Don't ask, I'll tell...

[SR540Beaver]

Rooster,

 

Are you getting dizzy from all that spinning? You need to have a visit from Bill O'Reilly. Go back and reread the posts and dictionary definitions. The word avow has a definition. The word confide has a definition. You can define it however YOU wish, but that does not make it so. To redefine the word to your purpose or way of thinking is to engage in Clinton's, "it depends on what you understand the meaning if "is" is". As I said before, I'm sure the BSA didn't make their "avowed" statement off the top of their head. I'm willing to bet the farm that a gaggle of lawyers approved the wording of the text and carefully chose the word "avowed" knowing full well what the definition is.

[packsaddle]

RobK,

"Just because some religion somewhere says a thing is OK, doesn't mean the rest of us should accept it in our organization or society."

This would also apply if the "religion somewhere" said a thing was immoral.

 

Your list is interesting, though. I wonder, is it really the same if a god sanctions the killing? Susan Smith wasn't performing a religious ritual, was she? Is there a religion that really approves of cold-blooded murder (excluding human sacrifice in its various forms)?

[Rooster7]

kwc57,

 

You may see some "spinning", but I think it's you who's sitting on the Merry-Go-Round. Random House simply defines avowed as acknowledged or declared. My dictionary does not add things to the definition such as "it cannot be done in secret", "it must be in public", or "it must be in front of a BSA representative". It seems to me, you and others are trying to make the word mean much more than what your average dictionary would tell you.

[Rooster7]

Uh huh. "Perverse politics." Rooster, don't you think it's possible that some of us simply do not believe that homosexuality, in and of itself, is immoral? Why would we support a policy of excluding people whose conduct is not immoral?

 

NJ,

 

That's an interesting question. I have to answer it with another question.

 

Why do you join an organization that stands for one thing, and then fight to make it stand for another?

 

This is why I used the phrase - "perverse politics". We're in a free society, which includes millions of private organizations. Each of these organizations has different values and goals, giving the American public a plethora of choices. Given these freedoms and such a multitude of choices, I think people who join private organizations should support their cause or find a different organization. Here's an analogy - Don't move to Alaska and then complain about the cold. It gets annoying after a while - not the cold, just the complaining.

[Twocubdad]

It is instructive to see what the policy does and does not say. Since the Dale decision, BSA has apparently changed the policy from banning "known and avowed homosexuals" to banning only "avowed homosexuals." That's a huge difference and is where I was heading with my earlier questions. The Scout Executive may have knowledge that TJ is gay, but unless TJ acknowledges it, under the current policy I don't think the SE can bannish TJ solely on the information he has. (Parenthetically, I think the fact that TJ has confided with a Scout Executive friend rises to the level of being an "avowed homosexual" if the friend decided to come forward.)

 

If it ever went to court, I think a judge would require some formal affirmation before saying someone meets the criteria of being "avowed." As TJ pointed out in one of his early posts, the only criteria BSA has given was in the text of the Supreme Court case, which essentially stated the position as "don't advocate against the BSA opinion in front of Scouts".

 

Some of you will argue that under Dale, BSA can void a membership for good cause, bad cause or no cause. True enough. But I trust that the powers-that-be within BSA would not be that capricious. It also appears that from a practical standpoint, that they don't want this whole issue to became a witch hunt and would back off for no other reason than that.

 

[SR540Beaver]

Twocub,

 

Since some want to interpret the words "avowed" and "confide" on their own opinion, I started digging a little on Google. It seems that the United Methodists have been wrestling with the meaning of the term "avowed" as well. They do not allow avowed homosexuals to be in the ministry, but they had to determine what avowed meant. Here is what I found in the UMC judicial rulings:

 

 

http://www.umc.org/judicial/700/764.html

 

On June 17, 1995, the California-Pacific Conference of The United Methodist Church received from a task force created by the Board of Ordained Ministry the following proposed definition of the phrase, "self-avowed practicing homosexual:"

 

A self-avowed practicing homosexual is one who makes it known by affirming publicly that she/he engages in genital sexual behavior with a person of the same gender.

 

"Self-avowed" means a self-initiated, voluntary statement in normal public discourse. "Self-avowed" does not mean a statement in private conversation or in confidence, or a statement under duress or in response to a direct question.

 

Conversations, correspondence, and statements with or to the Bishop, District Superintendents, Board of Ordained Ministry (and its committees and officers), and district Committees on Ordained Ministry (and their committees and officers) cannot be assumed to be private and confidential.

 

"... an adequate definition of "self-avowed" must address the question of to whom the avowal shall be made so that identification is not dependent on the testimony of others."

 

 

The one "danger" here is if a person tells an official. They then can not ASSUME that it WILL be kept confidential. It is a judgement call by the official whether he makes it public. It does not say the official is required to report it.

[Twocubdad]

That's interesting. Ultimately, BSA will have to deal with the same thing and develop a similar policy.

 

Rooster, I hope you don't mind if I take a crack at answering your question, "Why do you join an organization that stands for one thing, and then fight to make it stand for another? "

 

 

 

If I thought that what Scouting stands for is the discrimination or exclusion of people based solely on their sexual orientation, I would resign my membership today. BSA's policy against homosexual members is a relatively insignificant fraction of what Scouting is all about. I won't take the time for an essay on what I DO think Scouting stands for, but if you will grab a copy of your handbook and read the 10 Purposes of Scouting, that pretty well summmarizes it for me.

 

That I disagree with BSA's membership policy doesn't change my fervent belief in those purposes one bit. I can also tell you that I can raise my right hand in the Scout Sign and recite both the Law and Promise without reservation. My belief that homosexuality is not per se immoral in no way comprimises my ability to do my "Duty to God" or my own morality.

 

While I'm on a roll, let me also air something that has been stuck in my craw for quite a while -- this whole "love it or leave it" notion that those of us who disagree with the BSA membership policy should quit and start our own program. Where in the world does anyone get the idea that to be a member of an organization you must be in 100 percent, lock-step agreement with all its policies and precepts? For the record, I'll also tell you I don't like the uniform pants, how our local council handles training, or the new Simba Tiger Cub logo.

 

If I am correctly remembering what I have read, the first internal memos regarding homosexual members appeared in 1972 and the first policy statement in 1978. My membership in BSA pre-dates that time by 5 to 10 years. So I am hardly joining the organization and then trying to change it. I joined Scouts in 1967. Since then I have contributed thousands of hours and thousands of dollars to Scouting. If you're telling me that because of my disagreement with the above policies that my involvement is no longer needed, then fine. I'll be glad to transfer my membership to this new, alternate organization just as soon as BSA can tell me how they plan to transfer my time, money and goodwill I've invested along with me.

 

But maybe with tens of thousands of local units there can be some options for how the program is applied. (There is precidence for this with the LDS units.) Maybe in an organization with 5 million members, there is room for some varying opinions. Maybe a little dissent, a little debate and a little questioning of the status quo serves to make the organization stronger.

 

I yield the soapbox.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[Rooster7]

Twocubdad,

 

Okay, perhaps I overstated my case. I do agree that members of a private organization should be able to challenge the status quo. However, I also believe it should be done through proper channels and without undermining the headship of that organization. I have a difficult time with Scouters who are basically saying, I don't care what National says, I (or my troop) are going to allow gays to be members or leaders. When forum posters tell TJ, he's welcome to sit at their campfire - when he has just declared himself to be a gay man - they are circumventing the BSA policy. I refuse to believe that this is not plain for everyone to see and understand. I'm stand convinced that those who argue otherwise are merely doing so because it serves their purposes.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[mk9750]

Twocubdad,

 

I sense that one of the posts you take to task with your discussion of the "love it or leave it" issue was mine. If so, let me offer this.

 

I see merit in both sides of the arguement as to whether tj or other homosexuals could or should be asked to leave Scoutiing. I also see merit in both sides of the arguement as to whether Scouting should even limit membership to those who are not gay, regardless of how that is defined.

 

My point is that if Scouting does desire to avoid homosexual leaders, it should not matter whether they "can" kick someone out. I believe that someone who knows they violate the rules, and has no intention of stopping, should voluntarily leave. I see this as the honorable thing to do.

 

As to your disagreement of the rule, everyone should respect that. Not only should you have every right to disagree, you should have every oppurtunity to argue against it. But until and unless it is changed, I think we all have an obligation to follow it. You use the Scout pants as an analogy, and it is very appropriate. You don't like them. I think they are fine. You surely can (and should) work to change what you see as wrong, and, even though I disagree, I must respect your position. However, even though you don't like them, want them to be changed, and try to effect that change, until it is changed, you should be wearing the Scout pants when it is appropriate for you to be in uniform, and requiring that of your Scouts when it is appropriate.

 

Both of these are great examples of the point I was trying to make about disagreeing with the Catholic church's position on contraception. I don't like it, I don't agree with it. But I abide by it. If I knew I had no intention of abiding by it, even though no one might ever find out (if I didn't avow that I was a contraceptive user), I think the right thing for me to do would be to stop calling myself a Catholic. That doesn't mean that people of other faiths whose beliefs allow birth control are wrong. But they have their church, one that allows them to use contraception without guilt, and I follow the mandates of my church.

 

tj, you hit a funny bone with your comment about assuming every post should be the end of the conversation. I do it all the time. I think the above should be the final word. But I bet not.

 

Mark

[Twocubdad]

Mark, Rooster -- I don't necessarily disagree with any of that. And for that reason, if TJ confided with me, he would present me with a very tough moral delima. Violating some abstract policy handed down by a faceless board in Texas wouldn't bother me too much(frankly, we do that all the time ), but as a Committee Chairman, I have obligations to the others in my unit and my Chartered Organization. I've never had that conversation with them, but I doubt they share my views on subject. While I, too would welcome TJ at my campfire, as a unit leader I have to recognize that it ain't necessarily "my" campfire.

 

For that reason, I hope TJ is very judicious in who he confides this information. Even people who agree with him and are sympathetic to his circumstance can be put in a difficult situation. If one of my den leaders confided with me that they are "gay," I'd probably tell them that I also try to be a happy person since them eighth point of the Scout Law is "Cheerful." Beyond that, I wouldn't want to continue the conversation.

 

But seriously, you guys need to recognize that in the face of what some regard as an unjust policy, people are going to parse words and look for loopholes. That's just human nature. Otherwise, the history of jurisprudence would have ended with the Ten Commandments. There may also be some feeling of civil disobedience involved, too.

 

I don't think it realistic -- or even rational -- to issue a policy against homosexuals and then expect everyone to immediately fall on their swords.

[Rooster7]

First, let me say, I understand your point as presented in your last post. I just want you to know that I'm not trying to be contrary, just for the sake of being so. We do agree on some things here.

 

In particularly, when you said -

 

While I, too would welcome TJ at my campfire, as a unit leader I have to recognize that it ain't necessarily "my" campfire.

 

BING! That one scored big. In fact, it's not even exclusively your troop's or your chartering organization's campfire either. It's jointly owned by all of those people and the BSA.

 

I could sit around a campfire with TJ and talk about thingsjust not around a BSA campfire.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[RobK]

packsaddle,

 

This would also apply if the "religion somewhere" said a thing was immoral.

 

Yes, indeed and we can point to many instances of this in current practice. You can neither specify too narrow a set of moral beliefs nor too broad a set. The line must be drawn to include the largest set of non-conflicting beliefs. Homosexuality being morally acceptable conflicts too strongly with the beliefs of too many others, so it must be excluded.

 

As to there being a religion whose deity is totally ambivalent about murder, I don't know for sure, but I don't doubt there is. That's beside the point. I, and I feel reasonably sure you also, wouldn't accept a believer of Thuggee as a leader in the BSA, but according to your theory of "non-denominationalism" we must accept them. He would think himself morally staight just as much as any homosexual would think himself morally straight. If we can't say the homosexual is not morally staight, how can we say the Thug is not morally straight? By what standard do we judge?

 

What standard should we use to judge moral straightness?

 

 

[littlebillie]

You know, it wasn't the owners of the tea who dumped into the harbor - yet the Boston Tea Party is held up as an example of Civil Disobedience in the most approving light. No one asked Rosa Parks to ride the bus, and she knew the rules when she did...

 

This kind of struggle has a long and respected history. just not when it strikes close to home, I suppose...

 

tj - good luck. you've chosen a tuff path. I really gotta wonder, how many folks would change their minds about gays if enough of the people they respect, know, work with, admire - if enough of everyone around them came out to them? Would that change anyone's mind? "oh, hey" someone would say "tj's GAY? heck, he's a great guy - maybe I've been all turned around on the issue!"

 

Well, ok, maybe not so many - at least not at first. but folks need to recognize that the gay-straight divide ain't as wide as they think!

 

and tj - you're helping to do that.

 

God bless you.

 

 

[Rooster7]

Rosa Parks took responsibility for her actions. She didn't try to hide from anyone. She did practice civil disobedience, but she did so nobly - out in the light, not in the dark.

 

I'm not sure the Boston Tea Party wasn't an act of war. I think it went a little beyond civil disobedience. Some liberals today probably would call it an act of terrorism, but I won't go that far.

 

Ignoring BSA policy while pretending that you are not, is something other than civil disobedience. It's cowardly and dishonest. If you say the Scout Oath, add hypercritical to that list.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Quixote]

kwc,

 

Your post said it better than I could have:

 

"Conversations, correspondence, and statements with or to the Bishop, District Superintendents, Board of Ordained Ministry (and its committees and officers), and district Committees on Ordained Ministry (and their committees and officers) cannot be assumed to be private and confidential."

 

By your example above and tj's admission that he has informed at least one SCOUT EXEC., (who, i would argue are in similar positions of responsibility as those identified above), he is an avowed homosexual as far as the BSA is concerned and as such is not eligible to hold a leadership position according to BSA membership standards.