Jump to content

David CO

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by David CO

  1. My guess is that LDS is no longer thinking "national."  They're thinking "international."  The USA isn't the only country to change traditional Scouting principles.


    I think LDS may be thinking of petitioning for its own Boy Scout organization within the Scouting Movement.


    The Catholic Church would actually be in a better position to do this than LDS.  The Vatican City is already recognized as a state.

  2. Packsaddle,


    If the Scout leaders and Scouts you mentioned were in units owned by non religious CO's, than I would be equally appalled, whether they were liberal or conservative, by a Scout leader encouraging boys to change their religion.


    If, however, a boy joins a church-owned unit, I think he and his parents might reasonably expect to receive a polite invitation to join the religion.  The unit is a part of the church ministry.  IMO, it is the same as if they sign up for a church-owned school or Sunday school class.  Simply put, if they walk into my church, they're fair game.


    As far as hell is concerned, I do believe in the existence in hell.  I do believe that the act of committing a mortal sin can lead to eternal damnation.  But that is as far as I go.  I never predict the outcome of God's Final Judgment.   That is for God to decide.

  3. Terry,


    What is the worst case scenario that conservative churches have to fear?  I'll tell you.  It is that Scout leaders will advise boys to not follow the teachings of their church.  It is that Scout leaders will suggest that boys change religions.


    A church-owned unit is part of the ministry of the church.  To suggest that boys switch from their church-owned units is dangerously close to advising that they choose a different religion.

  4. Sorry, I double clicked on the post button. But since I already created this post, I will expand on my previous answer to DigitalScout.


    DigitalScout, You ask me if I have friends and associates who are sinners. Yes. In fact, all of my friends, family, and associates are sinners. So am I.


    We are repentant sinners. We are genuinely sorry for our sins. We confess our sins, pray for forgiveness, and strive to sin no more.


    My problem isn't with sinners, it is with unrepentant sinners. It is with people who claim that sinful behavior isn't sin. It is with people who actively promote sin.


    I try to avoid those people.

  5. DigitalScout,


    Great post! I agree with almost everything you said. "Cherry picking" or "cafeteria style" observance of religion is a problem.


    There are many, many different kinds of sins. I agree with you that everything on your list are sins.


    My religion teaches that some sins are more serious than others. The term "gravely sinful" would not apply to every sin on your list.


    My religion also recognizes a difference between repentant sinners and unrepentant sinners. I don't believe it is at all hypocritical or "cherry picking" to draw these distinctions.


    My last point is that not every sin is relevant to the topic of this thread.

  6. He is faithful of his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.


    The recent policy change seems to make these two statements contradictory.


    To be faithful in my religious duties, I must accept my religions teachings that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered and homosexual acts are gravely sinful. I accept it, and I believe it.


    Any fair minded person would concede this point. I didn't just make this up.


    On the second part, I can't see how I can say to another Scouter that his beliefs are intrinsically disordered and gravely sinful, but I respect them. What rank hypocrisy!


    If you feel that the phrases "intrinsically disordered" and "gravely sinful" are harsh, I agree. If you feel that they are also disrespectful, I also agree. If you feel that my religion disrespects the beliefs of others, I whole heartedly agree.


    It is my religion, and I believe it.


    So, why am I still in BSA? That's a fair question.


    I belong to a religion that believes that some decisions are best made as individual members, while other decisions are best made collectively, as a church. Since this matter involves the teachings of my church, and not merely my own personal opinions, and equally applies to all members of my religion, and not just me, I'm waiting to see what my church decides.


    I'm sure that won't happen until after the policy decision is finalized.

  7. Nobody, so far, no one has mentioned the Order of the Arrow. Is the OA going to be inclusive?


    As I've said in earlier posts, my unit doesn't do OA. Some OA supporters have, in the past, tried unsuccessfully to make me see the error of my ways. Thank God I didn't listen to them! What a mess this is going to be!


    Of course, church-owned units can cease running elections for OA, but what of existing members? Can a church-owned unit remove their boys from OA?


    We have discussed how this policy will effect the general membership, but what about OA?

  8. Do you believe that all religions deserve equal respect? I don't.


    The history and tradition of my religion is not one of according equal respect to all religions, historical or current.


    Did we accord equal respect to the worshipers of Baal, designers of the golden calf, the practitioners of witchcraft, or the residents of Sodom? No. Certainly not.


    In our Sunday School classes, we teach that the practitioners of these religious beliefs were evil. No equal respect. No mincing of words. No beating around the bush. They were evil.


    Why would Rick, or anyone else, be surprised that traditional religious conservatives do not accept the concept of religious equality. Religious freedom, yes. Religious equality, no.

  9. For a traditionally religious conservative, having a gay inclusive unit available is the same as having no unit available at all.


    The highly populated coastal "blue states" are overwhelmingly liberal. It is entirely possible that all of the units in a "blue state" neighborhood are gay inclusive.


    Supporting gay inclusion, of course you would prefer that Scouts join inclusive units rather than Lone Scouting. But that's not the question.


    NJ, if this gay inclusive policy passes, would you rather have boys join Lone Scouting or leave Scouting entirely?

  10. Lone Scouting still exists as an option for a small percentage of Scouts who cannot attend regular unit meetings and activities.


    Councils rarely approve Lone Scout applications. Most adult leaders strongly oppose Lone Scouting.


    Ironically, even adult leaders who claim to support giving Scouts more choices and freedoms will oppose Lone Scouting, which offers the greatest amount of choice, freedom, and flexibility than any other program in BSA.


    Lone Scouting has suffered from the same sort of opposition that home schooling has gotten from public school teachers. The arguments against it have been much the same.


    I suspect that most of the people on this website, pro and anti inclusion alike, would prefer that Scouts quit altogether rather than have the option to register as Lone Scouts.


    I don't mean to steal this thread to talk about my favorite topic, Lone Scouting, but it was implied that I offer no solution to the polarizing effect of the gay inclusion issue.


    You may not like Lone Scouting, but it does offer a reasoned, rational alternative to the other controversial and contentious solutions.

  11. NJ,


    I took the kids to a Civil War reenactment yesterday. They had infantry, cavalry, artillery, the whole works. We had a great time.


    With 600,000 lives lost, the Civil War may not have been the most elegant way to settle an impasse.


    To answer your question, I have already said that I would like BSA to allow Lone Scouting again. Let boys join BSA as Lone Scouts and let them choose for themselves who they wish to associate with.

  12. Some people may be surprised to hear that conservative, traditional religions don't teach that bad people come with hideous features; fanged teeth, cloven hooves, and horns sticking out of the tops of their heads.


    Neither do we teach that bad people take on the behavioral characteristics of cartoon villains with hissing, sneering, cackling, flamboyant gestures, and rudeness.



    We teach exactly the opposite. We teach that evil and disorder can come in forms that are pleasing to the eye and soothing to the senses. Not all that glitters is gold.


    If I have heard the gay inclusion story once, I must have heard it a thousand times. The story teller goes on to say how, upon discovering that gay people, aside from being gay, look and act much like the rest of us, a conclusion is reached that it must be OK to be gay. There must be a script.


    The normalness of someone's appearance and demeanor doesn't validate their disordered behavior.

  13. Initially, this decision will polarize Scouting into regular units, which follow BSA guidelines, and church-owned units, which are exempted from the guidelines.


    Those who are caught in the middle might not, contrary to what some have claimed, be able to join and fully participate in a church-owned unit.


    Recent court cases make it pretty clear that when church organizations open their doors to accommodate non-members, they put the ability to exercise their own religious freedoms at risk.


    Down the road, this will prove to be an untenable, no-win situation. Church-owned units will either have to entrench, which defeats both the purpose and spirit of Scouting, or disband their units.


    Packsaddle and NJ are 100% wrong. This will not add to our choices and freedoms. It is not a good thing.

  14. Our policy regarding restrooms and showers at our church/school is that you use the correct sex-segregated facility that corresponds to your anatomy.


    Even though we are very conservative, we don't completely ban gay people from our buildings. What restrooms and shower facilities ought they to use other than the ones we direct them to?


    Scouter99 says that gay youth and adults have no business using our restrooms and showers. The only way to do that would be a total ban from our church, and that is not going to happen.

  15. Scouter99, it may surprise you that at in my conservative, traditional, church and school, we occasionally have co-ed sleepovers.


    We don't feel that is immodest for kids to see each other in their pajamas. We also don't feel that the kids are in any danger of loosing either their self-control or moral compasses. To the best of my knowledge, no serious incidents have occurred at any of our sleepovers.


    The kids enjoy the sleepovers, and I intend to continue to authorize them.


    Yes, you are correct when you point out that BSA's youth protection policy is based on an entirely different assumption. We could not allow events similar to our sleepovers to take place under the umbrella of our Scouting program.


    Unlike BSA, we do not think it is always inappropriate for people of the opposite sex to share sleeping facilities.

  16. Miami Chief is partially right. We do not separate our kids from every person who might find them attractive. We don't do so at church. We don't do so at school. We don't do so at Scouting. Why would we? We also don't separate our Scouts from every person they might find attractive.


    Our kids want to be attractive. They like it. They like the feelings of being attractive and having attraction to other people. Attraction is a God-given normal part of life. It is a good thing. It can be a blessed thing.


    Attraction also has a dark side. It can be disordered.


    My religion teaches me that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, so I have to differ with Miami Chief when he tries to equate normal attraction with disordered attraction.


    I can agree, as I often have, that gay youths and adults are able to exercise the same amount of self control over their attractions as are the rest of us. I have no hesitancy in agreeing to that.


    I will never agree that gay youths and adults are not seriously and intrinsically disordered. I will never consider their attractions to be morally equivalent to the attractions that I, and most people, feel.

  17. My Scouts are not so isolated that they unaware of what takes place at gay pride parades, raunchy rock concerts, and the like. For Pete's sake, the pride parade goes right through the middle of town and right past our church/school. It is on the news. We've all seen it.


    I'm not happy about it. I don't condone it. But let's face it people, our Scouts already know about it. Good or bad, this is the world they live in.


    Yes, we do not discuss sexual issues at Scouting activities. Scouting is the wrong time and the wrong place for discussions about sex. But don't let this confuse you into thinking that we, as conservatives and believers in traditional religious based morals, never talk to our kids about sex.


    We talk at home. We talk in Religion class. We talk in Health class. We talk.


    Listening to the kids, I get the impression that they are not nearly as shocked and traumatized by the popular culture as we might think, or want them to be. They mostly take it in stride.


    This sometimes worries me. It worries me that the kids will become so conditioned to what they see and hear in the popular culture that they will come to view such things as normal, or even worse, morally acceptable. This is certainly what the organizers of gay pride parades have in mind.


    My kids assure me that this is not the case. They know the difference between right and wrong. And though they may be somewhat amused by the bizarre antics and spectacles they see, their values and morals are not changed by them.


    Thank God.

  18. Stosh, I don't think religious CO's are being even the slightest bit hypocritical. It is not so much a matter of freedom of association as it is a question of ownership. Freedom of association doesn't give individuals the right to pick and choose the membership of units they do not own.