Unconfigured Ad Widget Unconfigured Ad Widget Module
#3102-05-2013, 12:26 PMSentinel, I have always been a little vague about that. I have never wanted to be the test case for what happens if an identifiable Scouter in a BSA unit expresses the "wrong" opinion about something on an Internet forum. I will say (and have said) that our CO is a Protestant Church, and that as far as I know, decisions are made at the congregation level and not at any higher level.
- 1 Like
#3202-05-2013, 02:50 PMThe only way this is going to be detrimental to the Scouts themselves is if the adults make it so. There is nothing that I have ever seen in either Cubs or the Troop level that addresses human sexuality outside the realm of youth protection. Every major change in our society has had its proponents, detractors, and those certain that this is indeed a harbinger of the end of times. If the decision does not go your way, whichever way that is, you have to decide whether to grit your teeth, bite your tonue, and stick to the program, or to gracefully resign and find another avenue for your time and talent.
Get this decision done and overwith so we can go back to our regularly scheduled drama of helicopter parents, eagle mills, and patrol vs troop cooking.
- 1 Like
- Jun 2011
#3302-05-2013, 02:51 PM
Sadly, as I've said before, this is not about teaching youth the values that are encapsulated in the Scout Oath or Scout Law, nor is it about a love or respect for the organization of the BSA and a desire to make it a better place for the youth who are being served.
- 3 Likes
#3402-05-2013, 03:16 PMNo, Rick, it is not. Sorry, but I will *never* see this as anything other than an agenda foisted upon an institutions by an organized minority from the outside. That same minority has foisted their agenda on society relentlessly over a number of years whether in business, education, entertainment, whatever. This is bullying at its finest.
As for telling non-conservative churches and COS that they can't follow their convictions - that is pure poppycock. There has been no movement on the part of anyone to go into those organizations and tell them that they cannot have youth programs that center entirely around whatever their convictions are. There has been no one telling them that they can't band together and form an organization that looks exactly as they would like it to. in fact, they have done just that. But they don't want that. They want THIS organization to be formed into whatever it is they like.
That may be okay with you, but I am going to call it what it is.
I wonder - will everyone be happy if this policy gets changed and that object pull out? If all those conservative COs and scouting families move on to other things? Right along with all of the volunteer hours and dollars they contribute.
- 1 Like
#3502-05-2013, 05:27 PMAn organized minority? I might wonder what you would have said to all those other "organized minorities foisting their agenda on society relentlessly." Would you have been against the proliferation of Protestant sects in colonial America? Catholicism? The Irish? The Italians? The Poles? The Chinese? The East European Jews? How about the Suffragettes and Abolitionists? The NAACP, anti-misceganaiton laws, and full civil rights? LIfting of "gentlemanly" quotas against Jews and Asians in the Ivy League as well as country clubs across America?
How does being inclusive harm anyone?
The conservative churches do not own the BSA, and it is long past time for National to make that point. Keep your unit the way your CO wants it. Let mine do the same.
- 1 Like
#3602-05-2013, 06:55 PMMomtoEli says:
> Our children - as young as 7 years old - should not be thrust into the middle of this debate, nor used as tools of change.
Tigers can be as young as 5 at the beginning, but I understand the point. The problem is that the children HAVE been thrust into the middle of this debate, for many years, by the BSA's current policy. Local option SHOULD get the children out of the middle. Whether it will or not -- or if it even happens -- remains to be seen.
> Sadly, as I've said before, this is not about teaching youth the values that are encapsulated in the Scout Oath or Scout Law,
> nor is it about a love or respect for the organization of the BSA and a desire to make it a better place for the youth who
> are being served.
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but the rest of us are entitled to ours. In my opinion, changing the policy is exactly about making the BSA a better place for everyone.
- 2 Likes
#3702-05-2013, 11:15 PMFirst, NJCubScouter, it isn't me as the lone dissenting voice out here in the wilderness, so it isn't me and "the rest of us". Trying to make your opponent feel isolated and way out of step with everyone is is the type of behavior that would warrant a disucssion of fair play and ill intentions in our home ;-)
Please explain to me how the BSA's current policy, which has existed for the last 100 or so years, has thrust children into the middle of this debate? Seems to me that "my side" of the debate isn't the one that raised the issue to begin with.
You are right that ALL of us are entitled to our opinions. All includes the radical, far right conservative Christians, the Mormons, the Catholics, the Muslims, the whomever you disagree with or agree with, or whomever just has the courage to stand up and cry foul.
The BSA being intertwined with religion and the moral code it defines since almost its inception. The Latter Day Saints were the first denomination to become a signficant charter organization and that was in 1913. Additional faiths soon followed. From a purely academic point of view it has been interesting to watch how the misrepresentations have been played about as if they were fact. Do you think if you repeat that this is a current phenomena which occured by some take over by the conservatives often enough it will become fact?
02-06-2013, 07:39 AMEditing a commentYou are entitled to your opinion MomtoEli. However, currently your opinion is the policy. Those of who disagree (I'm a Catholic) with your opinion want to change it so the policy can reflect everyone's opinions based on their own opinions and beliefs. We are not forcing our beliefs on you, the current policy is forcing your beliefs on us. Even now you sit on this forum and argue that your views should trump mine. your religious beliefs should trump mine, and your Charter Organization should get to make the membership rules for my Charter Organization. Frankly, I find that notion repulsive and offensive. I follow my Faith to the letter. I study its Scripture, its doctrine, and its tradition. In the Catholic Church, one must hate the sin, but not the sinner. Until a Homosexual engages in homosexual behavior they are not sinning in the Catholic tradition. Even if they do, homosexuality isn't any greater a sin than greed, adultery, and a whole handful of different sins.
The Scout Oath and Law are made of Universal Truths. They are not anchored in any one Religious tradition. Rather than letting the Conservatives call the shots for everyone, why not let every Unit make the determination for themselves? Why do Modern Conservatives fear Freedom so much?
Basementdweller commented02-06-2013, 11:33 AMEditing a commentOGE you mean basementdweller what?????
BD , OGE here I thought you had written the "Rest of Us" comment, I was wrong
02-06-2013, 07:42 PMEditing a comment"We are not forcing our beliefs on you, the current policy is forcing your beliefs on us."
BSA policy is forcing someone's beliefs on you? How? Is that how they handle recruitment in your council? Press gangs come out and force folks into scouting?
- Oct 2003
#3802-06-2013, 07:59 AM"Seems to me that "my side" of the debate isn't the one that raised the issue to begin with."
But it was the "get gays out of scouting" side that raised the issue with the Dale case. Until then it had been a none issue. Gays were, and are, in scouting. What the Dale case did was prevent gay members and those that wanted to be members from being "avowed' homosexuals or open about thier sexual identity, forcing them to stay hidden for fear of being kicked out as was the case with Dale and more recently the lesbian Den Mother from MN. It was the "get gays out of scouting" crowd that went out of their way to kick these folks out.
These were individuals that were already in scouting and accepted by their units and COs. Folks outside of the units went out of their way to make sure they were kicked out.
02-07-2013, 01:39 PMEditing a commentI have no sympathy for someone who joined under false pretenses.
MarkNoel commented02-17-2013, 01:31 AMEditing a commentHow about the kid who joins as a Cub Scout and realizes somewhere in middle school that he's gay and those policies apply to him? Would you consider him to have joined under "false pretenses"?
#3902-06-2013, 08:41 AMMom, I did not mean to suggest that you are the only one supporting the current policy. Obviously that is not the case. What I meant by the "rest of us" is that ALL of us, including you, including me, and everybody else, are entitled to our opinions. Some agree with the current policy, some don't.
As for the rest of what you said, I think scoutingagain and Sentinel have covered it.
As I said when this whole issue came up again, this issue is a matter of different perspectives that are difficult (if not impossible) to reconcile. You see it as a moral issue, and I see it as a moral issue, but with opposite results. There is only one way to accommodate both perspectives in the BSA, and that is allowing each CO to decide.
But I guess today's the decision day, although the decision may be to delay a decision. I hope that's not the case, but we shall see. If there is an actual decision, at least then we can all discuss the actual policy, instead of speculating as we all have been doing for the past week or so.
02-06-2013, 06:36 PMEditing a commentNJCubScouter, thank you for bringing the conversation back to civility. It is difficult to keep emotions in check.
You are right that there are two sides that cannot be reconciled and I would agree that the best thing to do would be let each unit (or CO) decide for themselves. However - I have not believe from the beginning that solution would suffice - and follow up comments by several on the other side of the argument have already made it very clear that it will NOT be acceptable to them and they will continue to push until there is no longer a choice.
So, the ideal isn't *really* to let people find the place they are comfortable inside the BSA, from the perspective of those doing the pushing. The ideal is to leave no place where those who object on moral grounds to be accommodated within the BSA.
And that should offend every one of you who are beating me over the head with how awful I am for objecting to local choice.
Dudes - local choice isn't the goal. Do you really not see that? Or do you know that but try to beat down the other side pushing to this compromise position so you can then turn around and beat them down to the real goal? And just to be sure you know I'm not making this up I'll post a link ...http://bigstory.ap.org/article/boy-scouts-board-meets-amid-talk-policy-gays ... this quote is found all over the place, including in this article:
"Gay-rights supporters contend that no Scout units anywhere should exclude gays, and vowed to maintain pressure on the BSA's corporate donors to achieve that goal. Some conservatives, including religious leaders whose churches sponsor troops, warned of mass defections if the ban were even partially eased. They urged supporters to flood headquarters with phone calls."
For the record - the photo at the top of this article is offensive to me as I don't believe this is a childs' fight.
#4002-06-2013, 09:36 AMMomtoEli: You have stated that the current membership policy has been in place for 100 years. This is a very common statement on several forums for the last several years.
This statement is completely untrue. While the BSA started initially being selective, there was a long period from the 1950s throught the late 1970s where the BSA did not exclude any group of people. This was my period in scouting. Everybody was allowed in. We were 6 million strong then and an national icon. Every kid I knew spent some amout of time in the scouting program. We had no policy explicitly excluding athiests or gays. Only starting sometime in the late 1970s or early 1980s did National re-instate a policy of exluding entire classes of American citizens. Conservative individuals within the BSA at that time took on the task or turning the BSA into a new direction. It began to get public attention in 1990 with the expulsion of James Dale.
I have always believed that this selective membership policy has never had the approval of the majority of the BSA parents and volunteers. It was held in place by an executive board which makes its decisions independently of the wishes of the said BSA parents and volunteers.
- 1 Like
Twocubdad commented02-06-2013, 01:40 PMEditing a commentjim, your argument is specious. While the policy was formalized in the late '70s, the ban was in place for decades. The ineligible volunteer files back this up as does the evidence presented in the Dale case.
- Nov 2003
#4102-06-2013, 10:44 AMMomToEli... It is true, in their effort to preach tolerance, they are intolerant to one group... Christians. Christians, with traditional Christian beliefs, are fast heading toward the minority; eventually to be silenced by the minority that preaches tolerance. They cannot see it, they are blind to the truth, given over to their sinful ways... Sad to see scripture fulfilled in this way!
NJCubScouter commented02-06-2013, 04:45 PMEditing a commentASM, I know plenty of Christians who do not believe in the exclusion of gay people. These include my wife, who is Catholic, my daughter who has become active in her husband's Episcopalian Church, and (as I learned for certain on Scout Sunday) the pastor of the church that is our troop's CO, and presumably, most of the members of that church as well. (I don't include myself on the list since I am not a Christian. I do hang out with them, though.)
Hal_Crawford commented02-06-2013, 07:40 PMEditing a commentAn increasing number of Christian sects are accepting and inclusive to the point of recognizing and performing same sex marriage and ordaining openly gay clergy. Those who describe anti-gay bias as traditional Christian values should remember that no one sect has a copyright on the title Christian.
02-07-2013, 01:45 PMEditing a commentYou are correct, Hal. The label Christian has been diluted to the point that it has no meaning anymore. Perhaps it is better for me to identify myself as a Christ follower who holds the cannonized Bible to be the infalilable, true word of God, believe that it has been protected by God himself in the translating process to the end that the Bible I hold in my hand IS, in fact, God's word to me. Further that I believe Jesus Christ IS God, has been God from the beginning, not a part of creation, but always existed, and that God exists in three distinct persons but yet is one God. That I believe God created everything, including men and women, that He doesn't make mistakes and stick us in the wrong bodies, and that He directed that marriage is to be between one man and one woman.
But I can't figure out a shorter name for it. :-)
- Jul 2012
#4202-06-2013, 07:53 PMCallooh! Callay:"We are not forcing our beliefs on you, the current policy is forcing your beliefs on us." BSA policy is forcing someone's beliefs on you? How? Is that how they handle recruitment in your council? Press gangs come out and force folks into scouting?"
You quoted MomtoEli, however those are my words. So I will take up the defense of them ,and If you meant MomtoEli I'll edit my post.
I think it's incredibly obvious I'm for lifting the ban in favor of local option. My Charter Organization ordains gay ministers. If we wanted to have a gay leader or older Scout in our troop, under the current policy we cannot. That is forcing the beliefs of people like MomtoEli onto my unit. Notice I'm not saying that MomtoEli's Troop has to allow gays. I don't give a jack what her unit does. But my charter organization obviously views gay people as acceptable leaders and members in it's ministries, yet cannot have open homosexuals in it's Scout troops.
02-06-2013, 09:03 PMEditing a commentNot exactly. It's more like the "here are the membership criteria; if you'd like to charter and organization with such criteria, welcome to BSA" argument.
You noted earlier that the "The Scout Oath and Law are made of Universal Truths." If this is true, then surely your chartered organization doesn't need the BSA with its (outdated, unfair, immoral, unfashionable - or whatever it is you think is wrong with it - membership policy). You can embrace those universal truths in an organization with membership criteria more to your liking.
02-06-2013, 09:09 PMEditing a commentDouble post - deleted double
and - something appears rather buggy - all comments appear to have been replaced with one comment.
02-06-2013, 09:19 PMEditing a commentCallooh! Callay!Not exactly. It's more like the "here are the membership criteria; if you'd like to charter and organization with such criteria, welcome to BSA" argument. You noted earlier that the "The Scout Oath and Law are made of Universal Truths." If this is true, then surely your chartered organization doesn't need the BSA with its (outdated, unfair, immoral, unfashionable - or whatever it is you think is wrong with it - membership policy). You can embrace those universal truths in an organization with membership criteria more to your liking.
Nowhere in the Universal Truths of Scouting does it say "Exclude Gay people." That's your interpretation. Most of the World's Scouting organizations allow homosexuals. How does homosexuals in the Scouting hurt you in anyway Callooh? Do you not associate with any sinners? Do you know no alcoholics? Anybody who had a divorce? Somebody who stole in their life? Someone who had sex outside of marriage? Someone who had an abortion? You are selectively picking and choosing your sins.
Yours in Scouting, (Which unless you say otherwise, because you obviously own the BSA)
#4302-06-2013, 09:19 PMTwoCubDad:
Have to disagree. I knew gay scout leaders and avowed athiests in those years. I never saw any effort to remove them. There was no religious affirmation required. There may have been CO's that actively removed homosexuals but there was no such national policy.
- May 2008
#4402-06-2013, 09:49 PMAZMike's post states clearly what I see as the BSA's biggest problem. Whatever we do, it's not enough. My question is this: Where do we draw the line in the sand? Looks to me as though we're willing to move the line to save face with somebody or something out there (and in here) that will continue to poke and prod until we give in (or suffer the slings and arrows of special interest groups and the press). No matter what we do, the pushing will never stop. Those who want the line drawn with conviction will be called bigots. Those who want it moved will be called open-minded and progressive. The argument is that it's going to happen eventually, so why not now?
- Jun 2011
#4502-07-2013, 06:13 AM
Hurt me? You think this is about me? You're confused.
"Do you not associate with any sinners?"
What does that have to do with it? Do you believe homosexuality a sin? Is that why you want to embrace it? To demonstrate your worthy compassion for sinners? Man, come down off your high moralizing horse a moment... the point was not about sin.
"Do you know no alcoholics?"
Not that I know of.... but what does that have to do with it?
"Anybody who had a divorce?"
What does that have to do with it?
"Somebody who stole in their life?"
What does that have to do with it?
"Someone who had sex outside of marriage?"
What does that have to do with it?
"Someone who had an abortion?"
What does that have to do with it?
"You are selectively picking and choosing your sins."
No. You are selectively picking and choosing them for me. I made no mention of sin. Perhaps a preoccupation with it has confused you.
Unconfigured Ad Widget Unconfigured Ad Widget Module