Boy Scouts of America introduce video game belt loop and academics pins

No.

The cub/boy scouts I grew up with is dead. This isn't cool Lakali, this is a travesty.

The scouts are about learning USEFUL life lessons, such as how to survive in the wilderness, learning to grill, physical fitness, ect. Video game pins/belt loops/badges is THE worst idea ever. Seriously.

I'd bet most of you would oppose badges based on your skills at basketball or based on how many books you read, I would too. This is no different.

It's over, the scouts are dead.

"The scouts are about learning USEFUL life lessons, such as how to survive in the wilderness, learning to grill, physical fitness, ect. Video game pins/belt loops/badges is THE worst idea ever. Seriously."

Boy scouts do that stuff, but this is cub scouts. And cub scouts do absolutely nothing at all.

Learning how to manage your time and make new friends isn't useful?

Tru dat mah brudda!!!

FSCK dat! LOAD “OG Commodore 64 in da house!”,8

People still play FPS games via Dual-analog??

Barbarians!

@Foetoid

Seriously, you are the only one who is that inept that they can't play fps with dual analog. We've all heard you stories many times about how good the Wii is for fps games. It isn't, In fact it sucks. You're only lying to yourself.

Naahhh the Wii is good for FPS, it's more akin to the good old mouse and keyboard. More accurate aswell.

The lolcat's right.
The Wii control scheme works brilliantly in FPS games (yes, better than a PS3/360), as shown by Metroid.
However, it doesn't have any good games to show this off, probably because of its shit online and the fact that the user base just doesn't want FPS's.

"We've all heard you stories many times about how good the Wii is for fps"

Oh, is that what he's bragging for? Dammit, I thought I could flash the PC Master race gang sign. Thanks Mannyman for the tease. Sheesh, kids these days. The mouse was the original waggle device.

Don't forget the tea bagging.

Alec Baldwin agrees.

Ahh there is so much ignorance in that statement, I don't know where to begin!

You gotta think about it from their point of view:

How would you feel sleeping in the tent with a boy who'd have a massive crush on you? If he's got it under enough control to keep it hidden then fine, but if he can't shut up about it to the point where he gets booted from the scouts then I wouldn't be comfortable with it either, at least not at that age.

Wow, inappropriate stereotyping, how unbiggoted of you.

And how do atheists and agnostics apply? "Cause theya sinnuhs against jeeeezuhsh!"?

Private organizations generally don't receive public funds and special consideration.

I love how you think anyone who disagrees with you is a left-winger and homosexual, and then accuse them of labeling the opposition. Irony!

If your allowed to call anyone who disagrees with you homosexuals, I can criticize discriminatory organizations.

Private organization =/= beyond criticism.

The BSA is a private religious organization. They don't have to let homosexuals or atheists in if they don't want to. The first point in the Scout Oath is to do duty to God, and the last point in the Scout Law is Reverence. Saying they should let homosexuals and atheists in is the same as saying the Catholics should (officially) let them in, or Muslims, or what have you. None of the major religious creeds accept homosexuality, and even if one did, it wouldn't be enough to trump Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

Now, to be clear, I have nothing against homosexuals and atheists, I'm just making the point that, based on the fact that they are a private religious group, they don't have to let them in. The big issue here is that the BSA wants federal money, but they still want to keep certain people out. That's wrong. Like I said, they can exclude whoever they want based on the God thing, but not if they're getting federal money. Then, they have to let everyone in.

I'm an Eagle Scout, by the way. I'm proud of it, but I'm not proud of the way the BSA has handled the issue of homosexuals. Atheism doesn't come up as much. If I had my way, everyone could get in, because the BSA needs all the good PR and extra members it can get.

PS, I had a lot of fun arguing about this with some of my Scoutmasters, most of which were hilariously right-wing. I loved telling them about how scientists have found lots of examples of homosexuality in animals, that always made them lock up for a few seconds.

I'm with you Jeff. I don't like some of the rules the BSA has in place, and I wish they would get rid of them so people could once again see that it can be a very positive experience.

Yes but they receive government funding. They have no right to both accept public funding and not follow anti discrimination laws.

The establishment clause of the first amendment is, in part, set up to put a buffer between church and state. The reason your analogy actually works against you is that in the case of a school sanctioning and encouraging prayer they are promoting a religion and excluding other people; this is exactly what the BSA is doing by only allowing certain people in: a public school not allowing certain kids in (black, atheist, gay) would be the analogous situation. As a private organization, they are free to discriminate how they please, to an extent. However the BSA, by accepting tax payer money, whether you like it or not, needs to follow the laws regarding anti discrimination.

Firstly, I had no idea they had shit like that in America still.
Where I live (Australia), if someone started a club where they teach kids to be homophobic and intolerant of other people's religion (or lack thereof) then it would be featured on the news or ACA or something and be publicly bashed worse than scientology.

Secondly, I'm entitled to my morals that bigots like you are the scum of out society, more so than criminals, and you should all go to prison (please, don't forget to drop the soap. :D).

Oh, and FWIW I would like to point out that although clubs promoting bigotry etc. in Australia are almost nonexistant, we aren't perfect. We have these big slums in the middle of Australia where we dump all of the Aborigines, give them some money to buy petrol (for sniffing) and booze and pretend they don't exist.

Alright, put down that torch for a second.

The BSA was a big part of my life when I was young, and I was never "taught to be homophobic or religiously intolerant." Now, I can't agree with some of the rules they have in place, but you make them out to be the freaking KKK.

Yes, they have some rules that most people would find bigoted, but ultimately, it's up to the Scoutmasters and each individual troop who can join and who can't. Needless to say, some troops are more lenient than others, and will let anyone in regardless of orientation or denomination.

"Haters"? It always amazes me how any criticism of a religious organization is automatically considered in the worst positive light. The terms I saw used were constructive while remaining positive - the BSA has lost our respect for it's (perfectly legitimate) choices.

(I will say, however, that as a private religious organization I will still continue to fight the massive influx of taxpayer money and resources that the the Scouts recieve each year. This is a clear Constituional violation in my opinion. The organization has had it both ways too long: sponsored discrimination under public funding must stop.)

But there's no hate. Rather a deep, heartfelt dissappointment that an organzation so positioned to bring people together, to do good in the world, has decided instead to base itself on irrational and completely erroneous conclusions. Conclusions which are - by the way - cruel, hurtful and yes, hateful.

I was a happy, successful - and yes, Atheist - scout in my youth (these rules are not inviolate tradition but rather fairly recent innovations). I cherish my time in the organization but am continually saddened that my son - a fine, upstanding, contributing member of our community - is barred entry. Especially saddended that his disqualification is over something so blantently stupid and hypocritical.

I will happy defend the organizations right to privately make stupid decisions (as long as they also privately fund them of course) but I can fell nothing but pity for a group so wrong-headed and hateful.

"Secondly, I'm entitled to my morals that bigots like you are the scum of out society, more so than criminals, and you should all go to prison (please, don't forget to drop the soap. :D)."

Yes, bigotry is wrong, but never in my time, decades ago, in the Cub Scouts do I recall ever being indoctrinated with any kind of bigotry or intollerance. The organization may have a policy of non-admittance to certain groups, but it's not like there's a "gay-bashing" merit badge, or even any discussion of sexuality or religion in the meetings themselves.

And I'm not trying to be some big Boy/Cub Scout promoter/supporter. I pretty much agree with Jeff's statements above, and in fact am not terribly fond of the quasi-militaristic/fraternal nature of the Scouts, though I do feel that it's good to teach children various survival and handycraft skills, as well as some kinds of community service and values, though the latter and the quality thereof are going to vary depending completely on the Scoutmasters.

Now, to the point of that which urged me to reply to your comment: you think bigots should all go to prison, huh? While bigots are ignorant and morally reprehensible and should be ostracised as such, you can take your "thought crime" bullsh!t and stuff it right where the sun don't shine, and plug it up in there with that bar of soap to which you referred. A free people are entitled to whatever thoughts and words they may have, however backward they may be. When those thoughts and words cross over into actions is the point at which criminality becomes involved, though I suppose that may be anethema in a country which has no constitutional guarantee of free speech and expression.

P.S.: O.T. I do think video game merit badges/belt loops are kind of silly and out of place in the Scouts.

WiredKnight - the official stance of the organization is that homosexuals and athiests lead "ammoral lifestyles" and are unfit for scouting.

Personally I was a very happy, successful atheist scout - but that was before these rules were enforced (remember that this is a relatively recent change in official policy).

But you see no hypocrasy in finding a troop that's willing to break these rules quietly? No issue with supporting an organization who's beliefs you consider unethical quietly and without comment?

I can't do it and still respect myself. Ironically I cultivated much of this conviction while in Scouts. I wish the organization had continued to live up to my ideals of it rather than devolve to defending erroneous and cruel stereotypes.

I am quite familiar with their "official stance." Luckily I made eagle well before any of this stuff and they decided to come up with these rules.

I understand your point, but consider this. Wouldn't it have a far more positive effect for those scoutmasters to lead by example and show these kids what the right thing to do is? I think the positive lesson to be learned there far outweighs the negative idea of "ooo shhh, we're breaking the rules set by a group of people we'll never see..."

In the end, you have to realize that finding/sticking with a troop that you agree with is not about supporting the BSA, it's about wanting the best experience for your kids while they're growing up. If I had a son who was growing up, gay or not, I wouldn't want him to be deprived of such a rewarding, educational organization, even if it means going a little against the grain and finding people willing to accept him.

I admit, it would be best if they would just remove these stupid rules, but what do you do in the meantime? Sure you can keep your kids out of the BSA on principle, but for them it's a lose-lose situation, which is the most unfortunate part of the whole deal.

Did he drive a large conversion van?

Man, I don't know - but writing this out made me realize how lucky my friend and I may have been. It never crossed my mind before.

Brush with abduction and death? This is a weird feeling.

Religious growth does not occur in a Church, nor a home. Religious growth occurs inside the person and is based upon their own experiences and outlooks which lead into developing a belief system. To think that the growth occurs in a home or in a church is mis-leading.

Indoctrination for religion, now that occurs in homes and churches.

Just saying, not trying to be raining on your beliefs with repsect to what the organization believes in. :)

@ Nook,

Yes, you are quite right. I guess what I was trying to say is that we do not force any beliefs on anybody. All we ask is that you do believe in something and we ask that you be "reverent". If you do not believe in religion, we will not force you to believe just because.

Thank you for being clear-headed. If that doesn't sound too corny. :)

Yes, they have received public funding, http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/bsa.html

You are intolerant of anyone who does not share your supernatural beliefs and are forming opinions about others without just cause (e.g. Morality requires belief in the supernatural) That is the definition of bigotry. If the Boy Scouts refused to accept Christians, you would be furious.

The Boy Scouts both want to discriminate against homosexuals and atheists, yet receive public funds and discounted federal land.