American Heritage Girls

[Rooster7 11]

We all must understand that we all have opinions like belly buttons...

 

That's funny. I always thought I was stuck with my belly button. I didn't know I could pick and chose.

 

I agree we should treat each other with respect. However, that does not mean I should respect what you believe. There is only one truth. Perhaps, I don't know what it is...perhaps, you do. Regardless, more often than not, peoples' religious beliefs are mutually exclusive. In other words, different faiths are quite often contradictory to one another. To say, "both are right" is illogical. One can know the truth...but one can never pick the truth.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Unfortunately, respect for the beliefs of others is not "in style" right now in this country (and in many other countries as well.) This isn't the 60s and 70s. So many people are convinced that their way is the only right way, that maybe the national motto should be changed to "My way or the highway." This is especially true for people who think they have "found the answer" on religion, like a few of our regular posters here. And that attitude has become reflected within the BSA, through the imposition of one type of relgious belief as the national standard for adult leaders.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

[Rooster7 11]

So many people are convinced that their way is the only right way, that maybe the national motto should be changed to "My way or the highway."

 

Or, as an evangelical Christian might bluntly proselytize, "Love, follow, and believe in Christ or suffer eternal damnation".

 

This is especially true for people who think they have "found the answer" on religion, like a few of our regular posters here.

 

I use to despise folks that had an unwavering faith in God. These people would speak about God as if they alone understood Him and the purpose of life. I resented their faith and the implications it had for mine. I couldn't speak that confidently. "What gave them the right to do so? Who the hell did they think they were?" The truth is, I despised them because I envied their confidence. If my faith had been as strong, their statements would not have disturbed me. In fact, if my faith had been as strong, I would have pitied them for not knowing the truth.

 

Since that time, I have searched and prayed for God to reveal himself to me. I now know who God is. While some folks may not like my statement of faith, it should not be construde as an attack on theirs. It is merely a reflection of my confidence in who God is and what He is calling us to do. The Christian faith calls us to be believers, not doubters. God has given me this gift and a commandment to share it. It's that simple.

 

And that attitude has become reflected within the BSA, through the imposition of one type of religious belief as the national standard for adult leaders.

 

I disagree. I have seen many people argue that BSA, as a values based organization, needs to enforce a set of moral standards. These standards are not from one religion (or "one type of religious belief"). They are, for the most part, reflected in the major religions of the world (Christianity, Judaism, Muslim, Hindu, etc.). If BSA included every religion, there would be no standards (too many contradictions between the religions). Likewise, if religion were removed from the equation, there would be no standards (no basis for the standards except personal opinion). BSA has adopted a set of standards, which includes the world's major faiths. This policy provides a solid basis for the program, and makes it attractive to the majority (boys and their families) in this country. Catering the policy to make a few feel welcomed, would be at the expense of repulsing many more. For the sake of unity and inclusiveness, the majority can be (and perhaps should be) asked to give up many things. However, the one thing the majority should never give up for the sake of unity and inclusiveness is its sense of morality. Else, you should burn a hole in your conscience and live as if you do not have one.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Weekender 10]

"just treat me like you would like to be treated"

 

Hmmmm.......................

 

OH YEAH!!!

 

 

Now I remember where I've seen that statement before.

[Rooster7 11]

Matthew 7:12 --- But I think you knew that

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Rooster, in discussing the "moral standards" that are "enforced by the BSA", says:

 

These standards are not from one religion (or "one type of religious belief"). They are, for the most part, reflected in the major religions of the world (Christianity, Judaism, Muslim, Hindu, etc.)

 

That's not true, at least as to Christianity and Judaism. Both these religions are divided on the morality of homosexuality and the morality of excluding gays from full membership in their faith. There are openly gay Episcopalian priests and openly gay Reform Jewish rabbis, and these denominations (or "movement" in the case of Reform Judaism) do not regard homosexuality as a sin. Some denominations are divided even within themselves, such as the United Methodist Church.

 

So there is a division within the "major religions" on this issue. Apparently, Rooster and others choose not to recognize the division, because of their view that scripture can only be interpreted one way and that scripture is to be applied literally. But the division nevertheless exists, and the people currently in charge of the BSA are imposing one side of the religious argument on everybody. It is, as I said before, saying that "one type of religious belief" is better than another and that the beliefs of that group of religions (denominations, movements, etc.) will be enforced to the exclusion of the other. That violates the BSA's own declaration that it is "absolutely nonsectarian" towards religious belief. And that is wrong.

 

I also have said that the BSA "policy" (though not contained in any of the "policy" documents) is a temporary one, and some people have objected to this. Maybe I will reconsider calling it temporary if and when the gay-exclusion appears as a policy in an official BSA publication. But for now, it is temporary. One of the reasons that I do not feel compelled to leave Scouting is that I believe the BSA will eventually return to its core values as stated in the Declaration of Religious Principles, and turn away from the religious politics in which it is now mired.

 

Rooster also says:

 

If BSA included every religion, there would be no standards (too many contradictions between the religions). Likewise, if religion were removed from the equation, there would be no standards (no basis for the standards except personal opinion).

 

This leads back to the discussion of whether the BSA's "values" are (and/or should be) based on religion, societal morality or a combination of both, which I do not choose to get into right now. It is sufficient to say that because the religions on which BSA values are allegedly based are in fact divided on this one issue, religion alone cannot be the basis for the standard. There is no single religious standard. Or in Rooster's terms, there already are "too many contradictions between religions" for this particular "policy" to be based in religion, or even on the Christian and Jewish religions alone.

 

So the standard has to come from somewhere else. And where would that be? Society, which takes its moral values from a variety of religious and blends them into a societal standard of morality. Unfortunately, one this one issue, the blending has not gone so well, perhaps because religions are so divided. Society itself is divided on the issue. The result is that there is no enforceable moral standard by a nationwide organization and that a compromise is in order, allowing local standards to prevail.

 

Of course, we have gone round-and-round about this several times, and I am considering one of those statements that sometimes crop up on the tail-end of a provocative post, i.e. "I shall no longer post about..." or "I am now going to take a break from..." I have noticed that such breaks or disappearances seldom last long. For now, I'm still here.

[VH_50 10]

"Just treat me like you would like to be treated."

 

A worthy sentiment, though as a wise man once said to me: "Perhaps, in the interests of clarity, we should amend it to: 'Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.' People do seem to miss the point sometimes."

[evmori 11]

In the closet or openly gay, a minister of a faith that believes in God as their authority is living a lie. God destroyed Sodom because the men of the town were having sex with each other & refused to repent. As a Christian, I have been taught (and I teach my kids & Scouts in my Troop) to love the sinner but hate the sin. If homosexuality is OK in God's eyes, why didn't he create a guy for Adam instead of a woman?

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

[Weekender 10]

A worthy sentiment, though as a wise man once said to me: "Perhaps, in the interests of clarity, we should amend it to: 'Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.' People do seem to miss the point sometimes."

 

VH_50,

 

No Offense, but I think God had it right. Love you neighbor as yourself.

 

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

[VH_50 10]

Weekender--

 

No offense taken, and no quarrel with "love your neighbor as yourself" or the clear intent of "do unto others . . ." which I've always read as "treat others with the same respect that you would want others to extend to you."

 

My only quarrel is with people who seem to want to apply "Do unto others" in the narrow, literal sense of blindly assuming that others share *all* their preferences, not just the big ones like a desire for respect and fair dealing.

 

I'm not persuaded that God intended for people to say (small-scale example that I actually ran into at a fixed-menu banquet in Iowa): "We love pork chops, and are always happy to have them for supper. Therefore we'll serve pork chops to all our guests (regardless of whether they might be Muslims, Orthodox Jews, or vegetarians who would--if asked--not wish to be served pork)."