Do Boy Scouts and Liberals Mix?

[Anonymous]

boy scouts are not for everyone. hell, I remember being so embarrassed when I was in boy scouts, say after 8th grade, thinking it was so dorky. But in that 5th grade to 8th grade window, it was a ton of fun - great way to learn about the outdoors and work together as part of a team. The gay/christian stuff wasn't a factor then and doesn't bother me now. You don't really see it. In fact, I think this issue is blown out of proportion - how many gays really are looking to get involved with scouting? 99% of the scoutmasters and adult leaders were parents of boys in the troop. (I am coming from a perspective of the 80s, when there was very little gay adoption). Even today, I'm guessing the #s are still fairly low.

I can definitely see huge advantages of being in scouting for boys from single parent households with no father really involved in their life, and/or kids from the inner city who get few chances to spend a week out in the woods enjoying and learning about nature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let it die. Both sides have said their pieces. It's clear where each side stands.

Probably right. I did appreciate the stuff posted about rogue troops, though.

I've been trying to think about how this has worked in different contexts historically. I was kinda hoping someone more thoughtful than me would draw some analogies.

[Anonymous]

Calling somebody "hypocrite" or "crazy" means the conversation has ended. I'm not the person complaining about ad hominem attacks. But you can't have a discussion where there is no mutual respect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't have a "discussion" when people who disagree call each other names like "hypocrite."

Why not? Calling someone a hypocrite isn't the same as calling someone a poopy-head. If I'm presenting my views publicly, calling for others to agree with me, and someone thinks they're hypocritical, they're welcome to make that claim. The same applies if they think I've put forward "crazy" or "idiotic" ideas.

Are you one of the people calling other posters hypocrites? You may think this behavior is OK, but it's not.

[Anonymous]

Back to topic. The Boy Scouts are a Christian organization. They're welcome to exclude those that don't fit within their guidelines. Does this mean that they can or do exclude based on religion? I know they exclude atheists and agnostics, but what about Jews and Muslims or followers of non-monotheistic religions?

[Anonymous]

The same applies to addressing somebody as "Hey, Crazy," There's just no way you can pretty this up by saying it applies in a limited context. If that was you, sorry, but it's a conversation stopper

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Back to topic. The Boy Scouts are a Christian organization. They're welcome to exclude those that don't fit within their guidelines. Does this mean that they can or do exclude based on religion? I know they exclude atheists and agnostics, but what about Jews and Muslims or followers of non-monotheistic religions?

they are not a christian organization, but they want their members to have faith. Be it jewish, hindu, muslim, you name it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Back to topic. The Boy Scouts are a Christian organization. They're welcome to exclude those that don't fit within their guidelines. Does this mean that they can or do exclude based on religion? I know they exclude atheists and agnostics, but what about Jews and Muslims or followers of non-monotheistic religions?

This is a good question - I don't know any jewish boyscouts, but I only know a small subset of scouts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to topic. The Boy Scouts are a Christian organization. They're welcome to exclude those that don't fit within their guidelines. Does this mean that they can or do exclude based on religion? I know they exclude atheists and agnostics, but what about Jews and Muslims or followers of non-monotheistic religions?

they are not a christian organization, but they want their members to have faith. Be it jewish, hindu, muslim, you name it.

They require faith and members pledging to god, but they aren't a Christian organization? I don't understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to topic. The Boy Scouts are a Christian organization. They're welcome to exclude those that don't fit within their guidelines. Does this mean that they can or do exclude based on religion? I know they exclude atheists and agnostics, but what about Jews and Muslims or followers of non-monotheistic religions?

they are not a christian organization, but they want their members to have faith. Be it jewish, hindu, muslim, you name it.

They require faith and members pledging to god, but they aren't a Christian organization? I don't understand.

do not more than one religion worship their god and have faith? Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on faith. Nothing in the scout oat mentions "Jesus".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you one of the people calling other posters hypocrites?

No, but not because of some misguided idea of what constitutes name-calling.* There is no more polite but reasonably efficient synonym for "hypocrisy."

When you publicly state your opinions, you invite judgment of them. If you're offended by someone's frank appraisal, then you should probably STFU.

Anonymous wrote:You may think this behavior is OK, but it's not.

What kind of counter "argument" is that? I'd much rather have someone call me a hypocrite and put forward some comprehensible reason for that position (right or wrong) than have someone say something as useless as your statement. All you've given us is your flat, unsupported judgment. "That is not OK. So there."

To drift in a seemingly crazy** direction, this reminds me of recent Republican approaches - conclusory pronouncements combined with faux outrage over all the terribly, terribly offensive things said to or about you.

I'll check out of this thread now because there now appear to be a few of you who think that ill-considered and unsupported arguments are great, so long as no one offends your delicate sensibilities. I wouldn't want to give anyone the vapors.


*Which, BTW, is still different than ad hominem attacks.
** I should sue myself for this slander!

[Anonymous]

Clearly you don't want to hear that calling people names is offensive. You can poke a hole in somebody's argument without calling them a hypocrite. Or telling them to STFU. Or comparing them to Republicans. All three of which you just did.

It's not about delicate sensibilities. It's about trying to have a conversation without insulting each other. The rest of us are trying to argue substance, and you're just being abusive.

However, you clearly have no idea how you come off. So good riddance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, I did find the first "cuckoo" at 3/22 @ 22:29. Apparently the "cuckoo" poster is an equal opportunity troll, because he or she has "cuckooed" both anti-Boy Scout and pro-Boy Scout posts.

Another reason to dump this thread.

If the cuckoo poster was the same person both times, the cuckoo poster seems to be someone who is pro-Boy Scouts and anti-gay tolerance (the nephew mentinoedc being outspokenly gay friendly is probably what set this posted off.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can't have a "discussion" when people who disagree call each other names like "hypocrite."

Are you new to dcurbanmoms by any chance?

You probably need to develop a filter mechanism on these kinds of things, or else do just leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let it die. Both sides have said their pieces. It's clear where each side stands.

Probably right. I did appreciate the stuff posted about rogue troops, though.

I've been trying to think about how this has worked in different contexts historically. I was kinda hoping someone more thoughtful than me would draw some analogies.

I can't think of a historical analogy.

A hypothetical analogy would be a club for young children where all kids were welcome to join, except those who said that they were left-handed or had chosen the "left-handed lifestyle". In addition, no parents who lived the "left-handed lifestyle" would be allowed to wear the club uniform or serve in a leadership capacity.

As long as the parents attempted to "pass" as right handers and didn't "flaunt" their left handedness, they could serve as leaders. But if it became known that the parents were "left-handed" or another parent complained, the parent/leader would be asked to stand down.

When questioned on this rule, club leaders would explain that their rules require members and leaders to be "morally straight" and it was their belief that using the left hand or being left handed was a sign of moral impurity. Left handed lifestyle, they thought, was linked with dyslexia, learning disabilities, insanity, and sloppiness. They didn't want leaders to model their left handedness to impressionable young children and show that a decent person could be left handed. That would just tend to validate the left handed lifestyle, and perhaps ruin impressionable young children.

As a result of a Supreme Court ruling, left handed parents knew that they weren't welcome in the club and very few let their kids join. That led to right handed parents not seeing what the big deal was. "It doesn't even come up in our troop/den/pack. We just go camping and hiking. No one checks to see what hand people are using."