RE: [Unschooling-dotcom] Save Our Scouts website
Nanci and Thomas Kuykendall
>Not sure if any of you are interested in the Boy Scouts current problems.Nope. Please don't flame me, as I am meerly expressing my opnion here and it does not require a rebuttal, but I feel very strongly about this. The Scouts are a group of self righteous bigots who have had their right to be a private organization upheld so they can exclude whomever they please. To then ask for public support, public building use, etc is unreasonable. Are they private or are they public?
Anyway, I have no sympathy for them, because their main problem is NOT extremists campaigning to keep them out of parks or some such. Their main problem is the loss of funding to the tune to tens of millions from a number of campanies who feel that the Scout's legal stance is not compatible with the companies' employment and equal opportunity policies.
I have plenty more to say, but out of respect to those who probably do not want to hear it, I won't.
Nanci K.
------------------------------------------------------------
Show off your pagan (and Idaho) pride, get Idaho Pagan Mail(tm) today!
Sign up at http://www.idahopagan.com/
Bonnie Painter
Here, here Nanci.
Bonnie
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com
Bonnie
>From: "Nanci and Thomas Kuykendall" <tn-k4of5@...>_________________________________________________________________________
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: RE: [Unschooling-dotcom] Save Our Scouts website
>Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 08:33:16 -0700
>
> >Not sure if any of you are interested in the Boy Scouts current
>problems.
>
>Nope. Please don't flame me, as I am meerly expressing my opnion here and
>it does not require a rebuttal, but I feel very strongly about this. The
>Scouts are a group of self righteous bigots who have had their right to be
>a private organization upheld so they can exclude whomever they please. To
>then ask for public support, public building use, etc is unreasonable. Are
>they private or are they public?
>
>Anyway, I have no sympathy for them, because their main problem is NOT
>extremists campaigning to keep them out of parks or some such. Their main
>problem is the loss of funding to the tune to tens of millions from a
>number of campanies who feel that the Scout's legal stance is not
>compatible with the companies' employment and equal opportunity policies.
>
>I have plenty more to say, but out of respect to those who probably do not
>want to hear it, I won't.
>
>Nanci K.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>Show off your pagan (and Idaho) pride, get Idaho Pagan Mail(tm) today!
>Sign up at http://www.idahopagan.com/
>
>
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com
[email protected]
The Scouts are endangering their very future, and hugely. If they
discriminated against people by anything else biological (size, race, hair
color) they would stand to be in gigantic trouble. Gender is not a black and
white issue, and if/when that is proven scientifically to the satisfaction of
every goob on the street the scouts will be just as embarrassed (legally if
not personally) as if they had said leaders or Eagle Scouts had to be under
6'5" or all right handed.
I don't mind being flamed. Go ahead.
I haven't been keeping up on the decisions as they unfolded, but if ANY of
this is based on Biblical strictures against homosexuality, I feel compelled
to point out that there are probably ten times as many Biblical strictures
against usury (charging interest) and I seriously doubt the Boy Scouts are
discriminating against bankers or loan officers.
As to public buildings, though, they are FREQUENTLY used by all kinds of
private groups, and weddings, and parties, and during the time that group
contracts to use the building, they can enforce their own group's rules
(which keeps weddings from being open to all passersby, etc.).
Sandra
discriminated against people by anything else biological (size, race, hair
color) they would stand to be in gigantic trouble. Gender is not a black and
white issue, and if/when that is proven scientifically to the satisfaction of
every goob on the street the scouts will be just as embarrassed (legally if
not personally) as if they had said leaders or Eagle Scouts had to be under
6'5" or all right handed.
I don't mind being flamed. Go ahead.
I haven't been keeping up on the decisions as they unfolded, but if ANY of
this is based on Biblical strictures against homosexuality, I feel compelled
to point out that there are probably ten times as many Biblical strictures
against usury (charging interest) and I seriously doubt the Boy Scouts are
discriminating against bankers or loan officers.
As to public buildings, though, they are FREQUENTLY used by all kinds of
private groups, and weddings, and parties, and during the time that group
contracts to use the building, they can enforce their own group's rules
(which keeps weddings from being open to all passersby, etc.).
Sandra
Nanci and Thomas Kuykendall
>As to public buildings, though, they are FREQUENTLY used by all kinds ofThis is true, and I am aware of this. However, we don't like Aryan Nations using our public bildings either. I suppose they have a right if they pay taxes, to be able to pay the site fee and use the building. If they pay the fee, I have no complaint.
>private groups, and weddings, and parties, and during the time that group
>Sandra
Nanci K.
------------------------------------------------------------
Show off your pagan (and Idaho) pride, get Idaho Pagan Mail(tm) today!
Sign up at http://www.idahopagan.com/
aworthen
----- Original Message -----
From: Nanci and Thomas Kuykendall <tn-k4of5@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 11:33 AM
Subject: RE: [Unschooling-dotcom] Save Our Scouts website
You won't get any flames from me. I say BRAVO!!!!!
Amy
Mom to Samantha, Dana, and Casey
The World Is Our Classroom
> >Not sure if any of you are interested in the Boy Scouts current
problems.
>
> Nope. Please don't flame me, as I am meerly expressing my opnion here and
it does not require a rebuttal, but I feel very strongly about this. The
Scouts are a group of self righteous bigots who have had their right to be a
private organization upheld so they can exclude whomever they please. To
then ask for public support, public building use, etc is unreasonable. Are
they private or are they public?
>
> Anyway, I have no sympathy for them, because their main problem is NOT
extremists campaigning to keep them out of parks or some such. Their main
problem is the loss of funding to the tune to tens of millions from a number
of campanies who feel that the Scout's legal stance is not compatible with
the companies' employment and equal opportunity policies.
>
> I have plenty more to say, but out of respect to those who probably do not
want to hear it, I won't.
>
> Nanci K.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Show off your pagan (and Idaho) pride, get Idaho Pagan Mail(tm) today!
> Sign up at http://www.idahopagan.com/
>
>
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Addresses:
> Post message: [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: [email protected]
> List owner: [email protected]
> List settings page: http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
>
[email protected]
Why is it continually okay to put down Christians and Boy Scouts on this
list? I thought we were inclusive. There aren't rants against pagans or
witchcraft, yet we are supposed to put up with continued rants about how evil
the scouts or Christians are.
How about some basic civility.
Eiraul
list? I thought we were inclusive. There aren't rants against pagans or
witchcraft, yet we are supposed to put up with continued rants about how evil
the scouts or Christians are.
How about some basic civility.
Eiraul
Bonnie Painter
I didn't find there to be any rants against Christianity. The rants against
the boy scouts are factual complaints. They discriminate.
Bonnie
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com
the boy scouts are factual complaints. They discriminate.
Bonnie
>From: braunville@..._________________________________________________________________________
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Save Our Scouts website
>Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 14:10:37 EDT
>
>Why is it continually okay to put down Christians and Boy Scouts on this
>list? I thought we were inclusive. There aren't rants against pagans or
>witchcraft, yet we are supposed to put up with continued rants about how
>evil
>the scouts or Christians are.
>
>How about some basic civility.
>
>Eiraul
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com
Lynda
O.K., I am going to put on my flame proof suit and climb into my retro-50's
bomb shelter and then I am going to respond to this. First, before the
flames throwers are pulled out and used, let me say, I don't believe in
their policies, however, I do believe in their right to have any policy
they choose.
I can't for the life of me understand the mentality that wants to join
something that doesn't want them. This isn't the same as denying something
that someone needs or requires. I think people have a right to associate
with whomever they choose when it is not funded by taxpayers dollars.
If the scouts don't want "x" folks in their "club," then "x" folks should
just go and start their own group. And, it isn't just about the
orientation thing either. I think it was absolutely ridiculous for the
parents of that girl to sue because she wanted to be a BOY scout. I think
it is absolutely ridiculous for women to want to join men's clubs and I
think the reverse is true also. This sue, sue, sue garbage is out of
control.
Yes, there are times when "civil rights" issues should be addressed and
there should be some equal access issues addressed but I really think there
are more important things in life that needed to be addressed than who gets
to join private clubs.
I mean, what's next, is someone going to sue an individual family because
the one family won't let their kids play with the other family's kids? I
don't think this is any different than those nutcake newagers who say they
have a right to our ndn religions and traditions! They aren't wanted and
if they choose to sue, then we will fold up shop and go underground!
As to the private vs. public in the solicitation of funding, why not? No
one is forced to donate, that is a personal choice. As to the use of
"public" buildings, well if the KKK can use them and have then the same
principle that their use was based on would apply to the scouts, they pay
taxes, they have a right to use what their tax dollars have paid for.
Lynda, who will quit rambling now as I am sure that this was all clear as
mud <g>
----------
The Scouts are a group of self righteous bigots who have had their right to
be a private organization upheld so they can exclude whomever they please.
To then ask for public support, public building use, etc is unreasonable.
Are they private or are they public?
problem is the loss of funding to the tune to tens of millions from a
number of campanies who feel that the Scout's legal stance is not
compatible with the companies' employment and equal opportunity policies.
bomb shelter and then I am going to respond to this. First, before the
flames throwers are pulled out and used, let me say, I don't believe in
their policies, however, I do believe in their right to have any policy
they choose.
I can't for the life of me understand the mentality that wants to join
something that doesn't want them. This isn't the same as denying something
that someone needs or requires. I think people have a right to associate
with whomever they choose when it is not funded by taxpayers dollars.
If the scouts don't want "x" folks in their "club," then "x" folks should
just go and start their own group. And, it isn't just about the
orientation thing either. I think it was absolutely ridiculous for the
parents of that girl to sue because she wanted to be a BOY scout. I think
it is absolutely ridiculous for women to want to join men's clubs and I
think the reverse is true also. This sue, sue, sue garbage is out of
control.
Yes, there are times when "civil rights" issues should be addressed and
there should be some equal access issues addressed but I really think there
are more important things in life that needed to be addressed than who gets
to join private clubs.
I mean, what's next, is someone going to sue an individual family because
the one family won't let their kids play with the other family's kids? I
don't think this is any different than those nutcake newagers who say they
have a right to our ndn religions and traditions! They aren't wanted and
if they choose to sue, then we will fold up shop and go underground!
As to the private vs. public in the solicitation of funding, why not? No
one is forced to donate, that is a personal choice. As to the use of
"public" buildings, well if the KKK can use them and have then the same
principle that their use was based on would apply to the scouts, they pay
taxes, they have a right to use what their tax dollars have paid for.
Lynda, who will quit rambling now as I am sure that this was all clear as
mud <g>
----------
> From: Nanci and Thomas Kuykendall <tn-k4of5@...>problems.
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Unschooling-dotcom] Save Our Scouts website
> Date: Thursday, September 28, 2000 8:33 AM
>
> >Not sure if any of you are interested in the Boy Scouts current
>and it does not require a rebuttal, but I feel very strongly about this.
> Nope. Please don't flame me, as I am meerly expressing my opnion here
The Scouts are a group of self righteous bigots who have had their right to
be a private organization upheld so they can exclude whomever they please.
To then ask for public support, public building use, etc is unreasonable.
Are they private or are they public?
>extremists campaigning to keep them out of parks or some such. Their main
> Anyway, I have no sympathy for them, because their main problem is NOT
problem is the loss of funding to the tune to tens of millions from a
number of campanies who feel that the Scout's legal stance is not
compatible with the companies' employment and equal opportunity policies.
>not want to hear it, I won't.
> I have plenty more to say, but out of respect to those who probably do
>
> Nanci K.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Show off your pagan (and Idaho) pride, get Idaho Pagan Mail(tm) today!
> Sign up at http://www.idahopagan.com/
>
>
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Addresses:
> Post message: [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: [email protected]
> List owner: [email protected]
> List settings page: http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
[email protected]
In a message dated 00-09-28 14:47:16 EDT, lurine@... writes:
<< This sue, sue, sue garbage is out of control. >>
I agree entirely.
<< I really think there
are more important things in life that needed to be addressed than who gets
to join private clubs.>>
I've been involved in a private (not secret, not very exclusive) club for
over 20 years and anyone who wants to play by the rules is welcome to join.
<<As to the private vs. public in the solicitation of funding, why not? No
one is forced to donate, that is a personal choice.>>
Because asking for PUBLIC funding, for tax dollars, means then that
organization has to follow federal use rules. Things may change with the
whole charter school thing. Some kinds of discrimination are illegal. More
kinds will eventually be. It used to be okay to discriminate against blacks,
Chinese, women of ANY color/heritage.
I believe that someday it will be illegal to discriminate against
homosexuals, because I believe (from having read research reports and
articles on human development) that homosexuality is NOT "a choice" or "a
lifestyle" or "a sin," but is as natural as curly hair or long toes or a nice
singing voice.
In the 1960s in a town I lived in Explorers were the BIG thing--it seemed
that hardly a boy grew to be 16 with being an Eagle Scout, and then they went
on to Explorers. The big group hobby was canoeing, water safety, river
rescue, etc. Every summer a big group went to the big Boy Scout camp in
Cimarron. Every summer a group went canoeing in Canada, for several weeks.
It was like Outward Bound, but all the guys knew each other well.
The leader and coordinator of all that was a man who was unmarried, yet who
was elected mayor, a business owner, a hard working well-trusted man. He was
homosexual, but it didn't matter. He was not a child molester. He was a
man. He was a man who volunteered a GREAT deal of time and energy so that
young people could travel and learn and also grow up to be good men.
Now that would be illegal. Maybe it would have been then, had anyone
complained, but there was nothing to complain about. Parents trusted him
with their teenaged boys. They trusted him to be mayor. They named a
community center after him while he was still alive.
But that's not good for boy scouts anymore, I hear.
Scouting has touched the lives of many boys who had no sexual desire because
they were eight years old. Some of them grew up not being heterosexual. Is
it better or worse if they dropped out of Scouts before becoming life scouts?
Eagles? is it better to allow someone who never was a boyscout to be a
leader now than someone who is an Eagle Scout but just doesn't have sex with
women?
It's not so simple a problem as a group not wanting certain kinds of people.
It's a group changing their policy after many gay men have participated,
"graduated," and donated time and money.
I was the one who said the anti-Christian thing, I guess, in asking whether
it was because of Bible references, and if so were they discriminating
against bankers and loan officers.
Sandra
<< This sue, sue, sue garbage is out of control. >>
I agree entirely.
<< I really think there
are more important things in life that needed to be addressed than who gets
to join private clubs.>>
I've been involved in a private (not secret, not very exclusive) club for
over 20 years and anyone who wants to play by the rules is welcome to join.
<<As to the private vs. public in the solicitation of funding, why not? No
one is forced to donate, that is a personal choice.>>
Because asking for PUBLIC funding, for tax dollars, means then that
organization has to follow federal use rules. Things may change with the
whole charter school thing. Some kinds of discrimination are illegal. More
kinds will eventually be. It used to be okay to discriminate against blacks,
Chinese, women of ANY color/heritage.
I believe that someday it will be illegal to discriminate against
homosexuals, because I believe (from having read research reports and
articles on human development) that homosexuality is NOT "a choice" or "a
lifestyle" or "a sin," but is as natural as curly hair or long toes or a nice
singing voice.
In the 1960s in a town I lived in Explorers were the BIG thing--it seemed
that hardly a boy grew to be 16 with being an Eagle Scout, and then they went
on to Explorers. The big group hobby was canoeing, water safety, river
rescue, etc. Every summer a big group went to the big Boy Scout camp in
Cimarron. Every summer a group went canoeing in Canada, for several weeks.
It was like Outward Bound, but all the guys knew each other well.
The leader and coordinator of all that was a man who was unmarried, yet who
was elected mayor, a business owner, a hard working well-trusted man. He was
homosexual, but it didn't matter. He was not a child molester. He was a
man. He was a man who volunteered a GREAT deal of time and energy so that
young people could travel and learn and also grow up to be good men.
Now that would be illegal. Maybe it would have been then, had anyone
complained, but there was nothing to complain about. Parents trusted him
with their teenaged boys. They trusted him to be mayor. They named a
community center after him while he was still alive.
But that's not good for boy scouts anymore, I hear.
Scouting has touched the lives of many boys who had no sexual desire because
they were eight years old. Some of them grew up not being heterosexual. Is
it better or worse if they dropped out of Scouts before becoming life scouts?
Eagles? is it better to allow someone who never was a boyscout to be a
leader now than someone who is an Eagle Scout but just doesn't have sex with
women?
It's not so simple a problem as a group not wanting certain kinds of people.
It's a group changing their policy after many gay men have participated,
"graduated," and donated time and money.
I was the one who said the anti-Christian thing, I guess, in asking whether
it was because of Bible references, and if so were they discriminating
against bankers and loan officers.
Sandra
Nanci and Thomas Kuykendall
>Why is it continually okay to put down Christians and Boy Scouts on this list?Um....I did not say a single word about Christians. Nor have we discussed Boy Scouts before. Are you feeling persecuted about something else maybe?
>
>Eiraul
Nanci K.
------------------------------------------------------------
Show off your pagan (and Idaho) pride, get Idaho Pagan Mail(tm) today!
Sign up at http://www.idahopagan.com/
Vicki A. Dennis
> In a message dated 00-09-28 14:47:16 EDT, lurine@... writes:gets
>
> << I really think there
> are more important things in life that needed to be addressed than who
> to join private clubs.>>But it would be much more honest to consistently refer to self as a "private
club" with all the connotations that go with the name. With or without a
federal charter BSA is thought of as a public institution.
> <<As to the private vs. public in the solicitation of funding, why not?No
> one is forced to donate, that is a personal choice.>>It is not really a personal choice when the Boy Scouts are allowed to use
government equipment and sites for free. Or when government funded
employees are used to provide "training" or "service opportunities". Or
when tax funded events give out free tickets to Boy Scouts (whether in
exchange for being "ushers" or "being color guard" or not.
When a group makes a contract to use a public building for a wedding, there
is usually a site use fee. Although Boy Scouts may occasionally pay a
fee, in many, many locales they either are given a very substantial
discount or even have free use.
I find BSA to be not only bigoted but dishonest about their bigotry. I
personally would have more respect if they were "upfront" that they were
changing the meanings of their historical promise and laws and engaging in a
revisionist "purge".
Vicki----would feel far safer about boys on camping trips if BSA were
focusing efforts on excluding pedophiles from leadership rather than
excluding from any membership at all and even withdrawing membership from
those who find sexual orientation to be irrelevant to Scout principles or
those who have or will identify as homosexual.
Nanci and Thomas Kuykendall
>I can't for the life of me understand the mentality that wants to join something that doesn't want them.Yes, but the the Boy Scouts decision effectively was to kick out thousands of current members and leaders who were already in the scouts, felt strongly about their participation and for whom it was a part of their identity and lifestyle.
>Lynda
Nanci K.
------------------------------------------------------------
Show off your pagan (and Idaho) pride, get Idaho Pagan Mail(tm) today!
Sign up at http://www.idahopagan.com/
Vicki A. Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vicki A. Dennis" <mamaxaos@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Save Our Scouts website
> Vicki----would feel far safer about boys on camping trips if BSA were
> focusing efforts on excluding pedophiles from leadership rather than
> excluding from any membership at all and even withdrawing membership from
> those who find sexual orientation to be irrelevant to Scout principles
or
> those who have or will identify as homosexual.
Let me be clearer. Most pedophiles are heterosexual males. There are
probably pedophiles in every organization that caters to youth. Having a
wife or even having a child within the troop is not an indicator of
either willingness or unwillingness to exploit children.
Like the Catholic church, the Boy Scouts have had to contend with leaders
who found victims within the ranks. Excluding homosexuals does not
address the problem.
Lynda
O.K., let's clear something up first. They do NOT get "public funding, tax
dollars."
"Financial resources for the local council (the local nonprofit corporation
chartered by the National Council) come from an annual Friends of Scouting
(FOS) campaign, local United Ways, foundation grants, special events,
project sales, investment income, trust funds, bequests, and gifts of real
and personal property.
National Organization
Funds to support the national organization of the Boy Scouts of America
come from registration fees, local council service fees, investment income,
Scouting and Boys' Life magazines, sale of uniforms and equipment,
contributions from individuals, and foundation grants."
Soliciting from the public is not the same as getting public funded tax
dollars. They don't.
As to the current hoopla over who can and can't be a scout leader, there
had always been a don't ask don't tell type policy and there had been
trouble until someone wanted to push the envelope. Actually, you said it
all about the organization you belong to, "anyone who wants to play by the
rules is welcome to join."
BTW, to whomever made the christian remark, BSA has chapters that aren't
christian.
Lynda
----------
dollars."
"Financial resources for the local council (the local nonprofit corporation
chartered by the National Council) come from an annual Friends of Scouting
(FOS) campaign, local United Ways, foundation grants, special events,
project sales, investment income, trust funds, bequests, and gifts of real
and personal property.
National Organization
Funds to support the national organization of the Boy Scouts of America
come from registration fees, local council service fees, investment income,
Scouting and Boys' Life magazines, sale of uniforms and equipment,
contributions from individuals, and foundation grants."
Soliciting from the public is not the same as getting public funded tax
dollars. They don't.
As to the current hoopla over who can and can't be a scout leader, there
had always been a don't ask don't tell type policy and there had been
trouble until someone wanted to push the envelope. Actually, you said it
all about the organization you belong to, "anyone who wants to play by the
rules is welcome to join."
BTW, to whomever made the christian remark, BSA has chapters that aren't
christian.
Lynda
----------
> From: SandraDodd@...gets
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Save Our Scouts website
> Date: Thursday, September 28, 2000 12:56 PM
>
> In a message dated 00-09-28 14:47:16 EDT, lurine@... writes:
>
> << This sue, sue, sue garbage is out of control. >>
>
> I agree entirely.
>
> << I really think there
> are more important things in life that needed to be addressed than who
> to join private clubs.>>join.
>
> I've been involved in a private (not secret, not very exclusive) club for
> over 20 years and anyone who wants to play by the rules is welcome to
>No
> <<As to the private vs. public in the solicitation of funding, why not?
> one is forced to donate, that is a personal choice.>>More
>
> Because asking for PUBLIC funding, for tax dollars, means then that
> organization has to follow federal use rules. Things may change with the
> whole charter school thing. Some kinds of discrimination are illegal.
> kinds will eventually be. It used to be okay to discriminate againstblacks,
> Chinese, women of ANY color/heritage.nice
>
> I believe that someday it will be illegal to discriminate against
> homosexuals, because I believe (from having read research reports and
> articles on human development) that homosexuality is NOT "a choice" or "a
> lifestyle" or "a sin," but is as natural as curly hair or long toes or a
> singing voice.went
>
> In the 1960s in a town I lived in Explorers were the BIG thing--it seemed
> that hardly a boy grew to be 16 with being an Eagle Scout, and then they
> on to Explorers. The big group hobby was canoeing, water safety, riverweeks.
> rescue, etc. Every summer a big group went to the big Boy Scout camp in
> Cimarron. Every summer a group went canoeing in Canada, for several
> It was like Outward Bound, but all the guys knew each other well.who
>
> The leader and coordinator of all that was a man who was unmarried, yet
> was elected mayor, a business owner, a hard working well-trusted man. Hewas
> homosexual, but it didn't matter. He was not a child molester. He was athat
> man. He was a man who volunteered a GREAT deal of time and energy so
> young people could travel and learn and also grow up to be good men.because
>
> Now that would be illegal. Maybe it would have been then, had anyone
> complained, but there was nothing to complain about. Parents trusted him
> with their teenaged boys. They trusted him to be mayor. They named a
> community center after him while he was still alive.
>
> But that's not good for boy scouts anymore, I hear.
>
> Scouting has touched the lives of many boys who had no sexual desire
> they were eight years old. Some of them grew up not being heterosexual.Is
> it better or worse if they dropped out of Scouts before becoming lifescouts?
> Eagles? is it better to allow someone who never was a boyscout to be awith
> leader now than someone who is an Eagle Scout but just doesn't have sex
> women?people.
>
> It's not so simple a problem as a group not wanting certain kinds of
> It's a group changing their policy after many gay men have participated,whether
> "graduated," and donated time and money.
>
> I was the one who said the anti-Christian thing, I guess, in asking
> it was because of Bible references, and if so were they discriminating
> against bankers and loan officers.
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Addresses:
> Post message: [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: [email protected]
> List owner: [email protected]
> List settings page: http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
[email protected]
In a message dated 09/28/2000 9:38:50 PM !!!First Boot!!!,
mamaxaos@... writes:
<< Let me be clearer. Most pedophiles are heterosexual males. >>
Well, there's the issue of pedophilia.
Then there's the homophobia. A completely different issue.
The idea that a heterosexual boy (or girl) shouldn't be exposed to an openly
gay individual who is held up as a person to be respected. That's another
argument. And I can kind of see the logic. If you want to role model for
boys (and girls) and you don't want those models to be openly gay but macho
and outdoorsy and woodsy and "handy with tools and fishing rods" kind of
guys, then you don't take them to the Gay Pride Parade. I can see it as
parents making the choices for role models for their kids.
The flaw in this set up, it seems to me, is that it assumes that all gay
people are out and blatant. That all manly men (who like women and are
therefore good role models) are out there chopping down trees and the ones
who are interior decorators and a little too handy around the kitchen are
"obviously" the gay ones. That ain't how the world is arranged tho.
I wonder how anyone will tell. If a gay man is not openly gay and macho
enough, he passes. If a straight man is a little feminine (heaven forbid!),
they are suspected. And then what? Kicked out. "Well, Bruce, we noticed
how neatly you keep your campsite, so you better get out. We can't have the
boys growing up seeing a role model like that."
Nothing at all to do with pedophilia, it seems to me. Just plain old
ignorance about how gay people act. As if they all act one way and it is
obvious.
I wonder how many gay members of the scouts are having a secret chuckle right
about now?
And how many gay boys are being made even more uncomfortable about the
decision to come out.
Maybe this was actually a case when the "don't ask, don't tell" stand would
have been best.
Or maybe some principled stand on honoring all Scouts for the good they do in
the lives of children. Even if their campsites are a little toooo neat.
Nance
mamaxaos@... writes:
<< Let me be clearer. Most pedophiles are heterosexual males. >>
Well, there's the issue of pedophilia.
Then there's the homophobia. A completely different issue.
The idea that a heterosexual boy (or girl) shouldn't be exposed to an openly
gay individual who is held up as a person to be respected. That's another
argument. And I can kind of see the logic. If you want to role model for
boys (and girls) and you don't want those models to be openly gay but macho
and outdoorsy and woodsy and "handy with tools and fishing rods" kind of
guys, then you don't take them to the Gay Pride Parade. I can see it as
parents making the choices for role models for their kids.
The flaw in this set up, it seems to me, is that it assumes that all gay
people are out and blatant. That all manly men (who like women and are
therefore good role models) are out there chopping down trees and the ones
who are interior decorators and a little too handy around the kitchen are
"obviously" the gay ones. That ain't how the world is arranged tho.
I wonder how anyone will tell. If a gay man is not openly gay and macho
enough, he passes. If a straight man is a little feminine (heaven forbid!),
they are suspected. And then what? Kicked out. "Well, Bruce, we noticed
how neatly you keep your campsite, so you better get out. We can't have the
boys growing up seeing a role model like that."
Nothing at all to do with pedophilia, it seems to me. Just plain old
ignorance about how gay people act. As if they all act one way and it is
obvious.
I wonder how many gay members of the scouts are having a secret chuckle right
about now?
And how many gay boys are being made even more uncomfortable about the
decision to come out.
Maybe this was actually a case when the "don't ask, don't tell" stand would
have been best.
Or maybe some principled stand on honoring all Scouts for the good they do in
the lives of children. Even if their campsites are a little toooo neat.
Nance
Lynda
That's not correct. They said they wouldn't allow openly homosexual men in
a leadership position if the parents objected. They did not, contrary to
biased news articles, go on a witch hunt to remove leaders and members.
Lynda
----------
felt strongly about their participation and for whom it was a part of their
identity and lifestyle.
a leadership position if the parents objected. They did not, contrary to
biased news articles, go on a witch hunt to remove leaders and members.
Lynda
----------
> From: Nanci and Thomas Kuykendall <tn-k4of5@...>something that doesn't want them.
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE:[Unschooling-dotcom] Save Our Scouts website
> Date: Thursday, September 28, 2000 2:15 PM
>
> >I can't for the life of me understand the mentality that wants to join
> >Lyndathousands of current members and leaders who were already in the scouts,
>
> Yes, but the the Boy Scouts decision effectively was to kick out
felt strongly about their participation and for whom it was a part of their
identity and lifestyle.
>
> Nanci K.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Show off your pagan (and Idaho) pride, get Idaho Pagan Mail(tm) today!
> Sign up at http://www.idahopagan.com/
>
>
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Addresses:
> Post message: [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: [email protected]
> List owner: [email protected]
> List settings page: http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
[email protected]
In a message dated 00-09-28 20:12:02 EDT, you write:
<< I wonder how anyone will tell. If a gay man is not openly gay and macho
enough, he passes. If a straight man is a little feminine (heaven forbid!),
they are suspected. And then what? Kicked out. "Well, Bruce, we noticed
how neatly you keep your campsite, so you better get out. We can't have the
boys growing up seeing a role model like that." >>
Nance, you're scaring me. One of my best friends is tall and strong and
hairy, but you know, he IS really really handy in the kitchen, and he has
nice handwriting too. He knows how to sew, with or without patterns. But
worse: MY HUSBAND. He was a boyscout for a while, and can set up a camp in
the dark, and tie ALL kinds of knots, but you should see how neatly he keeps
his ropes, in little non-tangling bundles, by size, all in one bag. He used
to be a theatre major. He knows the words to lots of musicals and has a
great tenor voice and blonde hair down to his waist.
But that's all balanced by my friend Mark who's pretty blatantly gay to hear
him *talk* about it, but he wears jeans and leather jackets and boots and has
a really low voice and has to shave a lot, so maybe he's NOT gay. Maybe my
husband has been fooling me for 23 years.
We have two 14 year old boys spending the night tonight. Maybe I should take
them home; my husband will be arriving from Minneapolis within the hour.
Good point (whoever made it) about other offenses--a policy like this will
allow married, closeted or unaware homosexuals, and will allow those willing
to be deceptive or secretive, and will ban those who are aware and honest. I
doubt if they check to make sure none of the leaders have ever committed
adultry, but that's right there in the top ten.
Oh well...
It will change.
Then it will change back.
And we'll all die, eventually.
Sandra
<< I wonder how anyone will tell. If a gay man is not openly gay and macho
enough, he passes. If a straight man is a little feminine (heaven forbid!),
they are suspected. And then what? Kicked out. "Well, Bruce, we noticed
how neatly you keep your campsite, so you better get out. We can't have the
boys growing up seeing a role model like that." >>
Nance, you're scaring me. One of my best friends is tall and strong and
hairy, but you know, he IS really really handy in the kitchen, and he has
nice handwriting too. He knows how to sew, with or without patterns. But
worse: MY HUSBAND. He was a boyscout for a while, and can set up a camp in
the dark, and tie ALL kinds of knots, but you should see how neatly he keeps
his ropes, in little non-tangling bundles, by size, all in one bag. He used
to be a theatre major. He knows the words to lots of musicals and has a
great tenor voice and blonde hair down to his waist.
But that's all balanced by my friend Mark who's pretty blatantly gay to hear
him *talk* about it, but he wears jeans and leather jackets and boots and has
a really low voice and has to shave a lot, so maybe he's NOT gay. Maybe my
husband has been fooling me for 23 years.
We have two 14 year old boys spending the night tonight. Maybe I should take
them home; my husband will be arriving from Minneapolis within the hour.
Good point (whoever made it) about other offenses--a policy like this will
allow married, closeted or unaware homosexuals, and will allow those willing
to be deceptive or secretive, and will ban those who are aware and honest. I
doubt if they check to make sure none of the leaders have ever committed
adultry, but that's right there in the top ten.
Oh well...
It will change.
Then it will change back.
And we'll all die, eventually.
Sandra
aworthen
----- Original Message -----
From: Lynda <lurine@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Save Our Scouts website
, local United Ways
The United way does not condone the decision of BSA and no longer supports
them financially.
Amy
Mom to Samantha, Dana, and Casey
The World Is Our Classroom
[email protected]
In a message dated 09/29/2000 1:45:14 AM !!!First Boot!!!,
aworthen@... writes:
<<
The United way does not condone the decision of BSA and no longer supports
them financially. >>
I think it's being decided county by county around here.
Nance
aworthen@... writes:
<<
The United way does not condone the decision of BSA and no longer supports
them financially. >>
I think it's being decided county by county around here.
Nance
Lynda
That also is not correct. It is up to the individual United Ways as to
whether or not they choose to support BSA. They ask the contributing
organizations and then go by the vote of the local companies.
Companies/organizations and even the individuals within the company have
always been allowed to designate if they don't want their contributions to
go to any particular organization or if they want their money to all go to
one particular organization. that is why you will see on their annual
ditty they send to newspapers, UW gave "x" organization $$$ and "y"
organization $$ and "z" organization $$$$.
Lynda
----------
whether or not they choose to support BSA. They ask the contributing
organizations and then go by the vote of the local companies.
Companies/organizations and even the individuals within the company have
always been allowed to designate if they don't want their contributions to
go to any particular organization or if they want their money to all go to
one particular organization. that is why you will see on their annual
ditty they send to newspapers, UW gave "x" organization $$$ and "y"
organization $$ and "z" organization $$$$.
Lynda
----------
> From: aworthen <aworthen@...>supports
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Save Our Scouts website
> Date: Thursday, September 28, 2000 6:25 PM
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lynda <lurine@...>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 7:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Save Our Scouts website
>
> , local United Ways
>
> The United way does not condone the decision of BSA and no longer
> them financially.
>
> Amy
> Mom to Samantha, Dana, and Casey
> The World Is Our Classroom
>
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Addresses:
> Post message: [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: [email protected]
> List owner: [email protected]
> List settings page: http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
[email protected]
In a message dated 9/28/2000 12:57:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
'morally straight'. Morally straight is not a reference to sexual
orientation. It is a commitment by the leader or Scout to maintain a
standard of sexual purity. That includes avoiding things like pornography
and sexual acts outside of marriage.
As for 'graduating' and then having the group change policy. That is simply
false. The policy was 'morally straight' all along. It has not changed.
This is not a new emphasis. I reiterate, every candidate knew what the
standards were when they applied for leadership or membership standards. If
they didn't, it was not the fault of the Boy Scout organization.
No one has been denied any accolades due to policy changes. Whether
homosexuality is a choice or not, a decision was made at some point to act on
those impulses/desires/urges. That decision to act is what brings the person
outside of the 'morally straight' boundaries to which they have agreed.
Therefore, their rank, advancements and standing in the Scout community
should be taken away. If they did not want to abide by the Scout Law, they
should not have joined.
Eiraul
SandraDodd@... writes:
> is it better to allow someone who never was a boyscout to be awith
> leader now than someone who is an Eagle Scout but just doesn't have sex
>people.
> women?
>
> It's not so simple a problem as a group not wanting certain kinds of
>The Boy Scout code, oath and law all clearly state that the participant is
> It's a group changing their policy after many gay men have participated,
> "graduated," and donated time and money.
>
'morally straight'. Morally straight is not a reference to sexual
orientation. It is a commitment by the leader or Scout to maintain a
standard of sexual purity. That includes avoiding things like pornography
and sexual acts outside of marriage.
As for 'graduating' and then having the group change policy. That is simply
false. The policy was 'morally straight' all along. It has not changed.
This is not a new emphasis. I reiterate, every candidate knew what the
standards were when they applied for leadership or membership standards. If
they didn't, it was not the fault of the Boy Scout organization.
No one has been denied any accolades due to policy changes. Whether
homosexuality is a choice or not, a decision was made at some point to act on
those impulses/desires/urges. That decision to act is what brings the person
outside of the 'morally straight' boundaries to which they have agreed.
Therefore, their rank, advancements and standing in the Scout community
should be taken away. If they did not want to abide by the Scout Law, they
should not have joined.
Eiraul
[email protected]
In a message dated 9/28/2000 2:11:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
tn-k4of5@... writes:
anti-Christian or anti-scout statements in the past. It is an honest
observation.
Eiraul
tn-k4of5@... writes:
> >Why is it continually okay to put down Christians and Boy Scouts on thisNope. If you check the archives, I'm pretty confident you will find other
> list?
> >
> >Eiraul
>
> Um....I did not say a single word about Christians. Nor have we discussed
> Boy Scouts before. Are you feeling persecuted about something else maybe?
>
> Nanci K.
>
anti-Christian or anti-scout statements in the past. It is an honest
observation.
Eiraul
[email protected]
In a message dated 9/28/2000 2:25:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mamaxaos@... writes:
not been a change in policy. This is not new. The only thing new is men who
try to insist they can go against the code to which they agreed and force BSA
to allow continued participation in the BSA.
As for focusing efforts to exclude pedophiles, BSA goes to great lengths to
keep such criminals out of their ranks. Every leader is subject to back
ground checks and is required to sign statements that they understand and
agree to uphold the BSA standards.
Every boy is required to review a pamphlet directly addressing abuse,
including sexual abuse. In order to achieve any Scout advancement the boy is
required to review a booklet addressing this very topic with his parents.
The boy and his parents are both required to participate in this and sign
accordingly. This booklet is included in every scout book, in front, right
behind the cover. In order to look at any of the rest of the book, you have
to get past this very substantial booklet. There is no way to miss it.
Scout leaders have ongoing training directed at avoiding problems with abuse
of any sort. Leaders are required to NEVER be alone with a boy. All scout
activities are to include at least 2 adults. Boys are to work in teams to
accomplish their rank advancement and merit badge activities. This is for
the safety of the leader, the boy and BSA's liability.
Anyone that has been actively involved in Boy Scouts or has spent any time
checking out the organization or the requirements for Scouting would know
these steps are taken. This is not a new thing. The above requirements have
been in place for at least 20 years. I'll bet even longer, but can't vouch
for that personally because I've only been involved in Scouts directly for 20
years.
Don't believe me? Go to your local Scout office and check it out. I
recommend doing some research for yourself, rather than listening to rumors
or jumping to conclusions.
Eiraul
mamaxaos@... writes:
> I find BSA to be not only bigoted but dishonest about their bigotry. Ia
> personally would have more respect if they were "upfront" that they were
> changing the meanings of their historical promise and laws and engaging in
> revisionist "purge".BSA has been up front about their standards from the beginning. There has
>
> Vicki----would feel far safer about boys on camping trips if BSA were
> focusing efforts on excluding pedophiles from leadership rather than
> excluding from any membership at all and even withdrawing membership from
> those who find sexual orientation to be irrelevant to Scout principles or
> those who have or will identify as homosexual.
>
not been a change in policy. This is not new. The only thing new is men who
try to insist they can go against the code to which they agreed and force BSA
to allow continued participation in the BSA.
As for focusing efforts to exclude pedophiles, BSA goes to great lengths to
keep such criminals out of their ranks. Every leader is subject to back
ground checks and is required to sign statements that they understand and
agree to uphold the BSA standards.
Every boy is required to review a pamphlet directly addressing abuse,
including sexual abuse. In order to achieve any Scout advancement the boy is
required to review a booklet addressing this very topic with his parents.
The boy and his parents are both required to participate in this and sign
accordingly. This booklet is included in every scout book, in front, right
behind the cover. In order to look at any of the rest of the book, you have
to get past this very substantial booklet. There is no way to miss it.
Scout leaders have ongoing training directed at avoiding problems with abuse
of any sort. Leaders are required to NEVER be alone with a boy. All scout
activities are to include at least 2 adults. Boys are to work in teams to
accomplish their rank advancement and merit badge activities. This is for
the safety of the leader, the boy and BSA's liability.
Anyone that has been actively involved in Boy Scouts or has spent any time
checking out the organization or the requirements for Scouting would know
these steps are taken. This is not a new thing. The above requirements have
been in place for at least 20 years. I'll bet even longer, but can't vouch
for that personally because I've only been involved in Scouts directly for 20
years.
Don't believe me? Go to your local Scout office and check it out. I
recommend doing some research for yourself, rather than listening to rumors
or jumping to conclusions.
Eiraul
[email protected]
In a message dated 9/28/2000 5:11:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
marbleface@... writes:
large. However, BSA has a right to set the standard and expect their members
to adhere to those standards. If a person is homosexual, he does not get to
be honored by the BSA or counted among their members.
Eiraul
marbleface@... writes:
>I'm willing to honor anyone who does good for the children or the world at
> Or maybe some principled stand on honoring all Scouts for the good they do
> in
> the lives of children. Even if their campsites are a little toooo neat.
>
large. However, BSA has a right to set the standard and expect their members
to adhere to those standards. If a person is homosexual, he does not get to
be honored by the BSA or counted among their members.
Eiraul
[email protected]
In a message dated 9/28/2000 6:45:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
aworthen@... writes:
this decision and varies.
Eiraul
aworthen@... writes:
> local United WaysAs I understand it, it is up to the local United Way organization to make
>
> The United way does not condone the decision of BSA and no longer supports
> them financially.
>
this decision and varies.
Eiraul
Vicki A. Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: <braunville@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 1:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Save Our Scouts website
> Don't believe me? Go to your local Scout office and check it out. I
> recommend doing some research for yourself, rather than listening to
rumors
> or jumping to conclusions.
>
> Eiraul
Yes, I am familiar with the booklet. Actually I even "remember" seeing
it in a "new" "revised" handbook and reading publications concerning its
development and mandatory inclusion (not supposed to scissor it out even if
in a community expressing objections to such information being given to
young children outside the family home). Did not realize it was 20 years
ago but I suppose that is possible. Time certainly does fly, doesn't it.
As for checking with a local scout office, well it seems that there is
"some" infighting whereas certain regions and locales have/are adopting
their own policies sometimes not in agreement with policies from the
national
headquarters. Sometimes quietly, sometimes not. Sometimes being
slapped down by national office, sometimes not.
I'll leave in-depth research to others but I fail to see how reading briefs
presented by both sides in a court case or reading signed policy statements
from officers within the organization falls under the heading "listening to
rumors".
Vicki---gives high value to both honor and honesty.
[email protected]
<<The United way does not condone the decision of BSA and no longer supports
them financially.>>
Several regional United Ways around the country have declined to support
their local Boy Scout Councils because of their stance on gays in leadership
positions. In our area of Houston, word has gotten out among the scouts about
this.
Now we the "heterosexual parents" have declined to donate to the United
Way. My company, which has several thousand employees, has seen this years
United Way drive results reduced to 85% participation. That is down from
100%. What a pity this is. Word has it that many of the former U.W.
supporters have declined because of the Scout issue.
The supporters of inclusion are allowed to have their beliefs. We are
also allowed to have our beliefs, but are chastised and ridiculed for them.
Parents who want gays as role models for their children should start
their own version of the Scouts, just as the vast majority of us currently in
Scouting were ready to do if the supreme court had sided against the Scouts
on this issue.
And if the United Way thinks that they will change our moral stance by
withdrawing financial support from the Scouts, they should remember that most
of their money is donated by middle income heterosexual PARENTS. Some support
the gays, most do not.
them financially.>>
Several regional United Ways around the country have declined to support
their local Boy Scout Councils because of their stance on gays in leadership
positions. In our area of Houston, word has gotten out among the scouts about
this.
Now we the "heterosexual parents" have declined to donate to the United
Way. My company, which has several thousand employees, has seen this years
United Way drive results reduced to 85% participation. That is down from
100%. What a pity this is. Word has it that many of the former U.W.
supporters have declined because of the Scout issue.
The supporters of inclusion are allowed to have their beliefs. We are
also allowed to have our beliefs, but are chastised and ridiculed for them.
Parents who want gays as role models for their children should start
their own version of the Scouts, just as the vast majority of us currently in
Scouting were ready to do if the supreme court had sided against the Scouts
on this issue.
And if the United Way thinks that they will change our moral stance by
withdrawing financial support from the Scouts, they should remember that most
of their money is donated by middle income heterosexual PARENTS. Some support
the gays, most do not.
David Albert
>THIS heterosexual parent donates to the United Way BECAUSE they don't support the
> Now we the "heterosexual parents" have declined to donate to the United
> Way.
Scouts on this issue.
Let's put aside the fact that the founder of the Boy Scouts was gay himself, and
that there have been gay scouts since its inception, and still are. The issue is
also not that a private club excludes or does not exclude based on sexual
orientation. In this, the Boy Scouts are no different than a gay-only club or
bar. The issue is whether they can use public accommodations in doing so --
public schools, public parks, etc. -- which are paid for with funds collected
from the entire community, including people who happen to be gay. I am not
permitted to not pay my taxes to support the use of these public accommodations
by groups which practice exclusion. So the only fair solution is deny access to
those who practice exclusion.
Similarly, I work for a public agency. Gay-only bars and clubs cannot solicit
for funds through the United Way in my agency because they practice exclusion.
So it would be a double standard to allow the Boy Scouts to do so. The United
Way does not attempt to change my moral stance or that of anyone else. I can
support the Boy Scouts or the gay bar if I wish, with my own funds and efforts.
I just shouldn't be forced to do so through my taxes or through an organization
that works through my public agency.
I have lived long enough to remember a time, in my northern city, when Italians
couldn't get public sector jobs. I went to a college (and this is in the 60s!)
which still had a Jewish quota. I grew up seeing little girls get punched and
kicked because they drank from water fountains labeled "whites only" (meaning
"pinky gray"), and they were "coffee colored". I've grown up, and my community
has grown up too. If Boy Scouts want to have their little exclusionary clubs,
that really is okay with me -- just don't do it on my dollar.
David
Lynda
Hey, Eiraul, this is scary. We agree on something <g>
Lynda
----------
Lynda
----------
> From: braunville@...is
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Save Our Scouts website
> Date: Thursday, September 28, 2000 10:45 PM
>
> The Boy Scout code, oath and law all clearly state that the participant
> 'morally straight'. Morally straight is not a reference to sexualpornography
> orientation. It is a commitment by the leader or Scout to maintain a
> standard of sexual purity. That includes avoiding things like
> and sexual acts outside of marriage.simply
>
> As for 'graduating' and then having the group change policy. That is
> false. The policy was 'morally straight' all along. It has not changed.If
> This is not a new emphasis. I reiterate, every candidate knew what the
> standards were when they applied for leadership or membership standards.
> they didn't, it was not the fault of the Boy Scout organization.act on
>
> No one has been denied any accolades due to policy changes. Whether
> homosexuality is a choice or not, a decision was made at some point to
> those impulses/desires/urges. That decision to act is what brings theperson
> outside of the 'morally straight' boundaries to which they have agreed.they
> Therefore, their rank, advancements and standing in the Scout community
> should be taken away. If they did not want to abide by the Scout Law,
> should not have joined.
>
> Eiraul
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Addresses:
> Post message: [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: [email protected]
> List owner: [email protected]
> List settings page: http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
Lynda
Who read these briefs and policy statements from officers? Almost all the
statements against BSA were opinion comments or stated "I heard." That is
gossip or unfounded rumors. If there was a posting that stated they had
read the above, then I missed it and would like to read it. Who sent it?
And, newspaper and television reports are not a foundation for making any
statements about facts, so should also be filed under rumors or gossip.
Lynda
----------
statements against BSA were opinion comments or stated "I heard." That is
gossip or unfounded rumors. If there was a posting that stated they had
read the above, then I missed it and would like to read it. Who sent it?
And, newspaper and television reports are not a foundation for making any
statements about facts, so should also be filed under rumors or gossip.
Lynda
----------
> From: Vicki A. Dennis <mamaxaos@...>briefs
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Save Our Scouts website
> Date: Thursday, September 28, 2000 11:46 PM
>
> I'll leave in-depth research to others but I fail to see how reading
> presented by both sides in a court case or reading signed policystatements
> from officers within the organization falls under the heading "listeningto
> rumors".
>
> Vicki---gives high value to both honor and honesty.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Addresses:
> Post message: [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: [email protected]
> List owner: [email protected]
> List settings page: http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>