PDA

View Full Version : Man fights for his country, but his boys are kicked out of boyscouts cause they are..


oldandslow
05-10-2006, 08:55 AM
wiccan.

Pretty sad, imo.

ANACOCO -- The camp is going well so far. Boy Scouts have gathered from around the area in khaki button-ups and red scarves, eager to earn their God and Country badge.

The leader in a room of about 20 Scouts decides to break the ice by showing how religiously diverse the gathering is.

By a showing of hands, he asks who belongs to the Baptist Church, the Catholic Church, the Methodist Church, continuing on until two boys are left who have not raised their hands.

One of the brothers is called out to tell the group what church he attends. He replies, "I'm Wiccan."
Little did 12-year-old Cody Brown realize how much that answer would affect his life.

During the past six weeks, Cody and his 15-year-old brother, Justin, have waited with their parents to see how the controversy sparked by Cody's answer would play out.

Within 48 hours of Cody's confession, the troop committee of Holly Grove United Methodist Church in Anacoco was meeting to discuss the implications.

The church sponsors the boys' chapter, Troop 71. Pastor Doug Lewellyn was out of town at the time of the meeting.

"The number one scout law is to do your duty to God and your country," Troop 71 Scout Master Gene Doherty said. "They met to discuss whether or not the boys could live up to that because of their religion."

The conclusion was that they could not.

Doherty called Army Cpt. Todd Buchheim, the boys' father and a former Eagle Scout stationed at Fort Polk, to inform him that the boys no longer were welcome in the troop. The Buchheims said Doherty told them that if Cody had lied about his faith, the boys could have remained with no problem.

"I was trying to give them a head's up so that they wouldn't come to the next meeting and not be prepared for what was going on," Doherty said. "They've been so supportive of our troop, and they're good people."

Two days later, Doherty said, the committee held another meeting with the church's pastor and decided to contact the district United Methodist Church committee and the National Council of the Boy Scouts before anything official was done.

Doherty, however, had already acted upon the original orders and kicked the boys out of the troop.

"The boys had been in that troop for over a year, and it wasn't exactly a secret," said Aileen Buchheim, the boys' mother. The boys became a part of the troop when the family lived in Anacoco, but wanted to continue on after they moved to Fort Polk in August 2005.

"No child should have to be told in 2006 that they can't take part in a group because of their religion," Aileen Buchheim said.

The district church committee in Lake Charles agreed and overturned Holly Grove's decision to oust the boys from the troop on religious grounds.

"Our church's motto is to open our hearts, minds and doors to everyone because we all have to come to an understanding of God on our own -- these boys should be no different," District Superintendent Doug Ezell said. "We are just a sponsor for the troop, so if the Boy Scouts do not have a problem with them being there, we don't."

According to the Boy Scouts, it's up to the sponsors to make that choice.

"Boy Scouts own the program but does not control the unit," said Legare Clement, executive director of the Boy Scouts for southwestern Louisiana. "We partner with community organizations and churches as sponsors to present the program, which is actually a youth outreach for them.

"They approve leaders by our standards, but they have a right to choose members," Clement said.

Although there are no troops or packs sponsored by Wiccan circles, the national office informed Clement that any boy who believes there is a God -- not just the Christian God -- can live up to the creed.

"They said that we believe in more than one God, but that depends on the branch of Wicca, just like any other religion," Aileen Buchheim said. "We believe in one goddess and god with different names and aspects depending on the time of the year."

Not everyone embraced the church's decision, including some parents of troop members who, officials said, feared that their children would be preached to by the two boys.

The irony is that the original troop was founded on parallel circumstances.

Doherty said Troop 71 began as a half-Baptist/half-Pentecostal troop led by a Jewish man.

Although the children had no problems with one another, the parents wanted the troop separated because of religious beliefs, Doherty said. When Doherty needed a charter for his Cub Scout troop, the troop leader transferred the charter and ferried his children to Anacoco from Pitkin for years to avoid the split.

"I've seen what difference of belief can do to a troop even if we aren't here to do doctrine," Doherty said. "It's not right or fair, but it's there. The world just isn't ready for diversity when it comes to their kids. People fear what they don't understand."

After almost a month of noncommittal answers on the boys' status, Aileen Buchheim said she received an apologetic call from Lewellyn to invite the boys to the next meeting, which occurred April 25.

Lewellyn attended the scout meeting to talk to the parents and Scouts about why they all were welcome and how doctrine was not a Boy Scout topic.

Numbers were sparse, and two mothers allegedly came back to pick their boys up 10 minutes after Capt. Buchheim brought in his sons.

"This (the controversy) has weakened the group," Doherty said. "I will probably lose some parent support and some good boys over this no matter how it turns out."

This past week, he officially lost two.

Cody and Justin decided not to remain with Troop 71 after the ordeal.

"This was devastating," Aileen Buchheim said. "My husband puts on a uniform to fight for ours and other nations' rights every day, and yet this happens in our own backyard. We just wanted to make sure it was straightened out so no one has to go through this again."

In the meantime, Aileen Buchheim has filed paperwork to charter a local chapter of Spiral Scouts, a Wiccan-based scouting organization that accepts members of any background, belief or gender between the ages of 3 and 18.

About 15 children are already on the sign-up list if the charter is approved, she said.

jAZ
05-10-2006, 09:33 AM
What's weird is that most churches would not refuse a person wishing to peacefully participate even though they were from another faith. Not only does this seem just plain wrong, it's seems counter intuitive.

banyon
05-10-2006, 09:36 AM
I guess one might morally disagree with their stance, but it's a private organization, so they should have the right to exclude who they want.

jAZ
05-10-2006, 09:37 AM
I guess one might morally disagree with their stance, but it's a private organization, so they should have the right to exclude who they want.
The only reason they might not be able to be held to a higher standard is if they were publicly funded (even in part). I don't know if they receive any fed/state funds or not.

banyon
05-10-2006, 09:40 AM
The only reason they might not be able to be held to a higher standard is if they were publicly funded (even in part). I don't know if they receive any fed/state funds or not.

Well didn't they already win their case about excluding homosexuals?

I would think that was the precedent.

unlurking
05-10-2006, 10:03 AM
It says in the article that the sponsor, not the Boy Scouts, has the right to determine membership eligibility. Looks like the church sponsiring the troop stood up and did the right thing almost immediatley when it fell in their laps. The problem is the troop leader and the other parents.

Cochise
05-10-2006, 10:11 AM
How is it sad? The BSA is a private organization. They can exclude whomever they want.

If you ask me, it's a beautiful demonstration of the government's inability (for now) to compel private individuals and organizations to endorse beliefs that are contrary to their own.

Perhaps you would compel the Catholic priesthood to accept satanists?

jAZ
05-10-2006, 10:15 AM
Well didn't they already win their case about excluding homosexuals?

I would think that was the precedent.
I don't think sexual orientation is a protected status. Religion is.

jAZ
05-10-2006, 10:18 AM
How is it sad? The BSA is a private organization. They can exclude whomever they want.

If you ask me, it's a beautiful demonstration of the government's inability (for now) to compel private individuals and organizations to endorse beliefs that are contrary to their own.

Perhaps you would compel the Catholic priesthood to accept satanists?
It's sad that a seemingly secular organization focused on improving the quality of our young citizens through quality behavior teaching personal responsiblity would reject a couple of seemingly high quality kids on a technicality because they don't understand the kids religion.

jAZ
05-10-2006, 10:19 AM
The BSA is a private organization. They can exclude whomever they want.
If they take public funds, all bets are off.

Radar Chief
05-10-2006, 10:22 AM
It's sad that a seemingly secular organization focused on improving the quality of our young citizens through quality behavior teaching personal responsiblity would reject a couple of seemingly high quality kids on a technicality because they don't understand the kids religion.

Maybe we’re read’n different articles, ‘cause the way I read it they didn’t.
If you wanna be mad at someone it looks to me like Gene Doherty and troop committee of Holly Grove United Methodist Church in Anacoco are the ones you should be direct’n your angst towards.

Taco John
05-10-2006, 10:31 AM
How is it sad? The BSA is a private organization. They can exclude whomever they want.

If you ask me, it's a beautiful demonstration of the government's inability (for now) to compel private individuals and organizations to endorse beliefs that are contrary to their own.

Perhaps you would compel the Catholic priesthood to accept satanists?



Cochise lets his inner troll out...

jAZ
05-10-2006, 10:34 AM
Maybe we’re read’n different articles, ‘cause the way I read it they didn’t.
If you wanna be mad at someone it looks to me like Gene Doherty and troop committee of Holly Grove United Methodist Church in Anacoco are the ones you should be direct’n your angst towards.
Fair enough.

BucEyedPea
05-10-2006, 11:34 AM
I guess one might morally disagree with their stance, but it's a private organization, so they should have the right to exclude who they want.
Well, I don’t know if I’d go so far to call it “immoral” as they have a right to their own moral code here…but I agree with the rest of your post, for a change.


The only reason they might not be able to be held to a higher standard is if they were publicly funded (even in part). I don't know if they receive any fed/state funds or not.

“Held to a higher standard?” That’s just a personal values judgment…is purely opinion.

On the government funds…that’s the problem with gov’t funds, they get used to control everybody to their own PC standard. People have to give up some of their freedoms. However, if the govt funds other groups that have some degree of religion/spirituality in them, wouldn’t they have to do it for all equally?

I personally, think no one should get any funds and we’re all on our own.

It’s a free country. Wiccans do not believe in God. It’s just different system under the law. Such laws are to prevent the govt from discriminating. Shouldn’t a Christian group have the right to disallow membership to Jews and Jews Christians. Of course they do.


Here I thought liberals, lefties or progressives didn't want others forcing their beliefs ( or morality even) down the throats of others.

jAZ
05-10-2006, 11:49 AM
“Held to a higher standard?” That’s just a personal values judgment…is purely opinion.
Actually not at all. Because I didn't intend to link "higher" to the question of morality within this issue. Maybe you'd prefer the terms "higher threshold" or "narrower standard". I'm refering to any mandated behavior that is linked to receiving and using public funding. In this case religion is a protected status. Whether you consider selective acceptance of one religion over another as higher or lower morally (or neither) is of no consequence in my statements.

And for the record, IMO, it is a higher standard eithically to be open to other religions.

jAZ
05-10-2006, 11:54 AM
I personally, think no one should get any funds and we’re all on our own.
This would be the one statement that, if you mean it literally, I'd say someone would be justified in saying something akin to "love it or leave it". Our nation (and every nation for that matter) is founded for the purpose of pooling resources to advance a communities common good.

If you mean your statements literally and wish that "we’re all on our own", then I'd suggest finding a home on a deserted island.

I'm guessing you didn't mean that literally.

jAZ
05-10-2006, 11:58 AM
Wiccans do not believe in God.
Incorrect, wiccan's believe in a female God (called a Goddess). The folks in this BSA troop are similarly ignorant and made their judgement of the rules based on such ignorance.
Such laws are to prevent the govt from discriminating. Shouldn’t a Christian group have the right to disallow membership to Jews and Jews Christians. Of course they do.
Yes, as I said in the post your quoted in this response...
The only reason ... is if they were publicly funded (even in part).

jAZ
05-10-2006, 12:00 PM
Incorrect, wiccan's believe in a female God (called a Goddess). The folks in this BSA troop are similarly ignorant and made their judgement of the rules based on such ignorance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca#Wiccan_views_on_Divinity

Wiccan views on Divinity
It is commonly understood that most Wiccans worship two deities: the Goddess, often associated with Gaea or Mother Earth, and her consort the God (sometimes known as the Horned God). It is also common among more traditional groups to acknowledge a unified supreme godhead, frequently referred to as Dryghten.

The partnership of the Wiccan Goddess and God is generally viewed as dynamic and complementary, with neither dominating, however in some traditions, such as Dianic Wicca, the Goddess alone is worshipped. In those traditions, the God plays either no role, or a diminished role.

A significant number of Wiccans from various traditions do not claim to be dualist, but practice some form of polytheism, often with particular reference to the Celtic pantheons. They may also be animists, pantheists, or indeed anywhere within the broad spectrum of Neopagan forms of worship.

Dave Lane
05-10-2006, 01:10 PM
Can they exclude people because they are black or asian?

Dave

Cochise
05-10-2006, 01:46 PM
Can they exclude people because they are black or asian?

Dave

COULD they? Yes. DO they? No.

I'm kind of disturbed that this is even in question.

jAZ
05-10-2006, 01:48 PM
COULD they? Yes. DO they? No.

I'm kind of disturbed that this is even in question.
Do they get public funding?

jAZ
05-10-2006, 01:53 PM
Do they get public funding?
Looks like they are on the public dole. Sucks for them.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164547,00.html

Critics of the Boy Scouts, like the American Civil Liberties Union, make one strong argument against the organization's private status. The Boy Scouts enjoys massive and unique tax-funded support from governments both local and federal. On the local level, for example, the city of San Diego was targeted because it allowed the Boy Scouts' headquarters to operate in a city-owned park for $1 per year and to use other city-owned facilities without any rent.

On the federal level, the Pentagon provided an estimated $6 to $8 million from 1997 to 2001 to assist a Boy Scouts Jamboree -- an event which is traditionally held on military bases.

Linda Hills of the ACLU aptly states, "The Boy Scouts can't have it both ways…If they truly are a private religious organization, free to engage in any form of discrimination they choose, then they are not entitled to a government subsidy."

patteeu
05-10-2006, 01:53 PM
The only reason they might not be able to be held to a higher standard is if they were publicly funded (even in part). I don't know if they receive any fed/state funds or not.

It's arrogant of you to presume that your standard is the higher standard. Why are you looking for a way to shove your morality down the throats of others?

*edit* I see now that others have made these points (BucEyedPea), but it was worth repeating anyway. Your answers are less than compelling especially on the point about shoving your morality down other's throats. */edit*

Pitt Gorilla
05-10-2006, 01:59 PM
How is it sad? The BSA is a private organization. They can exclude whomever they want.

If you ask me, it's a beautiful demonstration of the government's inability (for now) to compel private individuals and organizations to endorse beliefs that are contrary to their own.

Perhaps you would compel the Catholic priesthood to accept satanists?
Really? They could exclude black kids because they are black?

BTW,
I figured the Methodist Church would do the right thing. We really do invite anyone to come and worship as they please. I was proud that they came to the decision that they did.

patteeu
05-10-2006, 01:59 PM
Can they exclude people because they are black or asian?

Dave

They should be able to, but I suspect they'd be in for a rough time if they tried it.

patteeu
05-10-2006, 02:00 PM
I guess one might morally disagree with their stance, but it's a private organization, so they should have the right to exclude who they want.

Best answer in the thread. Short and right on target.

patteeu
05-10-2006, 02:02 PM
If they take public funds, all bets are off.

Which is the reason Faith Based Initiatives and School Vouchers are such bad ideas. Government corrupts nearly everything it touches (especially when it touches it with significant amounts of cash).

Pitt Gorilla
05-10-2006, 02:03 PM
Wiccans do not believe in God. Be honest; where did you get this?

jAZ
05-10-2006, 02:05 PM
It's arrogant of you to presume that your standard is the higher standard. Why are you looking for a way to shove your morality down the throats of others?

*edit* I see now that others have made these points (BucEyedPea), but it was worth repeating anyway. Your answers are less than compelling especially on the point about shoving your morality down other's throats. */edit*
I'm expecting an *edit* clarifying that you read my post pointing out that my words were not intended to convey a moral high ground.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3198341&postcount=15

jAZ
05-10-2006, 02:07 PM
Which is the reason Faith Based Initiatives and School Vouchers are such bad ideas.
We agree on something!

BucEyedPea
05-10-2006, 02:14 PM
Be honest; where did you get this?

From a friend who dated a wiccan/witch.
Afterwards I looked it up.

They believe in an earth godess or something on that idea as part of nature but it's paganism...not a supreme being. Hence the capital "G" in God that I used. Not the same as the Scouts believe.

They may believe in spirits, spiritual entities, dieties or things but not "G"od.

If I am incorrect then I'm open to hearing more...but is what I was told and looked up on some Wiccan and Wiccan sites. Some say they are witches some don't. They have some disagreements I guess.

jAZ
05-10-2006, 02:15 PM
From a friend who dated a wiccan/witch.
Afterwards I looked it up.

They believe in an earth godess or something on that nature as part of nature but it's paganism...not a supreme being. Hence the capital "G."

They may believe in spirits, spiritual entities or things but not "G"od.

If I am incorrect then I'm open to hearing more...but is what I was told and looked up on some Wiccan and Wiccan sites. Some say they are witches some don't. They have some disagreements I gues.
Did you miss post 18?

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3198362&postcount=18

BucEyedPea
05-10-2006, 02:17 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca#Wiccan_views_on_Divinity

Wiccan views on Divinity
It is commonly understood that most Wiccans worship two deities: the Goddess, often associated with Gaea or Mother Earth, and her consort the God (sometimes known as the Horned God). It is also common among more traditional groups to acknowledge a unified supreme godhead, frequently referred to as Dryghten.

The partnership of the Wiccan Goddess and God is generally viewed as dynamic and complementary, with neither dominating, however in some traditions, such as Dianic Wicca, the Goddess alone is worshipped. In those traditions, the God plays either no role, or a diminished role.

A significant number of Wiccans from various traditions do not claim to be dualist, but practice some form of polytheism, often with particular reference to the Celtic pantheons. They may also be animists, pantheists, or indeed anywhere within the broad spectrum of Neopagan forms of worship.

I was editing my last post when you referred me to this.

No jaz. Your position still does not apply. You see it as the same it is not the same idea of God that Scouts hold to. It may be a similarity but they still have a right to deny membership on such a basis.

Instead of using wikipedia try some of their own sites where they clarify their views. I saw several that said they did not believe in "God" per se, but as you stated above.

Cochise
05-10-2006, 02:18 PM
Really? They could exclude black kids because they are black?


Why couldn't a private organization do that?

Stupidity is not illegal.

BucEyedPea
05-10-2006, 02:22 PM
Really? They could exclude black kids because they are black?

BTW,
I figured the Methodist Church would do the right thing. We really do invite anyone to come and worship as they please. I was proud that they came to the decision that they did.

Race is not a belief system.
Scouts inculcate kids certain values and morals.

The lefties need to crack a book on logic since they view things that are different as the same or put things into the same category of thing when they are not. There are similarities and differences.

jAZ
05-10-2006, 02:25 PM
I was editing my last post when you referred me to this.

No jaz. Your position still does not apply. You see it as the same it is not the same idea of God that Scouts hold to. It may be a similarity but they still have a right to deny membership on such a basis.
Well, all of this detail is moot, as we've learned that BSA is a publicly funded organization. So the need to discuss these sorts of details ends there. They can not have their cake and eat it too.

Either they accept the public funding and the ensuing regulations, or they rely upon private funding sources and conduct themselves in any way they choose.

The point of a God/Wiccan thing would be open to debate within BSA if they got off the public teet. At that point, your opinion and my opinion of what constitutes "duty to God" makes no difference. Until then, *their* opinion of what constitutes "duty to God" makes no difference.

BucEyedPea
05-10-2006, 02:30 PM
The term "publicly" funded coming from a lefty begs defining.:banghead:

Since some "lefties" say even a tax credit is a subsidy. Lol!

It's still a private group as far as I know...so please enlighten us on how publically funded they are. And no, using a public schools facilities to hold meetings does not apply.

jAZ
05-10-2006, 02:32 PM
The term "publicly" funded coming from a lefty begs defining.:banghead:

Since some "lefties" say even a tax credit is a subsidy. Lol!

It's still a private group as far as I know...so please enlighten us on how publically funded they are. And no, using a public schools facilities to hold meetings does not apply.
Seriously, why do I get the feeling you aren't reading these threads fully?

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3198609&postcount=22

patteeu
05-10-2006, 02:35 PM
I'm expecting an *edit* clarifying that you read my post pointing out that my words were not intended to convey a moral high ground.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3198341&postcount=15

I read it, but I don't know how to reconcile that with the natural meaning of the phrase "higher standard." Do you often toss around the term "higher standard" when you just mean (nonjudgemental) "different standard?" But I'll accept that sometimes we say things that sound different than they were intended.

BTW, now that you've used "I know" in a context in which you couldn't possibly actually "know," can you see how Rumsfeld's comment regarding the location of WMD in Iraq might not be the lie that some say it is. (See post 12 in the Seized Papers thread (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=140511) if you don't know what I'm talking about).

Pitt Gorilla
05-10-2006, 02:36 PM
Race is not a belief system.
Scouts inculcate kids certain values and morals.

The lefties need to crack a book on logic since they view things that are different as the same or put things into the same category of thing when they are not. There are similarities and differences.Hey, "genious", you might want to look at the text to which I was responding. Your seeming lack of logic in this matter is somewhat ironic.

patteeu
05-10-2006, 02:37 PM
We agree on something!

It's been a rough day. I've agreed with you twice now and banyon at least once.

jAZ
05-10-2006, 02:41 PM
I read it, but I don't know how to reconcile that with the natural meaning of the phrase "higher standard." Do you often toss around the term "higher standard" when you just mean (nonjudgemental) "different standard?" But I'll accept that sometimes we say things that sound different than they were intended.
The higher is not a moral judgement, but a selectivity judgement. It's a higher hurdle. Call me a liar if you think I'm being dishonest, but if not, then accept the clarification as it is and substitute any of the phrases you prefer from the list I've provided.
BTW, now that you've used "I know" in a context in which you couldn't possibly actually "know," can you see how Rumsfeld's comment regarding the location of WMD in Iraq might not be the lie that some say it is. (See post 12 in the Seized Papers thread (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=140511) if you don't know what I'm talking about).
I'll respond in that thread to keep it organized.

BucEyedPea
05-10-2006, 10:52 PM
Seriously, why do I get the feeling you aren't reading these threads fully?

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3198609&postcount=22

That's cause I leave and read the last few posts, missed the others.

I agree on the money from the Pentagon but not on denying them to use facilities or things of that nature, as that would be govt discrimination on religious or creed grounds. Institutionalized discrimination in this case is wrong.


Other than that, I knew they got certain monies but I thought since about 2000 or so they were being denied those funds for this reason. I also heard that private donations more than made up for these funds...that they even got more. I don't think any taxpayer monies, as money, should go to any groups period.

BucEyedPea
05-10-2006, 11:03 PM
This would be the one statement that, if you mean it literally, I'd say someone would be justified in saying something akin to "love it or leave it". Our nation (and every nation for that matter) is founded for the purpose of pooling resources to advance a communities common good.

If you mean your statements literally and wish that "we’re all on our own", then I'd suggest finding a home on a deserted island.

I'm guessing you didn't mean that literally.

Sorry but my sense of property is not communistic.
Our federal system is based on "specific and enumerated" powers in the Constitution. So our govt is only allowed to be involved about 20 areas to promote the general welfare. Certain highways, post offices and to provide for the common defense are amoung some. If you're referring to things like that then I'm with ya'...if not ( and I don't think you are) then your speaking "newspeak" as a cover for: collectivism, communitarianism, socialism, fascism and communism.

Outside of those specific areas...no one is entitled to anything. Period.

Hydrae
05-11-2006, 01:16 PM
I have no problem with the way this was handled in the first place. As stated by several others, this is a private organization.

Also, kudos to mom for responding in a proper manner rather than doing like so many others do by suing to get what they feel is "their right".

In the meantime, Aileen Buchheim has filed paperwork to charter a local chapter of Spiral Scouts, a Wiccan-based scouting organization that accepts members of any background, belief or gender between the ages of 3 and 18.

About 15 children are already on the sign-up list if the charter is approved, she said.

vailpass
05-11-2006, 01:28 PM
I have no problem with the way this was handled in the first place. As stated by several others, this is a private organization.

Also, kudos to mom for responding in a proper manner rather than doing like so many others do by suing to get what they feel is "their right".

Exactly. If you are not wanted/don't qualify for a certain group don't try to make them change their beliefs to fit you. **** 'em and go find somewhere you belong.
It seems as though a lot of people today think it's wrong that all groups don't fit all people; they think people shouldn't have the right to form together on the basis of a common belief in order to fellowship with people of like minds.

redbrian
05-11-2006, 02:34 PM
Religion is a fundamental part of Scouting (it is not a secular organization as was wrongly stated earlier).

It is not a Christian religious organization however as noted by the following list of recognized religions by the BSA (you will note the absence of Wicca),

African Methodist Episcopal Church
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church
Armenian Apostolic Church of America (Western Prelacy)
Armenian Church of America (Eastern Diocese)
Baha'i
Baptist
Buddhist
Catholic, Eastern
Catholic, Roman
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Christian Methodist Episcopal Church
Church of Christ, Scientist
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS)
Churches of Christ
Community of Christ
Eastern Orthodox
Episcopal
Hindu
Islamic
Jewish
Lutheran
Meher Baba
Moravian
Polish National Catholic Church
Presbyterian Church in America
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
Protestant and Independent Christian Churches
Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
The Salvation Army
United Church of Christ
United Methodist
United Pentecostal Church International
Unity Churches
Zoroastrian

vailpass
05-11-2006, 03:51 PM
Religion is a fundamental part of Scouting (it is not a secular organization as was wrongly stated earlier).

It is not a Christian religious organization however as noted by the following list of recognized religions by the BSA (you will note the absence of Wicca),



Thanks for that, my son is a Tiger Scout and I wondered what religions were included. I wonder if we can bump out the Baptists fand make room for the Wiccans?

( I keed, I keed, don't throw fire and brimstone my way you holy rollers)

go bowe
05-11-2006, 03:52 PM
It's sad that a seemingly secular organization focused on improving the quality of our young citizens through quality behavior teaching personal responsiblity would reject a couple of seemingly high quality kids on a technicality because they don't understand the kids religion.i thought that the article indicated that the national office of the boy scouts said that wiccans could be members of the organization, although local troops can decide on their own membership...

the church heirarchy also told the troop that they should allow the wiccan boys and the local church finally readmitted the boys...

it wasn't the boy scouts of america that rejected the kids, it was the local church sponsor of the troop and the troop leaders...

go bowe
05-11-2006, 04:12 PM
the interplay between religious freedom and the right not to be discriminated against is an interersting area of tension in the law...

strong arguments can be made on both sides of the issue as to whether private organizations can discrminate in terms of their own membership...

with some reluctance, i come down on the side of allowing religious organizations to choose their own membership (free exercise of religion and all), so long as it's not discriminatory on the basis of race...

imo, nationality, ethnicity, etc. just don't have the same signifigance when talking about conflicts between that type of private dicrimination in the context of infringing on the constitutiounally protected free exercise of religion...

irishjayhawk
05-11-2006, 04:32 PM
It's arrogant of you to presume that your standard is the higher standard. Why are you looking for a way to shove your morality down the throats of others?

*edit* I see now that others have made these points (BucEyedPea), but it was worth repeating anyway. Your answers are less than compelling especially on the point about shoving your morality down other's throats. */edit*

Can you ask all the Pro-Life people that for me? I mean, who's to tell someone else they can't have an abortion because it isn't right, in their view.

patteeu
05-11-2006, 04:42 PM
Can you ask all the Pro-Life people that for me? I mean, who's to tell someone else they can't have an abortion because it isn't right, in their view.

The only reason I asked jAZ that question was to illustrate the irony involved in his statement since people like the two of you are always whining about social conservatives shoving their morality down your throats. The point I was shooting for (perhaps too subtly for some) was that it cuts both ways.

irishjayhawk
05-11-2006, 04:53 PM
The only reason I asked jAZ that question was to illustrate the irony involved in his statement since people like the two of you are always whining about social conservatives shoving their morality down your throats. The point I was shooting for (perhaps too subtly for some) was that it cuts both ways.
Nothing is being shoved down my throat but when a body legislates their "morality" as a standard for all, government has crossed the line.

Baby Lee
05-11-2006, 04:55 PM
Nothing is being shoved down my throat but when a body legislates their "morality" as a standard for all, government has crossed the line.
I'm confused, you mean like "wiccans must be allowed in the Boy Scouts?"

go bowe
05-11-2006, 04:56 PM
The only reason I asked jAZ that question was to illustrate the irony involved in his statement since people like the two of you are always whining about social conservatives shoving their morality down your throats. The point I was shooting for (perhaps too subtly for some) was that it cuts both ways.both ways?

nttawwt...

patteeu
05-11-2006, 04:57 PM
Nothing is being shoved down my throat but when a body legislates their "morality" as a standard for all, government has crossed the line.

How do you avoid that (in the abortion debate for example)?

If abortion is permitted, it's forcing a permissive morality on those who oppose it. If it is prohibited, it's forcing a restrictive morality on those who favor it (at least in the sense that they favor it's availability).

BucEyedPea
05-11-2006, 05:10 PM
ALL law is based on someone's morality.

Hydrae
05-11-2006, 05:13 PM
How do you avoid that (in the abortion debate for example)?

If abortion is permitted, it's forcing a permissive morality on those who oppose it. If it is prohibited, it's forcing a restrictive morality on those who favor it (at least in the sense that they favor it's availability).

Allowing abortion is not forcing anything on anyone, that is the point. It is allowing each person to make thier own moral judgements. Prohibition forces a morality on all.

Baby Lee
05-11-2006, 05:16 PM
Allowing abortion is not forcing anything on anyone, that is the point. It is allowing each person to make thier own moral judgements. Prohibition forces a morality on all.
Depends on the definition of 'someone.'
But I'm gonna guess everyone here knows that.

go bowe
05-11-2006, 05:20 PM
How do you avoid that (in the abortion debate for example)?

If abortion is permitted, it's forcing a permissive morality on those who oppose it. If it is prohibited, it's forcing a restrictive morality on those who favor it (at least in the sense that they favor it's availability).i guess i'd quibble with the notion of forcing a permissive morality on oponents of abortion...

while it may be morally offensive to pro-lifers, it (abortion) does not generally infringe on people's legal rights insofar as their personal liberties are concerned...

iow, i don't see it as an issue of permissive morality at all...

rather it is more of a legal issue - protecting the rights of the individual to live their own life as they choose...

no legal restriction or prohibition on how people choose to practice their religion is created by allowing people to have abortions...

the legal rights of pro-lifers are not affected at all by permitting abortion...

having your religious beliefs regarding how other people should live their lives offended does not give people the right to trample on other people's rights...

jmho...

Baby Lee
05-11-2006, 05:25 PM
i guess i'd quibble with the notion of forcing a permissive morality on oponents of abortion...

while it may be morally offensive to pro-lifers, it (abortion) does not generally infringe on people's legal rights insofar as their personal liberties are concerned...

iow, i don't see it as an issue of permissive morality at all...

rather it is more of a legal issue - protecting the rights of the individual to live their own life as they choose...

no legal restriction or prohibition on how people choose to practice their religion is created by allowing people to have abortions...

the legal rights of pro-lifers are not affected at all by permitting abortion...

having your religious beliefs regarding how other people should live their lives offended does not give people the right to trample on other people's rights...

jmho...
If that were the issue, doncha think pro-lifers would be just as vociferous about circumcisions, tubal ligation, boob jobs, lipo, etc.?

patteeu
05-11-2006, 05:31 PM
Allowing abortion is not forcing anything on anyone, that is the point. It is allowing each person to make thier own moral judgements. Prohibition forces a morality on all.

Would allowing infanticide or allowing parents to murder their teenage children or allowing any other type of murder be considered forcing one morality on others (aside from the actual victim) who might not share that morality?

BucEyedPea
05-11-2006, 05:32 PM
Allowing abortion is not forcing anything on anyone...

Not even on the baby? Even at 7,8 and 9 months?

patteeu
05-11-2006, 05:39 PM
i guess i'd quibble with the notion of forcing a permissive morality on oponents of abortion...

while it may be morally offensive to pro-lifers, it (abortion) does not generally infringe on people's legal rights insofar as their personal liberties are concerned...

iow, i don't see it as an issue of permissive morality at all...

rather it is more of a legal issue - protecting the rights of the individual to live their own life as they choose...

no legal restriction or prohibition on how people choose to practice their religion is created by allowing people to have abortions...

the legal rights of pro-lifers are not affected at all by permitting abortion...

having your religious beliefs regarding how other people should live their lives offended does not give people the right to trample on other people's rights...

jmho...


Sure, but what about the rights of the unborn child? My understanding is that most pro-lifers believe that the unborn child is a person who deserves the same right to life that a new born infant deserves. I understand that those who oppose abortion prohibition generally don't agree, but that's the point. One side or the other is going to impose their belief regarding the moral status of the unborn child on everyone else.

BucEyedPea
05-11-2006, 05:41 PM
And for the record, IMO, it is a higher standard eithically to be open to other religions.

Well I don't know if it's ethically higher. Isn't that running your morality on others?

I do feel an inclusive policy is better on most things...unless it compromises the integrity of one's creed ( religious or secular). That's still a values judgement though. For the most part, it should be a free choice to choose one's people.

I also think it's better policy, for me to not judge another group's operating basis on things of this nature, in a free society to the point of making a fracas on it. That's just as intolerant. We also have freedom of association in this country.

I may be entitled to my personal opinion and that is it. I wouldn't want someone to do that to me...so I figure I shouldn't do it to them. Ya' know the Golden Rule?

patteeu
05-11-2006, 05:46 PM
I shouldn't have gone down the path of abortion for this discussion. I'm afraid it might lead us away from the boyscouts and I didn't mean to do that. Sorry.

To recast my argument...

If the boy scouts are permitted to freely associate with people of their own choosing then people whose morality leads them to conclude that inclusiveness should trump free association are going to have their ox gored. If the boy scouts are forced to be inclusive then people whose morality leads them to conclude that free association should trump inclusiveness are the ones who are having an undesireable morality shoved down their throats.

go bowe
05-11-2006, 10:38 PM
If that were the issue, doncha think pro-lifers would be just as vociferous about circumcisions, tubal ligation, boob jobs, lipo, etc.?well i know that i don't approve of boob jobs, but i'm not in favor of banning them...

i know that there are other moral issues involved, i was just framing the issue in terms of my own personal views...

but, fwiw, i don't believe that a fetus has rights that are superior to that of the mother...

go bowe
05-11-2006, 10:41 PM
Would allowing infanticide or allowing parents to murder their teenage children or allowing any other type of murder be considered forcing one morality on others (aside from the actual victim) who might not share that morality?aside from the actual victims, no...

go bowe
05-11-2006, 10:54 PM
Sure, but what about the rights of the unborn child? My understanding is that most pro-lifers believe that the unborn child is a person who deserves the same right to life that a new born infant deserves. I understand that those who oppose abortion prohibition generally don't agree, but that's the point. One side or the other is going to impose their belief regarding the moral status of the unborn child on everyone else.first, there is a difference between using the term fetus as opposed to unborn child, which suggests at the very least viability outside the womb...

getting beyond that issue, i don't believe that the rights (if any) of the fetus should trump those of the mother, who should have control over her own body...

from my pov, i do see a distinction between the moral issues and the legal issues, and imposing legal restrictions on a woman's choice is wrong...

all those who like are free to try to persuade women not to have abortions on moral grounds, and they may publically condmen abortion as immoral (as they have done), but i don't believe that pro-lifers have the right to restrict a woman's right to choose...

while i understand what you are saying, it just isn't a moral issue for me, it is strictly a matter of legal rights...

as far as morals, that's a personal thing, like religion...

and the morals of the person making the decision should control imo...

Mohammed
05-11-2006, 10:57 PM
Next week I am handing out beheading badges to our troop. Should be exciting.

BucEyedPea
05-11-2006, 11:01 PM
first, there is a difference between using the term fetus as opposed to unborn child, which suggests at the very least viability outside the womb...

Fetus is just latin for baby though.

go bowe
05-11-2006, 11:21 PM
I shouldn't have gone down the path of abortion for this discussion. I'm afraid it might lead us away from the boyscouts and I didn't mean to do that. Sorry.

To recast my argument...

If the boy scouts are permitted to freely associate with people of their own choosing then people whose morality leads them to conclude that inclusiveness should trump free association are going to have their ox gored. If the boy scouts are forced to be inclusive then people whose morality leads them to conclude that free association should trump inclusiveness are the ones who are having an undesireable morality shoved down their throats.is inclusiveness a code word for non-discrimination?

i think the gay scout leader case established that the boy scouts are pretty much free to exclude people whose expressed pov is contrary to their beliefs...

but in this case, the boy scout organization did not have such a conflict concerning the issue of religion and wanted the boys to remain members...

go bowe
05-11-2006, 11:35 PM
Fetus is just latin for baby though.i dunno...The word fetus originates from the Latin (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=bi3qeou339o99?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Latin&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc02a) fetus meaning "offspring," "act of bearing young," or "is or was filled with young". link (http://www.answers.com/topic/fetus)

act of bearing young...

is or was filled with young...

not baby...

infans is latin for baby...

patteeu
05-11-2006, 11:39 PM
aside from the actual victims, no...

In a world where murder is allowed, everyone would feel the impact, not just those who were actually killed. You'd be likely to give more serious consideration to your actions before saying something that might piss someone off, for example.

Even if murder was only accepted in a limited way, it could affect many more people than the actual victims. For example if murder were only allowed as long as the victim was under the age of 21, I wouldn't have to look over my shoulder for myself anymore, but I'd have to be concerned about any friends or family who hadn't reached that age yet and who I felt the need to protect (e.g. my kids).

Taco John
05-11-2006, 11:40 PM
This topic took a turn for the wierd...

patteeu
05-11-2006, 11:49 PM
first, there is a difference between using the term fetus as opposed to unborn child, which suggests at the very least viability outside the womb...

getting beyond that issue, i don't believe that the rights (if any) of the fetus should trump those of the mother, who should have control over her own body...

from my pov, i do see a distinction between the moral issues and the legal issues, and imposing legal restrictions on a woman's choice is wrong...

all those who like are free to try to persuade women not to have abortions on moral grounds, and they may publically condmen abortion as immoral (as they have done), but i don't believe that pro-lifers have the right to restrict a woman's right to choose...

while i understand what you are saying, it just isn't a moral issue for me, it is strictly a matter of legal rights...

as far as morals, that's a personal thing, like religion...

and the morals of the person making the decision should control imo...

I have to admit that I have a hard time discussing morals because I'm not really sure what they are.

BucEyedPea
05-12-2006, 12:18 AM
i dunno...link (http://www.answers.com/topic/fetus)

act of bearing young...

is or was filled with young...

not baby...

infans is latin for baby...

Yeah, I just checked it. I saw it on another site claiming my version, which is where I got it. Some others still claim this. So I gather that comes from the definition of "offspring" and a few others just not directly.


Medical site: (http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/1043/2/)
The word "Fetus" is Latin and means "young one" or "offspring".

Frome answers.com
off·spring (ôfsprng, f-)
n. pl. offspring
1. The progeny or descendants of a person
2. A child of particular parentage.


ba·by (b?'b?)
1.A very young child; an infant.
2.An unborn child; a fetus.
3.The youngest member of a family or group.


"Fetus," a Latin word meaning "young one" fits these two definitions almost exactly. So, by all three relevant definitions of "baby," a fetus is a baby.