Boy Scouts

[KevinG]

Interesting. There is a Buddhist medal. I am a little surprised. Buddhism does not render any opinion about the existence of God or any supreme beings or their relationship to humans.

That is not to say that you cannot go into a Buddhist Vihara/temple and find lots of statues of gilded deities, but these deities are often adopted from Hinduism or a local belief.

Buddhism tends to be an atheistic religion in classical sense of the word "atheist." We don't tend to rely upon a divine being for salvation, and we don't preach a faith in God.

I'm surprised that BSA would let us in.

The BSA policy on belief in God does not specify the nature of God to be believed in. Even wiccans and worship of nature is accepted.

In fact you would have to be a pretty hard core vocal atheist to be excluded from the BSA requirement to do one's duty to God and my Country.

[RobertAC]

The BSA policy on belief in God does not specify the nature of God to be believed in. Even wiccans and worship of nature is accepted.

In fact you would have to be a pretty hard core vocal atheist to be excluded from the BSA requirement to do one's duty to God and my Country.

I'm assuming that "atheist" would mean the way it is commonly used as referring to someone who (1) denies the existence of God, and (2) is against religion.

[Daniel2]

Daniel2, on 10 October 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

Could you elaborate? What facts lead you to claim that Ryan was "openly advocating homosexuality" OR "openly advocating atheism"?

Daniel2

Daniel2, on 09 October 2012 - 03:48 PM, said:

But Boys Scouts spokesman Smith told NBC News that Andresen was no longer eligible for membership in Scouting because he had informed his unit leadership that he does not agree to Scouting’s principle of 'Duty to God' and does not meet the membership standard on sexual orientation.

And the very next sentance in the article I quoted states:

The family disputed that, saying the only reason Andresen was denied the rank is "because the Boy Scouts of America has a problem with Ryan being gay." (emphasis added).

Even if one doesn't believe the family's version of the events; Even if Ryan had "informed his unit leadership that he does not agree to Scouting’s principle of 'Duty to God'," that is NOT the same as your characterization of "openly advocating atheism." Not "open." Not "advocating." Not "atheism." Those words are NO WHERE in the article--and "informing one's leadership that one doesn't agree with the principle of 'Duty to God'" could mean any number of things--and, as ERayR has pointed out, the 'Duty to God' program isn't an integral part of BSA (if it's referring to the program--but again, even that's unclear).

The same is also true of your mischaracterized claim that Ryan was "openly advocating homosexualtiy." Again, even if one sides with the language of BS Spokesman Smith, Ryan "does not meet the membership standard on sexual orientation." Once again, nothing there about "openly," or "advocating."

IMO, your characterizations seem to be suppositions and/or hasty mischaracterizations.

Daniel2

[KevinG]

Either the BSA or the family is weasel wording their way through this. Take your pick on who is lying about the circumstances of the outing. Nothing in the reports say it was anything but voluntary.

Facts are the boy came out of the closet and is now seeing the consequences of his disavowing the oath he took as a member of the of the BSA. the main consequence being he cannot accept an award that requires he is living the scout oath and law.

The BSA has the right to require all who take an oath as part of the organization live up to that oath to receive awards. I have no more pity for this young man than someone who doesn't like camping and therefore never got their 1st class badge. Their situations are very much the same with the exception that Scouts who don't like camping do not make handy martyrs for the cause of forcing homosexuality on others as a moral behavior.

[Daniel2]

Either the BSA or the family is weasel wording their way through this. Take your pick on who is lying about the circumstances of the outing. Nothing in the reports say it was anything but voluntary.

Facts are the boy came out of the closet and is now seeing the consequences of his disavowing the oath he took as a member of the of the BSA. the main consequence being he cannot accept an award that requires he is living the scout oath and law.

The BSA has the right to require all who take an oath as part of the organization live up to that oath to receive awards. I have no more pity for this young man than someone who doesn't like camping and therefore never got their 1st class badge. Their situations are very much the same with the exception that Scouts who don't like camping do not make handy martyrs for the cause of forcing homosexuality on others as a moral behavior.

A private organization such as the BSA is certainly legally entitled to promote the values that it wishes, including withholding awards from gay scouts, kicking out openly gay scouts and gay leaders, and ultimately (I believe) encourage dishonesty among it's ranks by rewarding those that choose to hide or lie about their sexual orientation.

You certainly are entitled "to feel no more pity for" Ryan than you would "for someone who doesn't like camping," despite my view that such a belief erroneously equates something as psychologically profound as sexual orientation for something as shallow as a simple preference for spending time outdoors.

Though I anticipate my opinion is both as likely clear to you as it is unimportant to you, I personally don't believe the above approaches will prove sound long-term strategies for the BSA (as well as organizations that are closely enmeshed with the BSA, i.e. the LDS Aaronic Priesthood organization) to win friends, attract and retain membership, or maintain social relevance.

Daniel2

[KevinG]

Having standards is not encouraging dishonesty. That is like claiming Weight Watchers encourages people to cheat on their weight loss plan because it doesn't include Rocky Road ice cream.

In relation to the objectives of the Boy Scouts of America:

winning friends (nice but not an objective)

attracting and retaining membership (nice but not the objective of the organization + could actually be hurt by giving up some of their long standing values)

maintaining social relevance (not such a desirable thing if it requires one to compromise standards or morality)

[ERayR]

A private organization such as the BSA is certainly legally entitled to promote the values that it wishes, including withholding awards from gay scouts, kicking out openly gay scouts and gay leaders, and ultimately (I believe) encourage dishonesty among it's ranks by rewarding those that choose to hide or lie about their sexual orientation.

You certainly are entitled "to feel no more pity for" Ryan than you would "for someone who doesn't like camping," despite my view that such a belief erroneously equates something as psychologically profound as sexual orientation for something as shallow as a simple preference for spending time outdoors.

Though I anticipate my opinion is both as likely clear to you as it is unimportant to you, I personally don't believe the above approaches will prove sound long-term strategies for the BSA (as well as organizations that are closely enmeshed with the BSA, i.e. the LDS Aaronic Priesthood organization) to win friends, attract and retain membership, or maintain social relevance.

Daniel2

And yet to remain the organization they are and have been they must remain true to their standards. It is not as if Ryan didn't know the requirements.

[Ares]

Daniel2 you were warned not to turn this into a SSA thread. The next time it happens you will be thread banned.

For now this discussion is closed.