moosetracker

The problem is that it is local interpretation, and some have a very concrete interpretation.. They will have a problem with a Buddist faith, or wiccan or my son's belief that is more with Greek mythology.. There was a thread a little while back and one person did have a hard time with the concept and felt there had to be some sort of measure and pass/fail for a person's belief.. Some beliefs were too far out there, had no logic, or were too close to being the beliefs of a atheist..

I agree with Merlyn,  for Christians   the Bible has been interpreted and re-interpreted by men through the years, the moral code has changed through the years and the bible has countless different interpretations for each denomination..  The moral code of the bible is not a constant.. Other holy books, or folk lore are completely different and they too can be interpreted differently by many people. If you are religious but don't like the moral code of your religion, well just find a different religion that is more in line with your beliefs.

I also disagree that atheists choose not to follow a moral code.. Some ... sure, same as some in the religious community are not so pious.. But, they can have a moral code as good as anyone who is religious.. 

Cyclops - this may be a different fight, but it was probably brought on by the policy change in homosexuals..  With some people, they have won a victory so are moving on for the next battle, some see that as co-ed, others as allowing in atheists..  Personally between the two I think we will get co-ed before atheists.. BSA just doubled down on this being a religious organization and beefed up it's advancement requirements in both cub scouts & boy scouts to make sure that religious is more of a main theme.. Some of it troubles me as it allows people who are religious fanatics to discount some peoples religious beliefs if it does not pass their smell test..  I see a lot of arguments coming up over people not understanding what non-sectarian really means.

Well although morality, Is a standard, set by the group of people or community (religiously they are set by the groups interpretation of their holy book, or holy word, or folk lore).  The only way you as a person are able to follow the morals you are given by this community, are by learning them and having your conscience guide you on the right path to take.. If the holy word on morality were just magically there and everyone had it, there would be no need for churches, no difference in interpretation of what is morally correct and atheists would magically have the same moral code that you have, therefore no reason to deny them acceptance into BSA.. 

Very nice you missed the very recent argument over the inclusion of homosexuals.. We spent years where the argument came up in I&P at least every 6 months or so, and we would reargue the same argument all over again..  With the inclusion of homosexuals, the argument changed a little as those who felt persecuted felt vindicated and vica-versa..

You are a new member, but some new members lurk before they jump in.. If you missed the whole thing, do not worry, I am sure it will be brought up again in 6 months.

Do we argue about other things? Sure.. This atheist argument is one argument that comes up several times.. CoEd scouting..  Old school vs New school Scouting ( and various things in that sometimes get taken out and argued on their own merits.),  Uniform Policing   on and on.. We do love to bicker..

I disagree, because they can take a moral code of an organization (like scouting) or the moral code that was taught to them by their parents (how many of us have had mom or dad chirping in our ear if we even contemplated something that went against how we were raised?)..  

Religion has also many different denominations and a lot are due to one denomination splitting off into two due to disagreement on what is important or what the true meaning of something in some holy book is all about.. People choose a religion that is closest to their moral beliefs.. If they at some point disagree they can change their religion, become a stay at home religious person (like me) who considers themselves with a religion (and thus perfectly acceptable to be a BSA member) but I do not believe in a structured religion, and do not take the bible as the word of God, but more historical interpreting by men of the time, which has been rewritten and altered over time by other men who wanted to influence their people or their culture.. 

According to BSA, I can have my belief and my morals are not In question because I do have a form of religious belief.. Why is my religious belief really any better for moral conviction then an atheist?  It is really still my inner voice telling me what is right and what is wrong.. Sometimes my inner voice is my parents, sometimes BSA, sometimes the Jesus or God that I believe in, sometimes some little grade school teacher.. My Jesus or God may not be at all like what you picture Jesus or God (if you even are of a Christian religion, if you aren't then we have two different higher powers altogether different). Yet, an atheist can not have similar morals because they are missing some form of inner voice they equate to being that of Jesus or God (or whatever), when those figures are very individual to each and everyone of us (or at least very different based on some religious community you hang around with.)

Stosh - I do agree respect is also important..  But, it is different for different people..  The big difference In this last showdown was people who felt respect was keeping things as they were period,  and those who felt the current way was disrespectful, in that they were not being allowed to treat people with the curtsey they deserved,  and they were not allowed to practice their religious beliefs in BSA but forced to follow someone else's.

Yeah I agree with Rick-in-CA, we are not very good at the understanding of reverent...   My point exactly...

With the words of Merlyn I would say an understanding and practice of the word reverent is needed from both sides.

I believe an atheist can be as moral as a religious person.. And compared to some religious people certain atheists may even be 100% more moral..  Religion does not guarantee morality.. Some people may need a higher being who will smile on them or crush them, or a guarantee for a spot in heaven if they play nice on earth in order to behave well while on earth.   Others, just need empathy for their fellow man or the animals or the planet,  a wish and desire to leave the world a better place for the next generation some of whom may be their offspring.. 

Scouting itself and following the laws of scouting can have a profound effect on the moral upbringing of an atheist child, especially if the parents also believe in and follow the laws. Same as it has with every child who is religious..  The only way that the two worlds could co-habitat in scouting though would have to be by making one of the laws very, very important for many years...  REVERENT   ...     If we can not be reverent, we would rip each other apart and the scouting community with it.

I did not say they paid attention to volunteers of BSA.. I said they paid attention to the public opinion in their area.. Who will donate? (or not and why), Who will start a new charter (or not and why), Who has boys of age to recruit.. (If not interested, why)..   If they are getting enough then the "No's" don't figure as much, if  they are not the "No's" become reason to want change..  Here in the East, the "No's" defiantly helped convince councils it was time to get behind and back change..

Councils in my experience pretty much echo the opinions of the community around them..  There major push is for donations and membership.. If they have problems with either due to a policy, they will side with  a policy change, if they have support of the community due to a policy they will support the policy.. Wishy Washy... yes.. But it is what it is..

Personally I think the statement is well worded and finally reflects what scouting has always stated it was but was not following, that they are now nonsectarian in its attitude toward religious training.

And perhaps if your not a religion and can not deny people due to religious beliefs (ie. you have conducted yourself with respect for everyone around you, but since I know your a homosexual you can not be an BSA Adult leader).. But, if someone wants to be an adult leader (or is an adult leader) and they are "a leader bragging in front of the scouts and others about some kind of affair; or telling suggestive stories; or being drunk or high."  Then yes, you have a right not to accept their application, or revoke it..  Same as you always did for all these things, even though none of these items fell into the category or refusing homosexuals, not because of some negative behavior that they promote to the scout youth, but just because they are homosexuals..

Hmmm, maybe those opposing the policy should have told those supporting it to "shut up and leave". Did not hear much of that happen, did we?

 I heard those comments a lot in these forums..  Many did not want us to stay and push for change, but to leave and suggested we start our own group..  I do not think the answer then was to try to push us out, I don't think the answer now is for us to try to push you out..  But, I do think the answer is within everyone personally as to what is the best way for them to either figure out how to continue on and be true to your own convictions, or not..  No one can tell you what is right for you personally. All I can say is many of us who pushed for this change found reasons to stay with BSA and push for the right to be able to follow our own religious convictions eventually..

We noticed the writing on the page.  Assured that Gay Boys in the troop would not lead to Gay Adults as leadership examples, we believed and adjusted.  If you think that we were blind to assume that BSA was trustworthy, you may have a point.

You might have heard that they would not change Adult leadership in the near future, but it was always worded in a way that told you that eventually the change would come, and that the majority of leadership at National knew this was the right direction that eventually had to happen.. They were just planning and hoping not to get as cornered as they did into making this change this soon after the change on the homosexual youth.. They wanted the conservative groups to get adjusted to the first change before taking the next step.. 

There was a pool as to when the change would come in our neck of the woods.. This change came earlier then I thought, my bet was for 5 years after they voted to accept gay youth.. Others I knew thought it would be only a year, but I knew that would have been too early.. Still others guessed it would be later then my 5 year prediction, but not much later.. I think the latest was about 7 years last I heard.

I have been reading this interaction about civil law and cannon law for a page or two.. I guess, I am totally confused about the debate, it must be more then the fact that courts can put a dispute with the Catholic Church on trial, and consider the Catholic church in the wrong and liable whether monetarily or with prison time..   Many of the child molestations by catholic priests and the cover up, where all done in civil court and Catholic church ended up paying a ton of dough for their actions, and several priest wound up with jail time.. Catholic Church has done ALOT to change their process to make sure they now comply with the legalities that is required for youth protection.. This shows that Catholic churches are definitely not of the view they are above the law (they might have thought so, but not anymore)...  Also courts have presided on things like the school employee who was fired for using in vitro insemination.. The court found the catholic church in the wrong.. Many court cases upheld the churches stance, but others did not.. 

Clearly you guys are arguing on a different plane, that I am not comprehending.. Could you explain?

Still say no comparison between Divorced, unwed cohabitation and homosexuals..    Divorced/unwed can just live their lives and so if Catholic they may not get communion, if not Catholic they don't even get that to tell them someone thinks it's a sin..   Most divorced/unwed even if religious will not consider their lifestyle sinful..   So, no, the reason they were accepted as scout leaders is not because they are sorry for their sins and have repented..    Currently homosexuals can not "just live their lives", and just be denied communion.

I am not saying the Catholic church can not have these double standards, or any religion can not have them..  But, just thankfully with local option we all do not have to follow someone else's belief.. Also since I do not have to follow some others religious groups belief system, I have no problem with them exercising it in the local option..

All I am saying is again..  "No" the difference between homosexuals and divorced/unwed cohabitators is that the latter groups understand and are so repentant of the some sin that someone else religious group (perhaps their own) has labeled them with.

As for the Catholic church they have the right to refuse to accept him as a leader in their troop, just as they have the right to not accept anyone for any reason.. I half believe the comment "When WLKY asked the Archdiocese of Louisville, if homosexuals will be allowed as scout leaders, a spokesperson said "it depends."..   I could see more conservative Catholic Churches simply not accepting any homosexuals as an adult leader..  It is really unclear what the Catholic position will be, but I expect it will be fine with some guidelines on how their Catholic Churches can conduct themselves..  It may be not accepting any in volunteer positions, it might be allowing homosexuals into committee positions but not direct contact, I would be surprised if they allowed churches the freedom of their own decision.   All would be fine decisions for them, that is the local option..

This guy looks like he would not be welcomed if the argument had been on something else other then homosexuality, because this guy now has the opportunity to go to another unit (if his personality was one another unit would welcome, "cheerful service" rather then "chip on the shoulder"..) Yet he would prefer to fight the same old battle..

Some have predicted that public opinion will side with him and see the Catholic church as wrong.. My prediction is that you will find only a few beating that drum, while the majority of people will not see this as a major problem worth their time to get involved with..  The article itself only has 4 comments, not hundreds, which already shows a waning interest in who thinks you need to try to pressure churches to accept what is against their religious beliefs..

Now as for people comparing this to divorce and trying to say that divorced people are welcome because they are repentant, or those who live out of wedlock are welcome because they are repentant, but gays should not be because they are not repentant...  PHOOOEYYY!!!   Couple divorcing is the buzz for the week, when they introduce you to their new love interest, it may or may not create a buzz for a week, when they remarry probably no buzz at all..  Same with people who live together, maybe some buzz if they break up, and either move to new love interest or get back together.. But no more then a week..  Thing is, todays society accepts this, and even with some gossip  very few,  very few units would ask their scout leaders to step down because of it.. The divorced people / unmarried couple  just go about living their life and few would see their lives sinful..  Many would probably be insulted if you started preaching to them about their sinful ways.

Very true SpEdScouter, that is the reason there are girls who want to be in boy scouts not girl scouts, because girl scouts does not offer them what they want. That is also the reason co-ed boy scouts will probably have little effect on the membership numbers of girl scouts, because a lot of those in girl scouts are in a group they prefer.

Oh yes, a pie emotions would work just fine.. I was just thinking of what other forums I belong to have in their bag of tricks, so it was cake, beer and martini glasses, also some shamrocks and stars and rainbows (but those might be a little too girlie for BSA, and right now some would protest the use of the rainbow emotion when trying to send a peace offering..)

I agree with not being at the gay pride parade in uniform.. That should be a rule on the books enforced not only at a parade like that but also at any rally that is political in nature. 

Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America

clause 2.

• "The officers and leaders of the Boy Scouts of America shall, when practicable, cooperate in connection with civic or other public gatherings of a nonpartisan and nonpolitical character which gives Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts and Explorers [Ventures] an opportunity to render service in harmony with their training instead of merely taking part in parades or making a show of themselves in their uniforms."

clause 6.

• " The Boy Scouts of America shall not, through its governing body or through any of its officers, its chartered Councils, or members, involve the Scouting movement in any question of a political character. However, this shall not be interpreted to prevent the teaching of patriotism and good citizenship as required to fulfill the Corporation's purpose. This policy shall also not limit the freedom of thought or action of any official or member as an individual."

Cub Scout Leader's Manual:
Chapter 7: Uniform Rules and Regulations "The uniform may not be worn by either Cub Scouts or adult leaders when: Involved in any distinctly political endeavor." 

No complaints here Terry,  I think all our mods are terrific.. And since it seems the two who had the issue have solved their issues from posts BDPT00 has made in other posts, I don't know why the issue is still being dredged up..

Lot's of hugs to all our Mods.. And if our emotions would let me, I would send you also some beer and wine and cake too in order to compensate you on these days where our emotions on the boards overtax you..    (Oh !!   I know why no beer or wine.. Scouting doesn't allow it.. Well we still should have cake, that is allowed.) 

I knew Trail Life was open to gay youth while it supposedly was that issue that caused them to form a new organization.. I did not know they beat BSA to the punch with accepting gay Adult Leaders.. WOW...   In light of that, yeah I would say it had to be religious purity and LDS just doesn't make the grade in their eyes..

Bad Wolf - maybe apples and oranges, but the homosexuals are in and  LDS (and other non-Christian adults) are out.. So if you want to leave BSA to move to Trails Life over the new leadership policy which accepts homosexual adults, why would you want to move to a group that accepts them also, but depending on your religion may not accept you as an adult leader?

Thank-you T2Eagle.. The Catholic priest that charters a pack and troop had verbally told me something to that effect about a year back, but I thought that I would hang back and see if what he indicated was what they truly followed through with now that the hypothetical is a reality..  I am glad to see that it was..  I am sure that individual Catholic churches whose leaders and/or congregation are strongly conservative may still choose to no longer charter a BSA youth group as an individual choice.. But, it will be individual and not the church as a whole, which is good as it respects and supports their less conservative congregations..

Last I knew, they would happily accept LDS youth, but LDS adults could not be leaders...  They don't consider them true Christians because they don't believe in the holy trinity, there was mention of them following not only the Bible but also the "Book of Mormons" that make them not true Christians.. Trails life will take youth from all denominations but they will only accept true Christians as Adult Leaders..

A forum I visited on this subject had an LDS mother on the forum wanting to change to TL, but upset and not understanding the fact that they did not see her religion as Christian.. The contempt for the poor lady by the members of TL was surprising.. I would think if the women was at all open minded on the subject, she should have walked away having experienced what it is like for homosexuals after walking a mile in their shoes.

Do I know where the official rule is? No.. But there was enough buzz on forums around it, and I believe at the time the official rules where presented in the forum, that I know that this statement is true.

 

@@moosetracker ... Whose staunch republican politicians ?  You have no clue.  Get past righteous indignation and writing diatribes and stop trying to find the bad guy.

 

We live in a pluralistic society and our policies need to reflect and support that.  It means people believe different things and we need to find a way to live together.  

 

 

 

That's the whole point of a "ministerial role".  It's leading a life that reflects the teachings of the organization.  To be a minister in the church, churches may or may not require you to be a member of the faith, but they can rightfully expect that you believe in what they teach.  How you lead your life is a strong reflection of your beliefs.   I am sure the vast majority of churches will be as you said, show respect and courtesy while you are there serving as a scout leader.  But some churches can and will expect certain boundaries not be crossed.  

 

 

This policy is not about "crucifying" people or "damming them to hell".  This policy is about scouting providing a consistent program to millions where the charter organizations teach different things and the members believe different things.  We've got to find a way to work together otherwise our own irrationality will dam a great youth organization to hell. 

 

I am not having the righteous indignation, here..  There was an article about a week back where the main question asked of the Republican presidential candidates were if they would attend a same-sex wedding of a friend.. Some said they had, Some said they would, others said not the wedding but the reception afterwards, few said absolutely not. If you want only scout leaders who practice your religion, you better only accept applications from members of your church.. Otherwise you will have scout leaders who will use contraceptives, have homosexual friends, not go to church on Sunday etc. etc. etc.   They should respect your views not to contradict them to scouts or in a public setting, but since they are not of your religion they will not practice your religion..  A volunteer of a scouting program is not a minstrel role.. You can expect your ministers to follow your religious rules.. Not the general public that is employed (or volunteer) for you..  In the case of the teacher fired from a Catholic school for in Vitro fertilization, the courts sided with the employee and awarded her a cash settlement..  A scout leader is simply an adult (often a parent of a scout) giving their time voluntarily to a program so that their son's scouting experience and/or the experience of other youth are  rewarding..

Sure a teacher who posts to facebook in a way that belittles her students can be fired (they publicly crossed the line in an area that can be seen by students, teachers and faculty).. Rick_In_CA's bearded example is something that again is easily seen in public and they are now unable to sport the beard at a BSA meeting..

I suppose you have the right to accept an adult app or not, and you have a right to terminate any adult you wish for whatever reason.. If though it is something they do that is part of their private life that has absolutely nothing to do with the job they do for you, then, just be careful that you do so in a way they have no reason to sue you over it. Better yet, again if you are going to expect such ridged adherence you best only accept the applications of members from your church.

Yes we do have to work together, and that means respecting the fact that good people have different values and respecting each other for that.. Working together does not mean that you get the right to demand that everyone follow your views because everyone else is wrong.  Anyone who is now upset with this policy change is upset because they have lost the right to demand that religions and people who are fine with homosexuals now have the right to practice their religious beliefs in their BSA youth program, rather then being forced to practice yours.. We will respect your right to instill your religious values in your youth program.. You now have to find a way to respect the fact that we have the blessing of BSA to be able to instill our religious values in our youth program.. I will also respect anyone who chooses to leave because they can not do so, but that is their decision, and I am sorry to see them go.

@@moosetracker ... Ummm....  I think this is exactly what the "local option" policy (which I think is a good idea and the only option) enables.   You correctly used the term "churches youth organization".  As a youth organization of the church, the scout leaders play a ministerial role within the church.  As such, churches are protected and can pick and choose leaders who's private life matches the church teachings.  The church can't remove the leader from BSA membership, but the church can remove the leader from their scouting unit. 

Sorry, but No..  You as a conservative religion are free not accept homosexual leaders, if you find out someone is homosexual you can end their volunteering for your unit.. You can expect them not to publicly promote homosexuals  (like a gay parade, or bringing in photos of a same-sex wedding to a scout meeting and passing them around)..  But you do not have total control over their day to day personal lives.. Therefore you do not have the right to approve or disapprove of every friend they have out of scouting, or approve or disapprove of every function they attend..  That is like stating that because BSA requests you not drink alcohol  or smoke on an outing then you can not have a drop of alcohol or smoke when not at a scouting event sitting in your own home..  If you are going to be that demanding, then you had better only accept adult leaders who are members of your religion..  Being a scout leader but not of your religious belief means that they follow your rules while at scouting events or with scouts, but it does not mean that they are forced to follow your religious rules in their personal lives when they are not members of your religion..  But, hey try go for it.. I guess you can let them go for being civil to a person you want them to damn to H*LL.. I am sure they will be happy you showed your true colors and allowed them the ability to see that they do not want to bring up their child to share your values.  Most conservative religions will at least say "love the sinner, not the sin"..  Even your staunch republican politicians acknowledge it is not a good idea to totally spit on and crucify homosexuals..

Again you are not understanding that your religious convictions can be enforced upon your willing flock, and not the public at large, no matter how you twist yourself into knots to try to argue you have a right to do so.. But, I will agree the paper they sign should just state their opting out based on religious conviction, the insurers should only need the written opt out from them, with that the Insurers should then be able to set up a side insurance for any employee who can prove they are employed by a company who has signed the opt out..

The law in California is basically a law for public/private school children, it is not worded to force those with religious/personal objection.. Religious folks who take exception have the option to homeschool.. Therefore eagle77 is wrong in stating that ALL children do not need to be vaccinated.. You have an out in homeschooling your unvaccinated child..  Unfortunately this became a public health issue.. They tried to accommodate those with objections and they still had large outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases..

And yes I would agree with the courts on the little sisters claim..  Their religion is against contraceptives, they do not have to provide contraceptives..  They do not have a religious belief that they can not sign something stating their religious belief.. They just do not want to, because they want to deny their employees their right to get that which they are entitled to through another means..  So, sorry sign the forms to get your religious based waver, otherwise no one knows you are evoking your religious based waver and you don't get it.. How else are Insurance companies suppose to know who has and who has not demanded this waver if there is nothing submitted ??   It is illogical to think you can get special compensation without applying for it..

That is them trying to enforce their religious belief on people who do not share it.. Sorry if that means your employees are free agents to follow their own beliefs and will be given a different option where they can get coverage to which they were entitled by law.

A BSA charter unit is the churches youth organization and so must follow not only BSA rules, but their CO's rules, during the time they are volunteering for the BSA.. That does not mean that on their free time, they have to follow those rules, so the Charter Org. can not demand they turn their back on their homosexual friends and not support them in their marriage while on their own time.  The charter org can expect them not to bring the wedding photos to the BSA group and pass them around, if a same-sex wedding is against their religious beliefs.

Same with contraceptives.. The religious organization can tell the employee they will not get contraceptives through their company health insurance plan due to religious beliefs. They can not deny the employee the right to get contraceptives through insurance by filling out paperwork for it and apply on their own time, based on their employers refusal to do so..

Such doom and gloom... Me, I look at Hobby Lobby's (which is a recent win, not some case over 100 years old) and say, you guys have nothing to worry about..

I think you will find your activist movement will now be smaller. It will have the die-hards, but not the general public who mainly agree that religions can be free to do what they want as long as they only enforce their beliefs to their own followers who have voluntarily chose to follow them and their rules..