Boy Scouts of America Silver Dollar Centennial Commemorative Coin

[Fred Goodwin, CMA]

Boy Scouts of America Silver Dollar Centennial Commemorative Coin

<http://www.coinnews.net/2008/04/28/boy-scouts-of-america-silver-
dollar-centennial-commemorative-coin-4056/>
http://tinyurl.com/5wvoc8

By CoinNews.net on Apr 28th, 2008

A new House bill recently introduced to celebrate the centennial of
the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) with the minting of a commemorate
silver dollar has exceptionally strong bipartisan support.

Rep Pete Sessions [R-TX] introduced the new bill on April 22, 2008.
The bill looks to be soundly popular with an already 296 cosponsors
lined up to provide their early signature for the "100 Years of
Scouting" commemorative coin.

In addition to the commemorative coin initiative, Sessions is also
building support for a U.S. postage stamp to celebrate “100 Years of
Scouting.” Currently, Sessions has garnered the support of over 320
Senators and Members of Congress for a letter to the U.S. Postmaster
General, requesting a commemorative stamp for the 100th anniversary of
Boy Scouts of America.

In 1960, the United States Postal Office celebrated the Boy Scouts of
America’s 50th Anniversary with the introduction of the 4 cent
commemorative stamp depicting a Scout holding up the Scout sign.

[excerpted]

[Indian Head]

Stop the passage of the Boys Scouts Commemorative Coin

May 21, 2008 - Last week the House of Representatives passed
legislation (H.R. 5872) creating a commemorative coin for the Boy
Scouts of America, an organization that explicitly discriminates
against nontheists (as well as gays) in admission, employment, and
even volunteer opportunities. By directing the U.S. Mint to produce
commemorative coins as a fundraiser for the Boy Scouts of America
(BSA), the House is sending an estimated $3.5 million dollars directly
to their organization. As this legislation moves to the Senate for
confirmation, the Secular Coalition for America asks that you write
your Senators and voice your opposition to this bill.

The Secular Coalition for America urges Congress to bar the use of
federal funds to assist any organization that discriminates based on
religion. Allowing a commemorative coin to be created in honor of the
Boy Scouts not only demonstrates that Congress agrees with the
religious discrimination practices of the BSA, but moreover, wants to
financially assist the organization.

The "Declaration of Religious Principle," found in BSA's
organization's bylaws must be agreed to by every participant,
volunteer, or employee. This declaration states that "no member can
grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation
to God...The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the
universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings
are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome
precepts in the education of the growing members."

The BSA is the direct beneficiary of any money made by this
commemorative coin and will use this money to further its values and
continue discriminating against those without a god-belief. It will
continue to teach young boys that only god-believers can be good
citizens.

Although we were unable to stop this legislation in the House, we are
asking you to help us keep this legislation off the floor of the
Senate by reaching out to your state Senators now. Please contact your
Senators and tell them to stop allowing private organizations that
discriminate on the basis of religion from benefiting from federal
endorsement and government fundraising schemes.

Take a stand!

Below is a sample letter to send to your Senators about the Boy Scouts
of America commemorative coin legislation. Please feel free to adapt
it to your voice and provide additional information of importance to
you.

Dear Senator,

On May 15 the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5872, the "Boy
Scouts of America Centennial Commemorative Coin Act," which mandates
that the U.S. Mint must create and sell a coin commemorating the
Scouts' centennial in the year 2010. A ten dollar surcharge on each
coin goes directly to the Boy Scouts of America, who stand to net $3.5
million in the deal.

The Boy Scouts of America organization does not admit or employ
atheists or agnostics because of their position that, "no member can
grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation
to God." While such inaccurate prejudice against nontheistic
Americans may be held by a private organization, the United States
government must not aid in funding an organization which discriminates
based on religion.

It is constitutionally questionable to use our tax dollars to support
a religiously restricted membership organization.

I urge you to oppose HR 5872 also known as the Boy Scouts of America
Centennial Commemorative Coin Act.

[Bruce Remick]

Post by Indian Head
Stop the passage of the Boys Scouts Commemorative Coin
May 21, 2008 - Last week the House of Representatives passed
legislation (H.R. 5872) creating a commemorative coin for the Boy
Scouts of America, an organization that explicitly discriminates
against nontheists (as well as gays) in admission, employment, and
even volunteer opportunities. By directing the U.S. Mint to produce
commemorative coins as a fundraiser for the Boy Scouts of America
(BSA), the House is sending an estimated $3.5 million dollars directly
to their organization. As this legislation moves to the Senate for
confirmation, the Secular Coalition for America asks that you write
your Senators and voice your opposition to this bill.
The Secular Coalition for America urges Congress to bar the use of
federal funds to assist any organization that discriminates based on
religion. Allowing a commemorative coin to be created in honor of the
Boy Scouts not only demonstrates that Congress agrees with the
religious discrimination practices of the BSA, but moreover, wants to
financially assist the organization.
The "Declaration of Religious Principle," found in BSA's
organization's bylaws must be agreed to by every participant,
volunteer, or employee. This declaration states that "no member can
grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation
to God...The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the
universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings
are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome
precepts in the education of the growing members."

Sort of like "In God We Trust", which will likely appear on the coin. Go
Scouts!

[note.boy]

There are denominational Scout Troops in the UK, or were when I were a lad,
but the Scout Troop that I was in was non denominational and I think all
should be. Billy

Post by Indian Head
Stop the passage of the Boys Scouts Commemorative Coin
May 21, 2008 - Last week the House of Representatives passed
legislation (H.R. 5872) creating a commemorative coin for the Boy
Scouts of America, an organization that explicitly discriminates
against nontheists (as well as gays) in admission, employment, and
even volunteer opportunities. By directing the U.S. Mint to produce
commemorative coins as a fundraiser for the Boy Scouts of America
(BSA), the House is sending an estimated $3.5 million dollars directly
to their organization. As this legislation moves to the Senate for
confirmation, the Secular Coalition for America asks that you write
your Senators and voice your opposition to this bill.
The Secular Coalition for America urges Congress to bar the use of
federal funds to assist any organization that discriminates based on
religion. Allowing a commemorative coin to be created in honor of the
Boy Scouts not only demonstrates that Congress agrees with the
religious discrimination practices of the BSA, but moreover, wants to
financially assist the organization.
The "Declaration of Religious Principle," found in BSA's
organization's bylaws must be agreed to by every participant,
volunteer, or employee. This declaration states that "no member can
grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation
to God...The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the
universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings
are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome
precepts in the education of the growing members."
The BSA is the direct beneficiary of any money made by this
commemorative coin and will use this money to further its values and
continue discriminating against those without a god-belief. It will
continue to teach young boys that only god-believers can be good
citizens.
Although we were unable to stop this legislation in the House, we are
asking you to help us keep this legislation off the floor of the
Senate by reaching out to your state Senators now. Please contact your
Senators and tell them to stop allowing private organizations that
discriminate on the basis of religion from benefiting from federal
endorsement and government fundraising schemes.
Take a stand!
Below is a sample letter to send to your Senators about the Boy Scouts
of America commemorative coin legislation. Please feel free to adapt
it to your voice and provide additional information of importance to
you.
Dear Senator,
On May 15 the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5872, the "Boy
Scouts of America Centennial Commemorative Coin Act," which mandates
that the U.S. Mint must create and sell a coin commemorating the
Scouts' centennial in the year 2010. A ten dollar surcharge on each
coin goes directly to the Boy Scouts of America, who stand to net $3.5
million in the deal.
The Boy Scouts of America organization does not admit or employ
atheists or agnostics because of their position that, "no member can
grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation
to God." While such inaccurate prejudice against nontheistic
Americans may be held by a private organization, the United States
government must not aid in funding an organization which discriminates
based on religion.
It is constitutionally questionable to use our tax dollars to support
a religiously restricted membership organization.
I urge you to oppose HR 5872 also known as the Boy Scouts of America
Centennial Commemorative Coin Act.

[Jerry Dennis]

On May 21, 9:24�pm, Indian Head <***@tidalwave.net> wrote nothing but
drivel.

You're an idiot. Care to provide your source? It's conspicuously
absent.

Jerry

[tony cooper]

On Sat, 24 May 2008 18:55:30 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Dennis

Post by Jerry Dennis
drivel.
You're an idiot. Care to provide your source? It's conspicuously
absent.

What source do you want, Jerry?

The text of the bill is at
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c110NsbwaZ::
That confirms that $10 per coin goes to the BSA. (Sec. 7 - Surcharges)

Do you need a source to understand that the BSA discriminates against
the non-religious or gays? I thought that was common knowledge.

If you want to see the mint issue the coin, write your congressman.
If you don't want to see the mint issue the coin, write your
congressman. If you don't care, join me and do nothing.

[Bruce Remick]

Post by tony cooper
On Sat, 24 May 2008 18:55:30 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Dennis

Post by Jerry Dennis
drivel.
You're an idiot. Care to provide your source? It's conspicuously
absent.

What source do you want, Jerry?
The text of the bill is at
That confirms that $10 per coin goes to the BSA. (Sec. 7 - Surcharges)
Do you need a source to understand that the BSA discriminates against
the non-religious or gays? I thought that was common knowledge.

Out of curiousity, I'd like to see the source which says that non-religious
or gay boys are not allowed to be Scouts. As far as I can tell, either
could join if simply willing to sign off on a collection of credos, some of
which don't particularly apply to them. After all, the Boy Scouts, like the
YMCA, has been a traditional Christian-oriented group since its inception.
If non-Christians are still interested in joining the group, I don't believe
they are turned away.

Post by tony cooper
If you want to see the mint issue the coin, write your congressman.
If you don't want to see the mint issue the coin, write your
congressman. If you don't care, join me and do nothing.

I'll go along with you there.

[Mr. Jaggers]

Post by Bruce Remick

Post by tony cooper
On Sat, 24 May 2008 18:55:30 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Dennis

Post by Jerry Dennis
drivel.
You're an idiot. Care to provide your source? It's conspicuously
absent.

What source do you want, Jerry?
The text of the bill is at
That confirms that $10 per coin goes to the BSA. (Sec. 7 - Surcharges)
Do you need a source to understand that the BSA discriminates against
the non-religious or gays? I thought that was common knowledge.

Out of curiousity, I'd like to see the source which says that
non-religious or gay boys are not allowed to be Scouts. As far as I can
tell, either could join if simply willing to sign off on a collection of
credos, some of which don't particularly apply to them. After all, the
Boy Scouts, like the YMCA, has been a traditional Christian-oriented group
since its inception. If non-Christians are still interested in joining the
group, I don't believe they are turned away.

I think you hit the nail squarely when you said "sign off on a collection of
credos." One who is willing to do just that, while keeping his real self
deeply hidden, will find many doors open to him. However, if he becomes
proactive and openly proclaims his gayness or lack of belief, he will see
those same doors slamming shut on him - with his fingers still in some of
them.

James

[Bruce Remick]

Post by Mr. Jaggers

Post by Bruce Remick

Post by tony cooper
On Sat, 24 May 2008 18:55:30 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Dennis

Post by Jerry Dennis
drivel.
You're an idiot. Care to provide your source? It's conspicuously
absent.

What source do you want, Jerry?
The text of the bill is at
That confirms that $10 per coin goes to the BSA. (Sec. 7 - Surcharges)
Do you need a source to understand that the BSA discriminates against
the non-religious or gays? I thought that was common knowledge.

Out of curiousity, I'd like to see the source which says that
non-religious or gay boys are not allowed to be Scouts. As far as I can
tell, either could join if simply willing to sign off on a collection of
credos, some of which don't particularly apply to them. After all, the
Boy Scouts, like the YMCA, has been a traditional Christian-oriented
group since its inception. If non-Christians are still interested in
joining the group, I don't believe they are turned away.

I think you hit the nail squarely when you said "sign off on a collection
of credos." One who is willing to do just that, while keeping his real
self deeply hidden, will find many doors open to him. However, if he
becomes proactive and openly proclaims his gayness or lack of belief, he
will see those same doors slamming shut on him - with his fingers still in
some of them.
James

From what I see, any non-religious or gay boy who finds the Boy Scout
organization attractive is free to join. If his religious or gay views are
firm and confrontational, he inevitably will face problems, but won't
automatically be kicked out because of those views. His "real self"
convictions need not be deeply hidden to prosper as a Boy Scout. He should
know going in that his views contrast with those of the majority, and if the
Scouting urge trumps that, he should go for it. While some of his
individual scouting peers indeed may discriminate against him, like in any
group, the Boy Scout organization itself doesn't, as I see it.

And a Boy Scout commemorative coin wouldn't discriminate against anyone.

[tony cooper]

Post by Bruce Remick
From what I see, any non-religious or gay boy who finds the Boy Scout
organization attractive is free to join.

That's simply not true.
http://www.bsalegal.org/downloads/welsh_seventh_circuit.pdf

Post by Bruce Remick
If his religious or gay views are
firm and confrontational, he inevitably will face problems, but won't
automatically be kicked out because of those views.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200210%5CCUL20021030a.html

Post by Bruce Remick
And a Boy Scout commemorative coin wouldn't discriminate against anyone.

Not the coin itself, but the proceeds of the coin provide a subsidy to
an organization that discriminates. The sale of each coin would
result in a subsidy to the organization of $10.

The postage stamps that honored Scouting did not subsidize Scouting.
No money was paid to any scouting organization based on the sale of
the stamps.

I don't see how we can expect the government to say "You can
discriminate if you are a private organization, but you will be denied
government funding if you do so. Unless you are the BSA."

[Bruce Remick]

Post by tony cooper

Post by Bruce Remick
From what I see, any non-religious or gay boy who finds the Boy Scout
organization attractive is free to join.

That's simply not true.
http://www.bsalegal.org/downloads/welsh_seventh_circuit.pdf

An interesting cite. I tried reading and absorbing what it said, but I kept
getting sidetracked by all the technical precedents, etc. I did however
read things I was not aware of.

I don't think it changed my mind entirely though, in that the non-religious
or gay boy who wants to join the Boy Scouts and is willing to take the Oath
is free to join. The kid who attempts to join only to challenge certain
parts of the Scout Oath because of his contrary beliefs, apparently may
"win" if he takes it to court, but I don't understand what he would actually
win. The words of the Scout Oath remain unchanged as far as I can tell.

A boy who is gay or aethiest, and who is sensitive about it, should think
twice before joining an organization where individuals might discriminate
against him. The same could be said of a boy who is overly sensitive about
his weight or appearance. On the other hand, Scouting could provide a
perfect forum for a young boy to learn how to deal with his sensitivities
and to handle discrimination, in preparation for the diverse world he will
be facing.

Regardless of the wording in the Scout Oath, in my contacts with Boy Scouts
(and a time as a Cub) I saw no religious teaching or organized activity that
would even indicate what a fellow Scout's religious views were. Reciting
the Scout Oath is no more binding on an individual that reciting the Pledge
of Allegiance. Most youngsters who recite the Pledge in school probably
have no idea what they have just "pledged", why there is even a need to do
so, or that they may have just said "under God" without a parent there to
protest. Likewise, I doubt a prospective Scout expects religion to be a
part of his scouting experience, even though "...to do my best to do my duty
to God and my country..." is part of the Oath. Most boys who aren't
religious at all would likely presume that they wouldn't be going against
any of those principals, even though they may not believe in God per se.

Post by tony cooper

Post by Bruce Remick
If his religious or gay views are
firm and confrontational, he inevitably will face problems, but won't
automatically be kicked out because of those views.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200210%5CCUL20021030a.html

Post by Bruce Remick
And a Boy Scout commemorative coin wouldn't discriminate against anyone.

Not the coin itself, but the proceeds of the coin provide a subsidy to
an organization that discriminates. The sale of each coin would
result in a subsidy to the organization of $10.

Again, it's the word "discriminates". Like the claim that eBay
discriminates against certain slabbed coins. I may get booted out of court
with my views, but I still can't bring myself to change them. Too stubborn,
maybe.

[tony cooper]

Post by Bruce Remick

Post by tony cooper
Do you need a source to understand that the BSA discriminates against
the non-religious or gays? I thought that was common knowledge.

Out of curiousity, I'd like to see the source which says that non-religious
or gay boys are not allowed to be Scouts.

There are numerous places on the web where you can read about actual
cases where non-religious boys have been denied membership to the BSA.
Not rumors, not hearsay, but actual cases. Some include court
rulings. The BSA doesn't deny that they require that an applicant to
sign a document that they believe in a religion. They're quite open
about it.

I'm not going to provide links because the sites are all private sites
that are very one-sided. Google terms like "boy scout religious
requirement" and you'll find them.

The same goes for gays, but most of the controversy here has been
about gay scout leaders.

Post by Bruce Remick
As far as I can tell, either
could join if simply willing to sign off on a collection of credos, some of
which don't particularly apply to them.

Yes. The applicant can lie and say they believe in a religion. The
parent - who must sign the forms - can lie and accept a condition
under false pretenses.

Is this what we want, though? To be able to join an organization
under the premise of an outright lie? To hypocritically accept the
Boy Scout Law of "TRUSTWORTHY - A Scout tells the truth. He keeps his
promises. Honesty is part of his code of conduct. People can depend on
him." even though he has joined the organization by outright lying?

What would we be teaching him?

They are a private organization and should be allowed to set their own
rules of membership. If they want to ban agnostics and atheists,
that's their right.

However, if they do, then they should be treated like all other
private organizations and operate free of government subsidy in any
form. The $10 per coin proposal is a government subsidy.

[Mr. Jaggers]

Post by tony cooper

Post by Bruce Remick

Post by tony cooper
Do you need a source to understand that the BSA discriminates against
the non-religious or gays? I thought that was common knowledge.

Out of curiousity, I'd like to see the source which says that
non-religious
or gay boys are not allowed to be Scouts.

There are numerous places on the web where you can read about actual
cases where non-religious boys have been denied membership to the BSA.
Not rumors, not hearsay, but actual cases. Some include court
rulings. The BSA doesn't deny that they require that an applicant to
sign a document that they believe in a religion. They're quite open
about it.
I'm not going to provide links because the sites are all private sites
that are very one-sided. Google terms like "boy scout religious
requirement" and you'll find them.
The same goes for gays, but most of the controversy here has been
about gay scout leaders.

That's because homosexuals do not normally come to a full realization of
their sexuality until well after the age when one would typically join
scouting, perhaps not even until after they have gone most or all the way
through the scouting experience.

Post by tony cooper

Post by Bruce Remick
As far as I can tell, either
could join if simply willing to sign off on a collection of credos, some of
which don't particularly apply to them.

Yes. The applicant can lie and say they believe in a religion. The
parent - who must sign the forms - can lie and accept a condition
under false pretenses.

I call people who do such things "false prophets." And IMO the world has an
abundance of them.

Post by tony cooper
Is this what we want, though? To be able to join an organization
under the premise of an outright lie? To hypocritically accept the
Boy Scout Law of "TRUSTWORTHY - A Scout tells the truth. He keeps his
promises. Honesty is part of his code of conduct. People can depend on
him." even though he has joined the organization by outright lying?

Heh. A long time ago, when I joined the DeMolay organization, I took an
oath to, among other things, "keep my body free from the dissipation that
defiles and debauches youth." In reality I had only the vaguest inkling of
what I was promising. I'm still not exactly sure what they had in mind.

Post by tony cooper
What would we be teaching him?
They are a private organization and should be allowed to set their own
rules of membership. If they want to ban agnostics and atheists,
that's their right.
However, if they do, then they should be treated like all other
private organizations and operate free of government subsidy in any
form. The $10 per coin proposal is a government subsidy.

I wonder how people here feel about a commem honoring the Masons and
contributing to their coffers.

James

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 25 May 2008 09:38:01 -0500, "Mr. Jaggers"

Post by Mr. Jaggers

Post by tony cooper
The same goes for gays, but most of the controversy here has been
about gay scout leaders.

That's because homosexuals do not normally come to a full realization of
their sexuality until well after the age when one would typically join
scouting, perhaps not even until after they have gone most or all the way
through the scouting experience.

My daughter, now just over 40, went to her high school Senior Prom
with a boy named Mike. I liked Mike, and of all the guys that my
daughter went out with in high school, Mike was my favorite. A
football player, good student, responsible, polite, and a nice family.
I worked on several committees with his parents.

Mike is now living in San Francisco with his male partner of something
like 15 years. My daughter ran into him when they were both in town a
few Christmas's ago, and they correspond by email.

Mike says he was aware that he was more interested in boys than girls
at about middle school. He didn't "come out", though, until after
college. Neither my daughter or any of their circle of friends had
the slightest inkling that Mike had any gay tendencies.

[Mr. Jaggers]

Post by tony cooper
On Sun, 25 May 2008 09:38:01 -0500, "Mr. Jaggers"

Post by Mr. Jaggers

Post by tony cooper
The same goes for gays, but most of the controversy here has been
about gay scout leaders.

That's because homosexuals do not normally come to a full realization of
their sexuality until well after the age when one would typically join
scouting, perhaps not even until after they have gone most or all the way
through the scouting experience.

My daughter, now just over 40, went to her high school Senior Prom
with a boy named Mike. I liked Mike, and of all the guys that my
daughter went out with in high school, Mike was my favorite. A
football player, good student, responsible, polite, and a nice family.
I worked on several committees with his parents.
Mike is now living in San Francisco with his male partner of something
like 15 years. My daughter ran into him when they were both in town a
few Christmas's ago, and they correspond by email.
Mike says he was aware that he was more interested in boys than girls
at about middle school. He didn't "come out", though, until after
college. Neither my daughter or any of their circle of friends had
the slightest inkling that Mike had any gay tendencies.

My best friend from high school (class of mumbly-four) surprised me last
year by visiting with his male companion. I knew he had never married, but
we kept in fairly good touch over the years since graduation. I certainly
had no inkling whatsoever when we were still in school, and it's possible
that he didn't really, either. He also dated and went to the prom both
years, and whenever our conversations deviated at all from what would be
considered chaste, I remember them as being hetero in their orientation.
It's a field that has enjoyed only embryonic research so far. It irritates
me that so many people already "know everything" about it.

James

[Bruce Remick]

Post by tony cooper

Post by Bruce Remick

Post by tony cooper
Do you need a source to understand that the BSA discriminates against
the non-religious or gays? I thought that was common knowledge.

Out of curiousity, I'd like to see the source which says that
non-religious
or gay boys are not allowed to be Scouts.

There are numerous places on the web where you can read about actual
cases where non-religious boys have been denied membership to the BSA.
Not rumors, not hearsay, but actual cases. Some include court
rulings. The BSA doesn't deny that they require that an applicant to
sign a document that they believe in a religion. They're quite open
about it.

Funny, I'm looking at the BS application form, and I see nothing where the
applicant or parent mentions anything about belief in any religion.

Post by tony cooper
I'm not going to provide links because the sites are all private sites
that are very one-sided. Google terms like "boy scout religious
requirement" and you'll find them.

What I found Googling were the statements on the Boy Scout application
(Information For Parents) that deal with religion:

"The BSA recognizes the importance of religious faith and duty; it leaves
sectarian religious instruction to the member's religious leaders and
family. Members who do not belong to a unit's religious chartered
organization shall not be required to participate in its religious
activities.

"The BSA maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen
without recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore, recognizes the
religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely
nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is
that the home and organization or group with which the member is connected
shall give the definite attention to religious life. Only persons willing
to subscribe to this Declaration of Religious Principle and to the Bylaws of
the BSA shall be entitled to certificates of membership."

So I see nothing above that would preclude a young aethiest who wanted to
become a member of the Boy Scouts from being accepted, assuming he had no
hangups about signing the forms, reciting the Oath, and blending in with
others of different religious convictions.

Post by tony cooper
The same goes for gays, but most of the controversy here has been
about gay scout leaders.

Post by Bruce Remick
As far as I can tell, either
could join if simply willing to sign off on a collection of credos, some of
which don't particularly apply to them.

Yes. The applicant can lie and say they believe in a religion. The
parent - who must sign the forms - can lie and accept a condition
under false pretenses.

Again, based on the BSA application, there is no line that where one states
a belief in a religion. No "lies" are necessary, just a willingness to
agree to the rules. You should do some Googling yourself.

Post by tony cooper
Is this what we want, though? To be able to join an organization
under the premise of an outright lie? To hypocritically accept the
Boy Scout Law of "TRUSTWORTHY - A Scout tells the truth. He keeps his
promises. Honesty is part of his code of conduct. People can depend on
him." even though he has joined the organization by outright lying?

The gay aethiest kid who desires to be a Boy Scout states no "lies" on his
application. There's nothing on there that covers religion or sexual
preference. Signing one's name merely indicates a willingness to abide by
the BS rules-- the benefit being the boy gets to be a Scout while his
(non)religion and orientation are his personal business. You indicate that
the boy would be untrustworthy and a liar? Wow! You're tough!

Post by tony cooper
What would we be teaching him?

Better yet. What might he be teaching US?

Post by tony cooper
They are a private organization and should be allowed to set their own
rules of membership. If they want to ban agnostics and atheists,
that's their right.

Time for you to Google again. I'm tired of doing it all if you're too set
in stone to feel the need to do some for yourself

Post by tony cooper
However, if they do, then they should be treated like all other
private organizations and operate free of government subsidy in any
form. The $10 per coin proposal is a government subsidy.

The $10 would be a "citizen subsidy", a percentage of the proceeds from coin
sales to people who apparently like the Scouts or simply collect
commemoratives. No taxpayer or government money. You're safe.

[tony cooper]

Post by Bruce Remick

Post by tony cooper

Post by Bruce Remick

Post by tony cooper
Do you need a source to understand that the BSA discriminates against
the non-religious or gays? I thought that was common knowledge.

Out of curiousity, I'd like to see the source which says that
non-religious
or gay boys are not allowed to be Scouts.

There are numerous places on the web where you can read about actual
cases where non-religious boys have been denied membership to the BSA.
Not rumors, not hearsay, but actual cases. Some include court
rulings. The BSA doesn't deny that they require that an applicant to
sign a document that they believe in a religion. They're quite open
about it.

So I see nothing above that would preclude a young aethiest who wanted to
become a member of the Boy Scouts from being accepted, assuming he had no
hangups about signing the forms, reciting the Oath, and blending in with
others of different religious convictions.

No, there's nothing to stop the young atheist from falsely accepting
what the oath requires. If the kid wavers, just tell him to lie.
Then tell him to follow the rest of the Oath about honesty.

You don't see anything wrong about this? Teaching selective honesty
from the get-go?

Post by Bruce Remick
Again, based on the BSA application, there is no line that where one states
a belief in a religion. No "lies" are necessary, just a willingness to
agree to the rules. You should do some Googling yourself.

What's an Oath? Read the Oath at
http://www.scouting.org/Media/FactSheets/02-503a.aspx and then read
the Law that the Oath requires the scout to follow. Check the part
about "Honesty" and "Reverence".

Post by Bruce Remick
You indicate that
the boy would be untrustworthy and a liar? Wow! You're tough!

No, not at all. I place no blame whatsoever on the boy who does or
does not join the BSA under the false pretense of believing in God or
that he promises to be faithful in his religious duties. If there's
blame to be placed, it's on the parent or scout leader who tells the
boy to participate in an Oath he doesn't believe in.

Post by Bruce Remick

Post by tony cooper
However, if they do, then they should be treated like all other
private organizations and operate free of government subsidy in any
form. The $10 per coin proposal is a government subsidy.

The $10 would be a "citizen subsidy", a percentage of the proceeds from coin
sales to people who apparently like the Scouts or simply collect
commemoratives. No taxpayer or government money. You're safe.

No, I think it's a subsidy. The $10 that goes to the scouts would go
to the government if that proviso was not in the bill. The government
is implementing a scheme to provide that money to the scouts, and
bearing the cost of running the scheme.

[Bruce Remick]

Post by tony cooper

Post by Bruce Remick

Post by tony cooper

Post by Bruce Remick

Post by tony cooper
Do you need a source to understand that the BSA discriminates against
the non-religious or gays? I thought that was common knowledge.

Out of curiousity, I'd like to see the source which says that non-religious
or gay boys are not allowed to be Scouts.

There are numerous places on the web where you can read about actual
cases where non-religious boys have been denied membership to the BSA.
Not rumors, not hearsay, but actual cases. Some include court
rulings. The BSA doesn't deny that they require that an applicant to
sign a document that they believe in a religion. They're quite open
about it.

So I see nothing above that would preclude a young aethiest who wanted to
become a member of the Boy Scouts from being accepted, assuming he had no
hangups about signing the forms, reciting the Oath, and blending in with
others of different religious convictions.

No, there's nothing to stop the young atheist from falsely accepting
what the oath requires. If the kid wavers, just tell him to lie.
Then tell him to follow the rest of the Oath about honesty.

The average young kid of Boy Scout applicant age hasn't developed serious
religious convictions that would preclude him from accepting the tenets of
Boy Scout Oath. If anything, it would be his parents who would be more apt
to pull the plug on his wish to be a Scout. If the boy and his parents are
okay with the Oath, and feel comfortable that their own religious view won't
be a factor, there's nothing at all dishonest on anyone's part. There's no
"false" acceptance. They agree to accept or they don't.

Post by tony cooper
You don't see anything wrong about this? Teaching selective honesty
from the get-go?

Please see my comment above, if it will make any difference to you.

Post by tony cooper

Post by Bruce Remick
Again, based on the BSA application, there is no line that where one states
a belief in a religion. No "lies" are necessary, just a willingness to
agree to the rules. You should do some Googling yourself.

What's an Oath? Read the Oath at
http://www.scouting.org/Media/FactSheets/02-503a.aspx and then read
the Law that the Oath requires the scout to follow. Check the part
about "Honesty" and "Reverence".

Read it, thanks, along with the advice to parents regarding religion, too.
If the boy is willing to accept the Scout creed above whatever his own
religious conviction might be in his desire to become a Scout, he would be
totally honest and reverent (albeit passively) in his actions. Not all
non-religious people are unwilling to associate with others who aren't, and
most don't feel uncomfortable being around peers who believe differently.

You still don't point to that part in the application where a religion must
be specified.

Post by tony cooper

Post by Bruce Remick
You indicate that
the boy would be untrustworthy and a liar? Wow! You're tough!

No, not at all. I place no blame whatsoever on the boy who does or
does not join the BSA under the false pretense of believing in God or
that he promises to be faithful in his religious duties. If there's
blame to be placed, it's on the parent or scout leader who tells the
boy to participate in an Oath he doesn't believe in.

Sure sounded to me that you blamed the boy who applied to join the BSA
"...under the false pretense, etc...". You said he would be a liar and
dishonest. Somehow, I can't picture the scenareo of a 12 year old aethiest
boy whose father encourages him to take the Boy Scout Oath. Most 12 year
old boys aren't mature enough to have decided if or how religion will play
in their life. The mention of God in the BS Oath would have little or no
significance to most 12 year olds. Now I COULD envision an aethiest parent
prohibiting his young son from joining the Scouts because of the parent's
convictions.

When I was a kid, many Catholic parents would not let their sons join the
YMCA because the Y did not let the boys wear swim trunks in the Y pool. My
own parents weren't keen on the idea-- neither was I, for that matter-- but
they reluctantly let me join and take swim lessons. Learning to swim was
more important than modesty, I guess.

Post by tony cooper

Post by Bruce Remick

Post by tony cooper
However, if they do, then they should be treated like all other
private organizations and operate free of government subsidy in any
form. The $10 per coin proposal is a government subsidy.

The $10 would be a "citizen subsidy", a percentage of the proceeds from coin
sales to people who apparently like the Scouts or simply collect
commemoratives. No taxpayer or government money. You're safe.

No, I think it's a subsidy. The $10 that goes to the scouts would go
to the government if that proviso was not in the bill. The government
is implementing a scheme to provide that money to the scouts, and
bearing the cost of running the scheme.

A government subsidy would come from our tax money. The $10 would not.
The Mint MAKES money on the BSA name by producing and selling commemorative
BSA coins at a premium. Same as they've done with dozens of other
commemoratives. Otherwise, I wouldn't be that thrilled with the Mint
"subsidizing" things like the Olympics, the Capitol Visitors Center, Soccer
World Cup, etc. Leif Ericson? Who got THAT money?

Likewise, your Police Dept isn't subsidizing the local rock band by having a
third party organize a charity musical event from which the band receives
$10 from every ticket sold and the rest is split between the police and the
organizer. No police money is spent. The money comes from ticket buyers.
The cops get $$ they wouldn't have otherwise had.

[tony cooper]

Post by Bruce Remick
You still don't point to that part in the application where a religion must
be specified.

Not *a* religion, but a belief in religion and an acceptance of
religion. That's in the Oath and the Law.

Post by Bruce Remick
Sure sounded to me that you blamed the boy who applied to join the BSA
"...under the false pretense, etc...". You said he would be a liar and
dishonest. Somehow, I can't picture the scenareo of a 12 year old aethiest
boy whose father encourages him to take the Boy Scout Oath. Most 12 year
old boys aren't mature enough to have decided if or how religion will play
in their life.

Then why make them take an Oath if they haven't decided?

If the BSA isn't interested in promoting the religious aspect, then
why do they put it in their Oath and in their Law? The whole concept
of an oath of any kind is based on the idea that you understand what
you are swearing to.

It seems like what you are saying is that if the kid doesn't
understand what is going on, then there's no harm in requiring him to
do something.

If the BSA is not interested in promoting religion, and removes that
part from their Oath and their Law, then I wouldn't have an objection
to the government initiating a scheme to subsidize the BSA.

Post by Bruce Remick

Post by tony cooper
No, I think it's a subsidy. The $10 that goes to the scouts would go
to the government if that proviso was not in the bill. The government
is implementing a scheme to provide that money to the scouts, and
bearing the cost of running the scheme.

A government subsidy would come from our tax money.

It's a subsidy. The government is setting up a scheme to provide a
subsidy. Without the government's action, the subsidy doesn't exist.

I'm in favor of religion, in favor of the BSA, and in favor our
government. I just don't like the three commingled like this.

[RF]

Post by tony cooper
I'm in favor of religion, in favor of the BSA, and in favor our
government.  I just don't like the three commingled like this.

Are you in favor of a racist organization like the United Negro
College Fund getting a cut from the Civil Rights Commorative?

[tony cooper]

Post by RF

Post by tony cooper
I'm in favor of religion, in favor of the BSA, and in favor our
government.  I just don't like the three commingled like this.

Are you in favor of a racist organization like the United Negro
College Fund getting a cut from the Civil Rights Commorative?

I don't know. Don't know much about it.

To the best of my knowledge, the UNC is not a racist organization.
Can you show anything that indicates they are?

[Emma Pease]

Post by RF

Post by tony cooper
I'm in favor of religion, in favor of the BSA, and in favor our
government.  I just don't like the three commingled like this.

Are you in favor of a racist organization like the United Negro
College Fund getting a cut from the Civil Rights Commorative?

I assume you aren't aware that the United Negro College Fund does give
scholarships to whites. 'Negro College' refers to those institutions that
were for blacks only prior to desegregation; they now accept people of all
races and all races are eligible for UNCF scholarships to attend those
schools. See for instance their Liberty Scholarships for children of
victims (dead or permanently disabled) of 9/11.
http://www.uncf.org/Scholarships/liberty/index.asp

Also check out their FAQ http://www.uncf.org/aboutus/faqs.asp
Q: Does UNCF only support African American education?
A:UNCF was founded to address inequities in the educational opportunities
afforded to African Americans. UNCF believes in higher education
opportunities for all Americans. UNCF-member schools do not discriminate
and UNCF-administered scholarships are open to all.

Even if you were right about the UNCF, two wrongs don't make a right.

[Bruce Remick]

Post by tony cooper

Post by Bruce Remick
You still don't point to that part in the application where a religion must
be specified.

Not *a* religion, but a belief in religion and an acceptance of
religion. That's in the Oath and the Law.

But nowhere in the application.

Post by tony cooper

Post by Bruce Remick
Sure sounded to me that you blamed the boy who applied to join the BSA
"...under the false pretense, etc...". You said he would be a liar and
dishonest. Somehow, I can't picture the scenareo of a 12 year old aethiest
boy whose father encourages him to take the Boy Scout Oath. Most 12 year
old boys aren't mature enough to have decided if or how religion will play
in their life.

Then why make them take an Oath if they haven't decided?

Why make a Cub Scout take a similar oath when a boy that young obviously has
no independent influence in his religious decisions? A 12 year old Boy
Scout is only slightly more advanced. You tell me why they are expected to
take such an oath. And how strictly are the boys held to that Oath?

Post by tony cooper
If the BSA isn't interested in promoting the religious aspect, then
why do they put it in their Oath and in their Law? The whole concept
of an oath of any kind is based on the idea that you understand what
you are swearing to.
It seems like what you are saying is that if the kid doesn't
understand what is going on, then there's no harm in requiring him to
do something.
If the BSA is not interested in promoting religion, and removes that
part from their Oath and their Law, then I wouldn't have an objection
to the government initiating a scheme to subsidize the BSA.

It is obvious that the BSA does place a value on religious values. And from
what I read, it's any and all religions. Promoting religion per se doesn't
appear to me to be their goal. Developing wholesome young boys as Boy
Scouts does. You'll never be convinced, I suppose, that the government is
NOT subsidizing the Scouts or any other organization it features on a
commemorative coin.

Post by tony cooper

Post by Bruce Remick

Post by tony cooper
No, I think it's a subsidy. The $10 that goes to the scouts would go
to the government if that proviso was not in the bill. The government
is implementing a scheme to provide that money to the scouts, and
bearing the cost of running the scheme.

A government subsidy would come from our tax money.

It's a subsidy. The government is setting up a scheme to provide a
subsidy. Without the government's action, the subsidy doesn't exist.
I'm in favor of religion, in favor of the BSA, and in favor our
government. I just don't like the three commingled like this.

We agree on so much here. But since none of it appears to affect either of
us directly, let's leave the issue to anyone else who feels it's worth
discussing in RCC.

Cheers.

[RF]

Post by Bruce Remick
When I was a kid, many Catholic parents would not let their sons join the
YMCA because the Y did not let the boys wear swim trunks in the Y pool.  

Who ran YOUR YMCA? NAMBLA?
I never heard of such a thing.
I was in the Y when I was a kid and I can assure you we wore swim
suits.

[Bruce Remick]

Post by Bruce Remick
When I was a kid, many Catholic parents would not let their sons join the
YMCA because the Y did not let the boys wear swim trunks in the Y pool.

Who ran YOUR YMCA? NAMBLA?
I never heard of such a thing.
I was in the Y when I was a kid and I can assure you we wore swim
suits.
______

The Y ran the Y. They had a policy, for whatever reason, local or national,
that no swim trunks would be worn in the Y pool. This was in RI circa 1950.
I have no idea how widespread this policy was or if it applied to grownups
as well. If kids were going to pee in the pool, a bathing suit would have
made no difference. It simply was a intrusive and immoral rule according to
the local Catholic Church, which during that era likely considered the Y to
be an evil Communist front organization anyway.

Later, I was a camper and councilor at a local YMCA camp and there was no
such rule. Maybe because the camp was co-ed.

[tony cooper]

Post by RF

Post by Bruce Remick
When I was a kid, many Catholic parents would not let their sons join the
YMCA because the Y did not let the boys wear swim trunks in the Y pool.

Who ran YOUR YMCA? NAMBLA?
I never heard of such a thing.
I was in the Y when I was a kid and I can assure you we wore swim
suits.
______
The Y ran the Y. They had a policy, for whatever reason, local or national,
that no swim trunks would be worn in the Y pool. This was in RI circa 1950.

My experience, which was the same as yours, was in Indianapolis in the
same era.

Post by RF
I have no idea how widespread this policy was or if it applied to grownups
as well. If kids were going to pee in the pool, a bathing suit would have
made no difference. It simply was a intrusive and immoral rule according to
the local Catholic Church, which during that era likely considered the Y to
be an evil Communist front organization anyway.

We're Catholic, but I don't remember any objection to the Y by
Catholics. It was the Masons who were evil. In high school I joined
DeMolay because my friends were in it. I never told my parents.

You, then, evidently grew up when the church told us what movies we
were not supposed to see. "The Moon Is Blue" was on the banned list
by the Legion of Decency. Years later I saw it, and couldn't figure
out the objection. I finally found that it was banned because Maggie
McNamara's character said she was a virgin. Racy stuff!

[Bruce Remick]

Post by tony cooper

Post by RF

Post by Bruce Remick
When I was a kid, many Catholic parents would not let their sons join the
YMCA because the Y did not let the boys wear swim trunks in the Y pool.

Who ran YOUR YMCA? NAMBLA?
I never heard of such a thing.
I was in the Y when I was a kid and I can assure you we wore swim
suits.
______
The Y ran the Y. They had a policy, for whatever reason, local or national,
that no swim trunks would be worn in the Y pool. This was in RI circa 1950.

My experience, which was the same as yours, was in Indianapolis in the
same era.

Great! Now I don't feel so alone.

Post by tony cooper

Post by RF
I have no idea how widespread this policy was or if it applied to grownups
as well. If kids were going to pee in the pool, a bathing suit would have
made no difference. It simply was a intrusive and immoral rule according to
the local Catholic Church, which during that era likely considered the Y to
be an evil Communist front organization anyway.

We're Catholic, but I don't remember any objection to the Y by
Catholics. It was the Masons who were evil. In high school I joined
DeMolay because my friends were in it. I never told my parents.

I was raised Catholic, too. As children we were so "protected" by our
church that to even enter a Protestant church out of curiousity was
discouraged. No one mentioned Masons. Knights of Columbus was okay of
course, but as kids all we had were adventurist images of what the KofC was.
I had heard of the DeMolay-- they held some great teen dances-- but my
parents wouldn't allow me to go to one because it was a Protestant
organization. The Catholic church did have a few cool events for young
teens, including dances that were punctuated by priests and/or brothers
roaming the floor admonishing couples to "make room for the Holy Ghost".
Bummer.

Post by tony cooper
You, then, evidently grew up when the church told us what movies we
were not supposed to see. "The Moon Is Blue" was on the banned list
by the Legion of Decency. Years later I saw it, and couldn't figure
out the objection. I finally found that it was banned because Maggie
McNamara's character said she was a virgin. Racy stuff!

Around 1950, I can't recall any movies that I couldn't see. Any "bad" ones
wouldn't have been shown in Saturday matinees and probably wouldn't have
appealed to me anyway. Comic books were considered corrupting enough.

[tony cooper]

Post by Bruce Remick
I was raised Catholic, too. As children we were so "protected" by our
church that to even enter a Protestant church out of curiousity was
discouraged.

In 1963 I took my wife (who was not yet my wife at the time) to a
wedding in a Lutheran church. It was the first time in her life she
had ever been in a protestant church. She was very uncomfortable and
worried about breaking some rule by inadvertently participating by
doing something.

Post by Bruce Remick
No one mentioned Masons. Knights of Columbus was okay of
course, but as kids all we had were adventurist images of what the KofC was.

What? You never had to go into the bar at the KofC and drag out a
relative? You must not be of Irish stock.

Post by Bruce Remick
I had heard of the DeMolay-- they held some great teen dances-- but my
parents wouldn't allow me to go to one because it was a Protestant
organization. The Catholic church did have a few cool events for young
teens, including dances that were punctuated by priests and/or brothers
roaming the floor admonishing couples to "make room for the Holy Ghost".
Bummer.

There was a nun who policed the KofC "sock hops" by carrying a broom
and waving it between a couple to make sure they weren't touching.

Post by Bruce Remick

Post by tony cooper
You, then, evidently grew up when the church told us what movies we
were not supposed to see. "The Moon Is Blue" was on the banned list
by the Legion of Decency. Years later I saw it, and couldn't figure
out the objection. I finally found that it was banned because Maggie
McNamara's character said she was a virgin. Racy stuff!

Around 1950, I can't recall any movies that I couldn't see.

Then, evidently, you didn't subscribe to the Catholic newspaper that
carried the Legion of Decency film ratings.

Here are some movies that were banned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_condemned_by_the_Legion_of_Decency

Many others carried unacceptable ratings, but were not banned
outright.

[RF]

What?  You never had to go into the bar at the KofC and drag out a
relative?  You must not be of Irish stock.

So you're saying the Irish are all drunks?
FUCK YOU AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON!

[PC]

What? You never had to go into the bar at the KofC and drag out a
relative? You must not be of Irish stock.

So you're saying the Irish are all drunks?

[ naughty words deleted becasue some members of RCC embarrass easily ]

I am Irish and seldom drink.

Patrick
- word to the motherland

[tony cooper]

Post by RF

What?  You never had to go into the bar at the KofC and drag out a
relative?  You must not be of Irish stock.

So you're saying the Irish are all drunks?
FUCK YOU AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON!

Póg mo thóin.

My ancestors were too poor to have a horse. An ass was the most they
could afford. (That's a donkey, not the "arse" that is where your
head is up) When the immigrant came here he bought a mule.

Which reminds me of a story:

An Irishman who loved to sing as he worked bought a mule to plow his
field. The mule worked well but was almost totally deaf. So, when
his owner yelled, “Whoa!”, the animal often continued plowing. The
man had to shout louder and louder to get the mule's attention.

Asked how the mule was working out, the Irishman shook his head.
“There was a time,” he said, “when what me neighbors could hear was me
singing the sweet, lilting melodies of home.”

“Lately, I’m afraid, they’ve heard nothing but my riled Irish
Whoa’s!”.

[RF]

Post by tony cooper

Post by RF

What?  You never had to go into the bar at the KofC and drag out a
relative?  You must not be of Irish stock.

So you're saying the Irish are all drunks?
FUCK YOU AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON!

Póg mo thóin.
My ancestors were too poor to have a horse.  An ass was the most they
could afford.  (That's a donkey, not the "arse" that is where your
head is up)  When the immigrant came here he bought a mule.  
An Irishman who loved to sing as he worked bought a mule to plow his
field.  The mule worked well but was almost totally deaf.  So, when
his owner yelled, “Whoa!”, the animal often continued plowing.  The
man had to shout louder and louder to get the mule's attention.
Asked how the mule was working out, the Irishman shook his head.
“There was a time,” he said, “when what me neighbors could hear was me
singing the sweet, lilting melodies of home.”
“Lately, I’m afraid, they’ve heard nothing but my riled Irish
Whoa’s!”.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Go fuck yourself.

[tony cooper]

Post by RF

Post by tony cooper

Post by RF

What?  You never had to go into the bar at the KofC and drag out a
relative?  You must not be of Irish stock.

So you're saying the Irish are all drunks?
FUCK YOU AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON!

Póg mo thóin.
My ancestors were too poor to have a horse.  An ass was the most they
could afford.  (That's a donkey, not the "arse" that is where your
head is up)  When the immigrant came here he bought a mule.  
An Irishman who loved to sing as he worked bought a mule to plow his
field.  The mule worked well but was almost totally deaf.  So, when
his owner yelled, “Whoa!”, the animal often continued plowing.  The
man had to shout louder and louder to get the mule's attention.
Asked how the mule was working out, the Irishman shook his head.
“There was a time,” he said, “when what me neighbors could hear was me
singing the sweet, lilting melodies of home.”
“Lately, I’m afraid, they’ve heard nothing but my riled Irish
Whoa’s!”.

Go fuck yourself.

Both the SPCA and I appreciate that you're leaving the horse out of
your carnal suggestions.

[RF]

Post by tony cooper

Post by RF
Go fuck yourself.

Both the SPCA and I appreciate that you're leaving the horse out of
your carnal suggestions.

What? Are you admitting you're a horse's ass?

[Bruce Remick]

Post by tony cooper

Post by Bruce Remick
I was raised Catholic, too. As children we were so "protected" by our
church that to even enter a Protestant church out of curiousity was
discouraged.

In 1963 I took my wife (who was not yet my wife at the time) to a
wedding in a Lutheran church. It was the first time in her life she
had ever been in a protestant church. She was very uncomfortable and
worried about breaking some rule by inadvertently participating by
doing something.

Post by Bruce Remick
No one mentioned Masons. Knights of Columbus was okay of
course, but as kids all we had were adventurist images of what the KofC was.

What? You never had to go into the bar at the KofC and drag out a
relative? You must not be of Irish stock.

Post by Bruce Remick
I had heard of the DeMolay-- they held some great teen dances-- but my
parents wouldn't allow me to go to one because it was a Protestant
organization. The Catholic church did have a few cool events for young
teens, including dances that were punctuated by priests and/or brothers
roaming the floor admonishing couples to "make room for the Holy Ghost".
Bummer.

There was a nun who policed the KofC "sock hops" by carrying a broom
and waving it between a couple to make sure they weren't touching.

Post by Bruce Remick

Post by tony cooper
You, then, evidently grew up when the church told us what movies we
were not supposed to see. "The Moon Is Blue" was on the banned list
by the Legion of Decency. Years later I saw it, and couldn't figure
out the objection. I finally found that it was banned because Maggie
McNamara's character said she was a virgin. Racy stuff!

Around 1950, I can't recall any movies that I couldn't see.

Then, evidently, you didn't subscribe to the Catholic newspaper that
carried the Legion of Decency film ratings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_condemned_by_the_Legion_of_Decency
Many others carried unacceptable ratings, but were not banned
outright.

Most of the films on the list before the mid-1950's weren't shown at our
local theater, at least on weekends when lots of kids went. The ones from
the mid-1950's onward could be seen at the big theaters in the city
(Providence), but that was a five mile bus ride away and we never strayed
that far from home.

I do remember that some of the gum trading cards we collected (e.g. Horrors
of War, Red Menace) were considered decadent, provocative, and would surely
corrupt any child who collected them. I kept several of this type of set
and still keep them handy today in case I find myself mellowing.

[Bruce Remick]

Post by tony cooper

Post by Bruce Remick
I was raised Catholic, too. As children we were so "protected" by our
church that to even enter a Protestant church out of curiousity was
discouraged.

In 1963 I took my wife (who was not yet my wife at the time) to a
wedding in a Lutheran church. It was the first time in her life she
had ever been in a protestant church. She was very uncomfortable and
worried about breaking some rule by inadvertently participating by
doing something.

Post by Bruce Remick
No one mentioned Masons. Knights of Columbus was okay of
course, but as kids all we had were adventurist images of what the KofC was.

What? You never had to go into the bar at the KofC and drag out a
relative? You must not be of Irish stock.

Nah. We go back 10 generations in New England, and I don't know what we
are, ethnically. I did have an Irish great grandmother on my mother's side,
but she never drank.

We didn't have a local K of C bar that I knew of, but instead on virtually
every corner was an ethnic "_____-American club" (Portuguese-American,
Italian-American, Cape Verdean, etc.). As I became old enough to drink
legally, I often regretted I had no specific heritage to embrace, so I drank
just about anywhere and everywhere. All the clubs welcomed outsiders.

[Jerry Dennis]

Post by tony cooper

Post by Bruce Remick
Around 1950, I can't recall any movies that I couldn't see.

Then, evidently, you didn't subscribe to the Catholic newspaper that
carried the Legion of Decency film ratings.
Here are some movies that were banned:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_condemned_by_the_Legion_of...
Many others carried unacceptable ratings, but were not banned
outright.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

I remember the LoD list from my teen years in the 60s. I sure don't
remember Clint Eastwood being a corrupter of souls.

Jerry

[Texsox]

Post by RF

Post by Bruce Remick
When I was a kid, many Catholic parents would not let their sons join the
YMCA because the Y did not let the boys wear swim trunks in the Y pool.

Who ran YOUR YMCA? NAMBLA?
I never heard of such a thing.
I was in the Y when I was a kid and I can assure you we wore swim
suits.

Actually, nude same sex swimming in pools was the norm up to the 1960s
in schools, YMCAs, and even Scout camps. Seems very odd to our current
views of the world. http://www.doctoryourself.com/exercise_avoid.html
one person's recollection, I am certain you will find more.

Getting back to the religious arguments. Please keep in mind that BSA
sells a program to local not for profits to offer to their members and
the community. The largest sponsors of Scout Troops are Churches.
Wouldn't it be odd if you could join a Church's mission and not
believe in God? You do not join BSA directly, but through a Charter
Partner. It seems reasonable to respect those Churches, whether it be
the LDS, Methodist, Catholic, etc.

YiS,
Jim

[RF]

Post by Texsox
Actually, nude same sex swimming in pools was the norm up to the 1960s
in schools, YMCAs, and even Scout camps.

Well I grew up in the 50s and I can assure you that nude same sex
swimming was definitely NOT the norm at the Y, school or Scout camp.
Methinks you are pulling my leg!

[Bruce Remick]

Post by Texsox
Actually, nude same sex swimming in pools was the norm up to the 1960s
in schools, YMCAs, and even Scout camps.

Well I grew up in the 50s and I can assure you that nude same sex
swimming was definitely NOT the norm at the Y, school or Scout camp.
Methinks you are pulling my leg!
_____

From the know-everything Wikipedia site--

"Before the YMCA began to admit females in the early 1960s, swimming trunks
were not even allowed in the pools,[2] and high school swimming classes for
boys sometimes had similar policies,[3] citing the impracticality of
providing and maintaining sanitary swimming gear and clogging swimming
pools' filtration systems with lint fibers from the swimsuits. These
practices were common because of the perception that there was nothing wrong
or sexual about seeing members of the same gender in the nude, especially in
these indoor contexts among equals in 'birthday suit uniform'."

[tony cooper]

Post by RF

Post by Texsox
Actually, nude same sex swimming in pools was the norm up to the 1960s
in schools, YMCAs, and even Scout camps.

Well I grew up in the 50s and I can assure you that nude same sex
swimming was definitely NOT the norm at the Y, school or Scout camp.
Methinks you are pulling my leg!

That's OK, RF. We're quite used to you thinking that whatever went on
around you is what went on around everyone.

The nude swimming went on only at indoor pools. Unless your school or
scout camp was very ritzy, I don't suspect they had indoor pools in
the 50s.

[Bruce Remick]

Post by tony cooper

Post by RF

Post by Texsox
Actually, nude same sex swimming in pools was the norm up to the 1960s
in schools, YMCAs, and even Scout camps.

Well I grew up in the 50s and I can assure you that nude same sex
swimming was definitely NOT the norm at the Y, school or Scout camp.
Methinks you are pulling my leg!

That's OK, RF. We're quite used to you thinking that whatever went on
around you is what went on around everyone.
The nude swimming went on only at indoor pools. Unless your school or
scout camp was very ritzy, I don't suspect they had indoor pools in
the 50s.

Imagine sneaking into a YMCA pool with your girl and trying to convince her
you both had to take your clothes off first because of the lint.

[RF]

Post by RF

Post by Texsox
Actually, nude same sex swimming in pools was the norm up to the 1960s
in schools, YMCAs, and even Scout camps.

Well I grew up in the 50s and I can assure you that nude same sex
swimming was definitely NOT the norm at the Y, school or Scout camp.
Methinks you are pulling my leg!

That's OK, RF.  We're quite used to you thinking that whatever went on
around you is what went on around everyone.
The nude swimming went on only at indoor pools.  Unless your school or
scout camp was very ritzy, I don't suspect they had indoor pools in
the 50s.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

That's OK Tony, we're quite used to you being an ignorant, racist,
bigoted moron.

[Bruce Remick]

Post by Texsox

Post by RF

Post by Bruce Remick
When I was a kid, many Catholic parents would not let their sons join the
YMCA because the Y did not let the boys wear swim trunks in the Y pool.

Who ran YOUR YMCA? NAMBLA?
I never heard of such a thing.
I was in the Y when I was a kid and I can assure you we wore swim
suits.

Actually, nude same sex swimming in pools was the norm up to the 1960s
in schools, YMCAs, and even Scout camps. Seems very odd to our current
views of the world. http://www.doctoryourself.com/exercise_avoid.html
one person's recollection, I am certain you will find more.

Thanks! Now I feel better knowing that I didn't grow up in some perverted
pocket of Puritan New England.

[tony cooper]

Post by RF

Post by Bruce Remick
When I was a kid, many Catholic parents would not let their sons join the
YMCA because the Y did not let the boys wear swim trunks in the Y pool.  

Who ran YOUR YMCA? NAMBLA?
I never heard of such a thing.
I was in the Y when I was a kid and I can assure you we wore swim
suits.

The "Y" in Indianapolis was the same way. I'd forgotten about that.

I don't remember the reason for that practice, but I don't remember
any parents objecting. We kids objected, though. It was
embarrassing.

On this same - almost - subject...when I was sent to Ft Leonard Wood
(Missouri) for basic training, the latrines did not have any
partitions in one of the barracks I was in. There was a kid in our
platoon who couldn't take a dump when anyone else was in the room. So
he didn't go because the latrine was never empty or he was afraid
someone would walk in.

He ended up being taken to the base hospital with some sort of severe
bowel problem and cramps. We never saw him again.

[Honus]

Post by Bruce Remick
When I was a kid, many Catholic parents would not let their sons join the
YMCA because the Y did not let the boys wear swim trunks in the Y pool.

Who ran YOUR YMCA? NAMBLA?
I never heard of such a thing.
I was in the Y when I was a kid and I can assure you we wore swim
suits.

When I went to the YMCA we didn't. I'm guessing sometime around 1970, give
or take.

[Bruce Remick]

Post by RF

Post by Bruce Remick
When I was a kid, many Catholic parents would not let their sons join the
YMCA because the Y did not let the boys wear swim trunks in the Y pool.

Who ran YOUR YMCA? NAMBLA?
I never heard of such a thing.
I was in the Y when I was a kid and I can assure you we wore swim
suits.
When I went to the YMCA we didn't. I'm guessing sometime around 1970, give
or take.

Wow! I had no idea there were so many of "us" out there.

[Honus]

Post by Bruce Remick

Post by RF

Post by Bruce Remick
When I was a kid, many Catholic parents would not let their sons join the
YMCA because the Y did not let the boys wear swim trunks in the Y pool.

Who ran YOUR YMCA? NAMBLA?
I never heard of such a thing.
I was in the Y when I was a kid and I can assure you we wore swim
suits.
When I went to the YMCA we didn't. I'm guessing sometime around 1970,
give or take.

Wow! I had no idea there were so many of "us" out there.

What with the NAMBLA crack and the YMCA topic (think Village People,) that
statement has overtones that make me...uneasy. <g>

[Aladdin Sane]

Post by Bruce Remick

Post by tony cooper
Do you need a source to understand that the BSA discriminates against
the non-religious or gays? I thought that was common knowledge.

Out of curiousity, I'd like to see the source which says that
non-religious or gay boys are not allowed to be Scouts. As far as I can
tell, either could join if simply willing to sign off on a collection of
credos, some of which don't particularly apply to them. After all, the
Boy Scouts, like the YMCA, has been a traditional Christian-oriented group
since its inception. If non-Christians are still interested in joining the
group, I don't believe they are turned away.

Since when have the Boy Scouts been a Christian group? In my time, there
were religious badges awarded to Catholic, Protestant, Jewish & Muslim
members. The Credo requires a belief in a god, regardless if your concept
is a Hairy Thunderer or a Cosmic Muffin. The Religious issue with BSA is
the requirement to believe in a christian god; but a descrimination against
those that do not believe in any god.
--
*
/?\
/___\
-O=O-
^
AS & His Magic Hat

A conclusion is simply the place
where you decided to stop thinking.

[Aladdin Sane]

Ooops, left a bit out

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aladdin Sane" <***@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: rec.scouting.usa,rec.collecting.coins
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: Boy Scouts of America Silver Dollar Centennial Commemorative
Coin

Post by Bruce Remick

Post by tony cooper
Do you need a source to understand that the BSA discriminates against
the non-religious or gays? I thought that was common knowledge.

Out of curiousity, I'd like to see the source which says that
non-religious or gay boys are not allowed to be Scouts. As far as I can
tell, either could join if simply willing to sign off on a collection of
credos, some of which don't particularly apply to them. After all, the
Boy Scouts, like the YMCA, has been a traditional Christian-oriented
group >> since its inception. If non-Christians are still interested in
joining the group, I don't believe they are turned away.

Since when have the Boy Scouts been a Christian group? In my time, there
were religious badges awarded to Catholic, Protestant, Jewish & Muslim
members. The Credo requires a belief in a god, regardless if your concept is
a Hairy Thunderer or a Cosmic Muffin. The Religious issue with BSA is NOT
the requirement to believe in a Christian god; but a discrimination against
those that do not believe in any god.

[Jerry Dennis]

Post by tony cooper
On Sat, 24 May 2008 18:55:30 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Dennis

Post by Jerry Dennis
drivel.
You're an idiot. �Care to provide your source? �It's conspicuously
absent.

What source do you want, Jerry? �
That confirms that $10 per coin goes to the BSA. (Sec. 7 - Surcharges)
Do you need a source to understand that the BSA discriminates against
the non-religious or gays? �I thought that was common knowledge.
If you want to see the mint issue the coin, write your congressman.
If you don't want to see the mint issue the coin, write your
congressman. �If you don't care, join me and do nothing.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

I needed to sit quietly and think for a while before I put thoughts to
paper (or computer as the case is). My question for the source had
nothing to do with the House Bill or the BSA. It has to do with the I-
hate-religion-and-know-better-than-you rants of some anti-religion
radical.

If he doesn't like the Scouts, that's fine. No one is forcing him to
buy a coin. But I don't want him forcing his political beliefs on
me. I've said many times, the First Amendment has been so severely
bastardized by the U.S. Supreme Court that it means nothing like the
Founding Fathers intended. If I may carry on just a little longer:

FIRST AMENDMENT - Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a
redress of grievances.

As related to the current discussion, the key words are "establishment
of religion." There is no Church of the BSA, so there is no
established religion, thus no problem. However, I'm sure some ACLU
loudmouths would disagree, but common sense shows no controversy.

Will I buy one? I'm not sure, yet, but just because the BSA gets a
cut isn't going to affect my decision one way or the other.

Jerry

[RF]

Post by Jerry Dennis

Post by tony cooper
On Sat, 24 May 2008 18:55:30 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Dennis

Post by Jerry Dennis
drivel.
You're an idiot. �Care to provide your source? �It's conspicuously
absent.

What source do you want, Jerry? �
That confirms that $10 per coin goes to the BSA. (Sec. 7 - Surcharges)
Do you need a source to understand that the BSA discriminates against
the non-religious or gays? �I thought that was common knowledge.
If you want to see the mint issue the coin, write your congressman.
If you don't want to see the mint issue the coin, write your
congressman. �If you don't care, join me and do nothing.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

I needed to sit quietly and think for a while before I put thoughts to
paper (or computer as the case is).  My question for the source had
nothing to do with the House Bill or the BSA.  It has to do with the I-
hate-religion-and-know-better-than-you rants of some anti-religion
radical.
If he doesn't like the Scouts, that's fine.  No one is forcing him to
buy a coin.  But I don't want him forcing his political beliefs on
me.  I've said many times, the First Amendment has been so severely
bastardized by the U.S. Supreme Court that it means nothing like the
FIRST AMENDMENT - Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a
redress of grievances.
As related to the current discussion, the key words are "establishment
of religion."  There is no Church of the BSA, so there is no
established religion, thus no problem.  However, I'm sure some ACLU
loudmouths would disagree, but common sense shows no controversy.
Will I buy one?  I'm not sure, yet, but just because the BSA gets a
cut isn't going to affect my decision one way or the other.

Funny no one is complaining about the Civil Rights commemorative where
a cut is going to the UNCF, an organization that "discriminates"
against non-blacks.

[Jerry Dennis]

Post by RF
Funny no one is complaining about the Civil Rights commemorative where
a cut is going to the UNCF, an organization that "discriminates"
against non-blacks.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

True, but complaining about it wouldn't be politically correct.

Jerry

[RF]

Post by Jerry Dennis

Post by RF
Funny no one is complaining about the Civil Rights commemorative where
a cut is going to the UNCF, an organization that "discriminates"
against non-blacks.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

True, but complaining about it wouldn't be politically correct.

If diversity is the paradigm towards which the politically correct
would have us all aspire, where is the call for diversity in the
historically black colleges like Grambling et al?