Have anyone else taken note concerning the Boy Scouts

Well at least you've admitted that you don't have a clue aboiut the Boy Scouts and yet one has to wonder why you feel knowledgable enough to comment upon them.

Your "Enlighten Me" plea is as much bullshit as your criticism of the Scouts, but I'll play along:

Confidence
Self-Reliance
Appreciation for Nature (That should pluck a string of yours)
Teamwork
Achievement (Now I appreciate that for a leftist this an anethema but most people kind of admire it)
ETC - Talk to someone who was a Scout and find out what it meant to be one before you jump to your ridiculous conclusions. Contrary to what you might like to believe, their meetings are never all about what abominations homosexuals are.

Why am I making it about you?

You're making the comments.

Are some disinterested third party?

Cynical much, Finn? Or, just having a bad day?

Ok, those are all valuable assets. Why shouldn't gays be allowed to teach them or atheist/agnostic boys be allowed to learn them?

All that we need to know is that they shunned two groups of young men one for being born with a sexual interests in the "wrong" sex and the other for not believing in the supernatural god or gods except for some strange reason if they are Buddhas.

They are claiming both groups can not on their face be good moral citizens that meet the scouting requirements..

Why would anyone need to know more about them to know that they are not the type of organization that stand for the best ideals of the nation?

Cynical?

Having a bad day?

These sort of gratuitous persnal comments are always an indication of an intllect in retreat.

You couldn't just admit that there are virtues to the Boy Scouts?

Whether or not these "valuable assets" should be shared with gays and atheists (BTW they have been) is not grounds for an all out offensive against the Boy Scouts.

Can you really not find targets for your ire that are more deserving than the Boy Scouts or is your ire so superficial that it can be spread out upon any number of targets liberal propoganda tells you are bad?

Wow, I would love to be member of the holy BillRM family.

"These sort of gratuitous persnal comments are always an indication of an intllect in retreat." (sic)

oh the ******* irony...

"Well at least you've admitted that you don't have a clue aboiut the Boy Scouts and yet one has to wonder why you feel knowledgable enough to comment upon them."

are you currently involved in scouting, finn?

were you ever a scout?

when were you last at a scout meeting?

someone will prolly have to quote me for an answer from finky. he has me on ignore. maybe someone should ask him why...

Well Finjn if you can tell us all how the scouts are in any better moral position for banning children that was born gay then an organization that would ban children born with black skins you might have a point that I am being unfair to them.

After you explain why we should accept that kind of sexual bigotry and not condemn it we could then have you address why we should accept religious bigotry as well.

The harm in having a national organization willing to declare whole groups of children as unfit to be members is not limited to the children turn away but also to the children that are being taught that some of their fellow citizens should be view at best as second class citizens due to their believes or lack of same concerning religion or due to the sexual interests they had been born to.

Ok Finn we are waiting to hear how we are wrong to view the Scout positions on gays or atheists as similar to the position of the KKK concerning the mud people....................

Obviously you are right Bill.

Western Civilization needs to focus on Islamist extremists and the Boy Scouts.

LOL so we should not address wrongs of teaching that it is ok to shunned some children for religious or inborn sexual interests reasons by a powerful children shaping organization in our society due to Islamist extremists?

Kind of a very interesting logical system you got going for yourself there to say the least.

My perspective on this is that it's just sad.
Historically boy scouting was obviously a benefit to many boys.
They now seem a tradition retreating toward self-imposed isolation.

Here is how I spent some of my extracurricular time in high school.
Science Olympiad.

I don't recall pledging any oaths. Never had to prove my gender or sexuality for admission. We even had an openly gay student in my high school (that takes some courage in 1997). All this bluster is not proportionate to mine or younger generations (at least not from my perspective). The gay friends I have never worried so much about what their peers would think. They worried what their parents peers would think.

I hope the Boy Scouts change their policies.
I don't loose much sleep over it.
The world will just move on without them if they can't keep up.
My youngest brothers are 4, 5, and 8. They will not be attending so long as these policies are in place. My father is Catholic.
Religion does not condone prejudice in his family.

It is my opinion that the scouts are surely worth saving and the only means to that ends seems to be pressure from the rest of society such as parents not allowing their children to be members until the policies are change and pressuring businesses and governments at all levels not to aid them until those policies are change.

I have no wish to destroy scouting just to end the open and now scout leadership supported bigotry and to open scouting many benefits to all children.

LOL

In the main, Boy SCouting is an irrelevant institution. Like Granges and De Molay, it had a moment in time. It harkesn back to a simpler , uncomplicated, naive, and yes, rural, time.

Could not disagree with you more as scouting have a great deal more benefits then camping in the woods and I would like to see it go on if the bigots in control of it now will either change their policies or be force out of leadership roles.

Right now it have a negative message that is no longer any more acceptable then if they was banning children due to the color of their skins.

What passes for logic here is nonsense. The choice not to believe in a deity is just that, a choice. The color of one's skin is not a choice, it's innate.

Apart from that, i agree with FM (if i'm reading him correctly). This is a tempest in a teapot issue about an institution which is no longer important in our society.

Sorry I and other Atheists can no more change our minds over the issue of a god for social reasons such as memberships in the Boy Scouts then a black can change his skin color or for gays to become straight for that matter.

Yet we are taxpayers and citizens of this nation so just like the KKK the scouts have a right to be bigots but not to have a federal charter or get a dime of taxpayer funding or support.

For the Boy Scouts to be a holder of a federal charter under their current policies is the same as if the KKK would have a federal charter.

Don't apologize to me for your inability to see the logical objection to your hysterical claim.

Being gays or not believing in a god is parts of a person being not open to be lightly change anymore then having black skin happen to be.

Hell they are not even consistent in demanding a belief in some supernatural being as once more Buddhists are not such believers and yet can be members of the Scouts.

In any case, the Scouts current policies group them into the same classification as the KKK in my opinion at least as far as their rights to hold a federal charter or to tap into taxpayer funding either directly or indirectly.

Ideal if they do not change their policies their federal charter should be voids opening up for other groups to used the word Scout in their name to give people a choice to belonging to say the Open Boy Scouts of America or some such name.

Or for that matter their charter could be handed over to an organization that does not discriminate against any American child or parent.