News Lily:
Run out of fresh things to read? Try Newsyndicated
|
News Lily:
Run out of fresh things to read? Try Newsyndicated
| |
| science | technology | opinion | other | worldnews | music | politics | Us_News | humor | Health | The_Economy | pictures | psychology | geekery | Culture | All Stories | |
| Sharing is Caring... |
|
|
Home |
About Us |
Register |
Submit Link |
Upcoming |
Top Stories |
Random |
Comment Roll |
Epic Comments |
Blog |
RSS
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 38 |
After 100 Years, Are The Boy Scouts Still Relevant?
By Natalie on 2010-02-08 | 7 comments |
| 2 | Natalie | 2010-02-08 | |
|
I'm sort of fascinated by their rationale for excluding girls. Is it good for young boys to have peer-bonding experiences where girls aren't around, even though it's not PC? Are there values to learn that are different from the values young girls "need," or do they need to be imparted in different ways? My natural instinct is "no," but I'm thinking about it. The no-gays, no atheists thing is a bit sad. They absolutely have the right to do it because they're privately funded, but it makes me think too. Is it possible to teach the values religions promote (honesty and respectfulness and service and all that sort of thing) without the context of religion? Can "traditional values" move into the 21st century? Because I think they have a lot to offer, but not if they're excluding people in the process. Reply to this |
| 1 | enkidu | 2010-02-08 | |
Is it possible to teach the values religions promote (honesty and respectfulness and service and all that sort of thing) without the context of religion?Eeep, I have to bite at this one. "Religion" exists as a framework for teaching exactly those sets of morals and ethics. You could teach them without what we currently have as religion, but the new method that you were using would become the new religion. Reply to this |
| 2 | Travers | 2010-02-08 | |
|
I think you could build a better framework on a stronger foundation--a societal contract. E.g. I don't steal from you, you don't steal from me, and life is better that way. Don't have to keep looking over your shoulder all the time. It amazes me people think that you can't have a society in which the members find it worthwhile without religious morals. Maybe if you have to scare a bunch of savages to convert them to your system... Reply to this |
| 1 | Natalie | 2010-02-08 | |
|
Don't quite agree with this. I think there are values that are important to teach kids that are based on free choice, not an exchange or contract. Like simply being nice to people--logically in the long run it spreads warm and fuzzies around and makes the world a happier place. But it would defeat the purpose to have to spell out "if you're nice to me, I'll be nice to you."
Reply to this |
| 1 | Natalie | 2010-02-08 | |
|
Not if you based them off logical principles (and I can think of logical principles for all of those) and encouraged asking questions and questioning assumptions.
Reply to this |
| 1 | Natalie | 2010-02-08 | |
|
More on their discrimination policy
Reply to this |
| 1 | thom | 2010-02-08 | |
|
Or perhaps a better question: Were they ever?
Reply to this |