around that still talk like that.

Jat

Hey, its religion. They see something which occured thousands of years ago as if it is relevent today. Their thinking, when they bother to actually think, is for the most part far behind the times and mainly based on ignorance as well.

Totalitarianist

Exactly. Ask the person who started this topic about that. It is he who said that it is progress without "supporting arguments".

Totalitarianist

No, it is not an opinion. It is an opinion to state that it is progress. It is also an opinion to say that it is the opposite of progress, i.e., regress. I said neither. Both are opinions; both are meaningless and unverifiable; therefore I denied both, stating that this is not progress.

Corwin

An organization which has previously bucked trends toward a more enlightened and civil society by barring membership to people based on their consentual sexual orientation or non-criminal religious beliefs decides to stop barring such individuals and take a more enlightened stand is progress toward that more enlightened society.

We will now pause while my high school AP english teacher recovers from her apoplectic fit. (Sorry, not enough coffee for non-runon sentences yet.)

Anyway.... prior to this the BSA has taken a highly regressive and reactionary stand on the issues of atheism and homosexuality. This is not an opinion, it is a fact. Use of religious arguments in this arena is a tactic which belongs in the Dark Ages along with burning people at the stake. This one group of the Scouts has decided to move into the 19th century and realize that their bigotry belongs in the past, and move beyond it. This is what we refer to as 'progress.'

Now Tot.... possibly you could explain to the class how, in light of this, this situation is NOT progress?

Or would you rather just spew?

Jat

Maybe he wants the BSA to be more like the Hitler Youth movement?

tribalbeeyatch

...which is your opinion, and not a fact of any sort. Sheesh, you're slippery in that blatantly obvious politician sort of way.

Totalitarianist

No, fool, it is not. I denied both opinions. Opinion A is that is is progress. Opinion B is that it is the opposite of progress. Since they are both opinions, and thus cannot be verified empirically, I deny both, which is not an opinion. Many statements are empirically unverifiable; rational men simply reject these statements, as I have done.