From: Banty on
In article <slrnfic2up.dq3.Rich(a)zippy.mulveyfamily.com>, user says...
>
>On 29 Oct 2007 08:51:17 -0700, Banty <Banty_member(a)newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>( Much deletion as we seem to be interleaving questions and responses )
>
>>
>> There *is* a lot of local willingness to let the *official* rule slide. When
>>someone walks up to them, and *states* "we are avowed athesists", they're in a
>> spot where they either have to ouwardly and officialy go against the offical
>>policy, or do what they did. Do I recall correctly that you actually proposed
>>that they draw up a *different* contract for you do sign? They have to turn in
>> those materials to Council - what would you have them do?
>>
>
> No, I hadn't proposed asking them to change any of the contracts, etc. - I
>think someone else in the thread had proposed doing it, but my response
>was basically, "Their ball, their rules, not my place to ask for change."

OK.

>
>
>> ... Even, if I recall correctly, you even proposed they amend their
>> materials for you to sign. C'mon, Rich.
>>
>
> See above. :-)

:-)

>
>
>
>>Well, theyr'e not a public school; they're a private organization. You'd have
>>to deal with that the same way Hindu or Jewish or Muslim or Bhuddist Scouts do.
>>
>> So - you went to camp already with your son at Camp Cutler?
>>
>
> It was one of several unofficial get-togethers over the summer back in
>July. There were "real" scouts there at the time, and they had all of the
>incoming ones come up for a day to check things out and do a bunch of
>activities. Ever been there? The facilities are *incredible*. I was amused
>that they even had a building for parents who hated camping to sleep in. ;-)
>

Heh.

The most miserable night of my life - "sleeping" in the poorly ventilated
'officers quarters' in the Battleship Massachussetts. Nearest facilities being
about 20 feet away with four turns to get there...

The boys and daddies all got to sleep in the enlisted men's quarters, which were
just bunks, but were open enough to get air!

Things I do for love...

Banty

From: Sarah Vaughan on
Banty wrote:

[...]
> Do I recall correctly that you actually proposed
> that they draw up a *different* contract for you do sign? They have to turn in
> those materials to Council - what would you have them do?
[...]
> Even, if I recall correctly, you even proposed they amend their
> materials for you to sign. C'mon, Rich.

In all fairness, I think you're confusing something *I* said with what
Rich said. Rich has been pretty clear that he wouldn't ask them to
change the contract.

What I was talking about was how, hypothetically, I would probably
handle the situation. And if they had a contract to sign that
specifically stated "We believe such-and-such..." then I certainly
wouldn't ask them to change it, because if that's their contract then
that's their contract. However, the statement was more along the lines
of "The main body of the organisation believes such-and-such, and if you
don't subscribe to this you won't get a certificate of membership."
Now, I realise I'm splitting hairs, but, since someone said that nobody
ever seems to get 'certificates of membership' anyway, I certainly would
consider it worth clarifying whether it would be OK for me to sign a
contract on the understanding that I *didn't* subscribe to such a belief
(I'd probably just want to scribble a note in the margin to the effect
that I didn't subscribe to it, or something). If that wasn't OK with
them then fair enough, but what I would not be able to do is sign a form
saying I believed something I didn't.


All the best,

Sarah
--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell

From: Banty on
In article <fg5fm4$3ar$1$830fa17d(a)news.demon.co.uk>, Sarah Vaughan says...
>
>Banty wrote:
>
>[...]
>> Do I recall correctly that you actually proposed
>>that they draw up a *different* contract for you do sign? They have to turn in
>> those materials to Council - what would you have them do?
>[...]
>> Even, if I recall correctly, you even proposed they amend their
>> materials for you to sign. C'mon, Rich.
>
>In all fairness, I think you're confusing something *I* said with what
>Rich said. Rich has been pretty clear that he wouldn't ask them to
>change the contract.

I did say I was vague on my recollection.

>
>What I was talking about was how, hypothetically, I would probably
>handle the situation. And if they had a contract to sign that
>specifically stated "We believe such-and-such..." then I certainly
>wouldn't ask them to change it, because if that's their contract then
>that's their contract. However, the statement was more along the lines
>of "The main body of the organisation believes such-and-such, and if you
>don't subscribe to this you won't get a certificate of membership."
>Now, I realise I'm splitting hairs, but, since someone said that nobody
>ever seems to get 'certificates of membership' anyway, I certainly would
>consider it worth clarifying whether it would be OK for me to sign a
>contract on the understanding that I *didn't* subscribe to such a belief
>(I'd probably just want to scribble a note in the margin to the effect
>that I didn't subscribe to it, or something). If that wasn't OK with
>them then fair enough, but what I would not be able to do is sign a form
>saying I believed something I didn't.
>

Looking into it, a 'certificate of membership' would come into play in, for
example, transferring from one Scout troop to another. So it is a real thing (I
haven't seen it, being as I've lived in one place since my son was 18 months
old, and he's now 15 years old).

But to me also, signing something that says I'm "not entitled to (it) if..."
(which seems to leave open possibilites) somewhere in the docuement as a kind of
escape clause is quite a different thing from having a statement "I believe in a
God who is (list of Godlike attributes)" to sign. Which is the impression left
about this sort of thing.

The thing that strikes me indeed is that it's NOT something so straightforward
as having someone sign a direct statement like that. It's almost as if there
are forces within the BSA national council (legal with non-diest recognized
religions in mind? dissident?) that is toning these things down. Scouts swear
to the Scout values, naming them each in a list in the Scout Law, and the
closest *that* comes is "reverent". If it's all so dang-fired all-about-relgion
as some people want to depict, why *isn't* there a statement like that to sign??
Answer: even the Scout organization has to hedge.

Banty