GernBlansten

Scoutfish, well put.

My position is that I see religious intolerance destroying the good the BSA provides. The BSA is so much larger than any one religion or even the combination of all religions. It transcends it. It should people together, not tear them apart.

When the religious sects pull and tug at the BSA to met their demands, it inhibits a great movement from delivering on its promise.

I ask again, if the BSA relaxed prohibitions on adult leadership, how would that effect your individual unit? I'll tell you, my UMC CO wouldn't change a thing. I bet the LDS ward in town wouldn't change a thing. Or the Catholic unit up the hill. But I tell what it would change, public schools could charter units again. Fire departments, police posts would be allowed to charter units. But your unit would be unaffected. If you don't want gay leaders, so be it. You don't want women leaders, so be it. You don't want athiests, so be it. But your unit would be unaffected. The only effect would be more field uniforms at the parade, at the camporee, at the scout shop, at summer camp. Is that bad?

Pack, I'm not sure in my district either, but I gotta tell you there are a fair share of woodsie women and well dressed not so woodsie men at our roundtables. NTTAWWT.

"pack - how do you know they do? How do you know they exist? In my district? Curious."

Well, they are the ones in crisp, neat uniforms, decorated to the nines, silly.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

NJ, you can come crawl under the rock with me. Beavah don't like me or my rock either.

I see this as just an extension to allowing women leaders. COs may decide that they do not want female leaders. So be it. They may also decide that they do not wish to associate with units that allow female leaders. Ok. They may not want their scouts to have MB councilors who are female leaders. All that is fine. If that is how the CO wants to run their unit, who am I to disagree.

Brent,

LDS units in my area do not interact outside their COs.

Well there is that pack.

But really, isn't the CO the best place for determination of who is ethical and moral? They own the units, right? Do we really need a national policy dictating it? A national policy that puts us at odds with greater society and restricts our access to public resources?

Gary,

Thank you for confirming my position and making my case.

Its clear the LDS church has drawn a line in the sand for the BSA. If you change membership policy at the national level to allow local COs to determine, on their own, the makeup of their volunteer leadership, the LDS church will leave BSA. BSA will not cross that line because of this threat. The LDS church, as the 800lb gorilla, has in effect established a national policy that all units must follow and none have the power to change it.

Keep in mind that a local option would have zero impact on how the LDS church delivers the program.

Yup. As long as there's an 800lb gorilla in the room, there will never be a local option.

I think there is significant cohesiveness in the LDS church that if BSA changed its membership policy, they could and would exercise it. I don't think it would be a local issue for them.

So the rumour I heard on this forum and in my district from LDS scouters that if the BSA relaxed its policy on homosexual scouters would cause the LDS church to drop scouting is false?

If its true and I heard it with my own ears and saw it written on this forum with my own eys, then the LDS church is an 800lb gorilla on setting BSA policy.

How about the threat that the LDS would remove all their units if the BSA allowed non-LDS units to set their own criteria for adult membership.

What policy? Local option for membership. LDS have said they will disenroll their membership from BSA if non-LDS units are allowed to choose their own leadership in alignment with their own values.

Let's see.

A hypothetical society where women are not allowed to have any say in the governance of the society, they have no voice. A society where women are not allowed a position of power to change that society, they have no rank. A society where women are relegated to only lowly service roles, usually in the service of men.

Would you call that society oppressive? I would.

Is that a smear on that society, or a just analysis and comment of it?

Beav, where is your outrage towards those using their religious teachings to denigrate homosexuals. Isn't that also religious intolerance? I just try to use logical comparisons to other religious discrimination and what I view as hypocrisy to expose it. The examples I have presented are based on my opinions, just that. Backed by facts, when available. For that, I get labeled by you as a bad scouter. You are the one making personal attacks here, not me. I haven't felt it from others. Perhaps you should look in the mirror next time you want to play that card.

Catholic Church, Ed.

Sorry, y'all haven't convinced me that in the eyes of the Catholic church, women are equal. They may hold them in high regard, but in all cases they are 2nd class citizens of the church.

Now if you want to talk about the Lutheran church, yeah they are equals, now. So are homosexuals, at least in the ELCA.

And Beav, why the personal attacks, eh? What part of scouting is that?

No, what I'm getting at is there is institutionalized discrimination of females being practiced by the church based on biblical scriptures. The church is actually being very consistent in this regard to discrimination of both homosexuals and women.

However, most enlightened societies have moved beyond that sexism.

I wonder why some who do not prescribe to the scriptures of sexism, seem to want to follow the ones against homosexuality. Just seems inconsistent.

Well Beav,

when a woman can hold the same positions of power as a man in the church, I'll consider them enlightened. Until then, I'll consider them patriarchal.

If you have another word that describes the systematic oppression of women, I'll be more than happy to substitute it.

Not saying discrimination is bad, just calling a spade a spade.

Misogyny is a central part of sexist prejudice and ideology and, as such, is an important basis for the oppression of females in male-dominated societies. The motivation to the prejudice is sometimes hatred, but I think the term applies when hatred is not the motivator to the prejudice.

And Beavah, not saying what people should believe, just saying those who do believe it, should at least be consistant in their beliefs.

OGE,

I don't think its a hijack at all.

We have a group of people using biblical passages to support their position against homosexuals. That's fair and a good basis for their discrimination.

Not many years ago, that same bible was used to keep women subservient to men. Remember, women could not vote, enter a contract or hold land at one time. Attitudes on the role of women in our society has evolved and the passages that those used to support discrimination against women were re-interpreted, viewed differently or completely ignored like most passages in Leviticus. However, some of those interpretations are still in practice and I used the Catholic church as an example. It was no smear, just observation. Women cannot hold a role of power within the church. That is discriminatory. Not a smear.

So for those who hold firm that biblical doctrine supports discrimination of gays should also hold to the biblical doctrine supporting discrimination of women.

Would you like a pickle with your herring?

"For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head;" 1 Corinthians 11:9, 10.

"women should remain silent in churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission..."1 Corinthians 14:34

"Wives submit to your husbands, as is fitting to the Lord." Colossians 3:18

come on Ed,

Women as property, subservient to men, the whole Catholic church treatment of women in subordinate roles, its all in the scriptures.

Misogyny is supported in the Bible too. Far more references to that than to homosexuality. Shouldn't you apply the same view for women as you do for gays?