Group Protests Boy Scouts Exclusionary Policies

[Trevorum 24]

You don't get it. The BSA is legally right but morally wrong on this matter.

 

The BSA WILL change. Not today and not next year. But it will. Because society changes. (We even let women vote these days.) On this issue, you are on the wrong side of ethics and the wrong side of history.

[DanKroh 11]

I don't believe that an organization can have ethics. An organization has policies, which they have because those policies are (suppoedly) supported by the ethics of their members.

 

But the BSA has not said that their policy banning homosexuals is because the majority of their Christian members believe that homosexuality is wrong. Instead, they have come up with a song and dance about how homosexuals cannot be "morally straight". And once they did that, they opened themselves up to people questioning the basis of the policy. But if they use the former rationale, then they open themselves up to accusations of not being non-sectarian.

 

Right now, the majority of the BSA membership believes that the policy supports their personal ethics. But I personally believe that support is currently in flux. Today, the balance goes in favor of the policy. But tomorrow, six months from now, six years from now, six decades from now, I believe the balance is going to shift the other way, and then the BSA will have to respond to the pressure of the majority of the membership to change the policy. But I don't think we need to force any units who don't want to accept homosexuals into their units to comply. Just make it a unit-level decision.

[Bobanon 10]

Brent Allen,

You posted:

"Do y'all think there is a large group inside the BSA who wants this policy to change?"

 

Let me start off by saying that I do not like the homophobic extremist, nor do I like the in your face gay extremist. Extremist from either side of the argument loose me early on.

 

We all know homosexual people. When I have cause to discuss the gay issue I think of those gays whom I know or have known. When talking about gays I think it better to put a human face on them instead of thinking of them as "those people".

 

I believe by and large people are more tired of the argument than of the specific issue itself. Look at voter turnout in presidential election as an example - people are disgusted by the political rhetoric by election day and don't vote). I think that the silent majority would be accepting of gay Scouts and Scouters while the anti gay faction will always be just that, anti gay, and that is certainly thier right to feel that way, just as I have a right to believe otherwise.

 

Homosexuals are not child molesters, and two deep leadership has been a good practice on keeping molestations to a minimum. There will always be problems with that I suppose, but the organization is doing a good job of combating that problem. We are certainly having better luck than the Roman Catholic Church in regards to child molestation. And I don't mean that as a slight against the RCC.

 

[BrentAllen 10]

Trev,

All I can say is, don't hold your breath. We both know which groups charter the largest percentage of units. There are even more units chartered by religious organizations today than there were a year ago, thanks to the ACLU forcing schools to give up their charters. Until a majority of chartering organizations want to change the policy, it isn't going to happen. If it ever does, I predict Scouting will not be recognizable as it is today.

 

I'm curious - if any of you disagreed with the ethics and positions of your church, would you try to force the church to change, or would you leave? Bobanon mentions he grew up Presbyterian but is now UU. Why did you leave, instead of trying to change the Presbyterians?

Same thing with a private school - if you didn't agree with their teachings, would you try to force them to change, or would you leave?

If you would leave those organizations instead of trying to force them to change, why treat the BSA differently?

[Bobanon 10]

Brent you ask why I left the Presbyterian Church instead of staying and changing it. I will tell you why. I attended the Presbyterian Church for over 40 years, and I loved it. I especially loved the congretation of my specific church for I had known many for most, if not all my life. It was familiar and family.

 

The reason I walked away, and trust me it was one of the hardest things I have ever done, was because when I reflected on my own true beliefs they were not instep in the least with the Presbyterian Church or Christianity for that matter. If I have to put a label on my beliefs then I am an agnosto-deist.

 

I wrestled with my own hypocracy every Sunday. I did resign as an Elder long before I walked away completely simply because I couldn't be truthful in my beliefs and those required to being an elder. I think that we humans need the communal experience of spirituality. This may be strictly genetic, not that it matters. Luckily I was able to find the Unitarian Universalist Church.

 

The UU is a diverse group of people. I think I am a better man for changing, and have learned much about different religions that I may not have otherwise been exposed to. I think each of us has our own theology and beliefs in our hearts. I don't believe reciting dogma by rote fills the niche, but for some it is the easiest way, and not that it is bad. For them it is what they need. I needed something more, and have found it.

 

Presbyterianism is one of the most liberal of Christian denominations and I admit I had guilt feelings for several years after leaving. And too I missed many of the people, and that has been the hardest part. Life goes on, and we continually grow. I was true to myself, and feel to be better for what course I chose.

[SaintCad 10]

>SaintCad,

What are you going to change - the 1st Amendment? As the Supreme Court has confirmed, the BSA is not doing anything "wrong." So unless you wish to change the 1st Amendment, you can either follow your convictions and leave, or decide the BSA program, even in its terrible state (according to you), is more valuable than your convictions on this issue. Why should the BSA change the policy just because you think it is wrong?

 

First of all, I never used a 1st Amendment argument, youre thinking of some other posters. The First Amendment does not apply to private organizations that do not accept Federal funds and sexual orientation is not a protected class anyways. Second, I never said scouting was in a terrible state so dont purposely misrepresent what I said. My point is that this love it or leave it attitude some posters have shows intolerance for any sort of discussion over BSA policy. Do you support ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING about the U.S.? No?! Then why dont you leave and renounce your citizenship? Kind of drastic dont you think? Third, the Supreme Court never said that BSA policy was not wrong, they said it was not illegal. As others have pointed out, legal and right are two completely different issues.

 

>SaintCad - from some of your earlier posts:

"I never demeaned, ridiculed, or berated the policy." Sounds like you are doing so now.

 

Really? All I've ever done is ask for the rationale for the policy that is consistent with other BSA policy. Ed points out that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. Fine, but the Bible does not determine BSA policy. Others have pointed out that being a homosexual is inconsistent with "family values" by the BSA's interpretation. However, the only "family value" expressed by BSA seems to be to not be a homosexual. All Ive asked for is a (non-Biblical) explanation of why homosexuals do not represent family values while divorced parents, unwed parents, or infertile adults do. Do you have an explanation that does this?

 

 

>"I don't have an agenda, I merely want to know the reasoning behind this BSA policy."

Sounds to me live you have an agenda now - changing the policy - no?

 

No. I was merely pointing out that if someone disagrees with a policy, there is an option other than quitting - that is one can work to change the system. I never said that my agenda was to change the policy. OK, technically I have. I've said that I'm all for having this policy implemented at the Pack/Troop level, which means if Ed's Troop or your troop wants to be all-hetero, go for it.

 

>What is the point of your scriptural reference 2 Samuel 1:26? Are you inferring the Bible is endorsing homosexuality?

 

Some liberal Christians using the connotations of some of the Hebrew phrasing in 2 Sam 1 do believe that David & Jonathan were romantically linked. Actually, as Ive asked in a few other threads Im curious about some things the Bible interprets as immoral such at women in public without hats (Corinthians) and women leaders (Romans) are accepted by BSA Scouters yet homosexuality is not by those same Scouters. Seems a bit inconsistent to me.

 

[evmori 11]

Some liberal Christians using the connotations of some of the Hebrew phrasing in 2 Sam 1 do believe that David & Jonathan were romantically linked. Actually, as Ive asked in a few other threads Im curious about some things the Bible interprets as immoral such at women in public without hats (Corinthians) and women leaders (Romans) are accepted by BSA Scouters yet homosexuality is not by those same Scouters. Seems a bit inconsistent to me.

 

Liberal being the key word.

 

SaintCad, I would suggest before you claim there are inconsistencies in the Bible you actually study it. If you do, you will find the inconsistencies go away & realize the inconsistencies are in the religious denominations.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bobanon 10]

Ed before you go admonishing people about the bible, it might be in your best interest to do a little studying yourself. the Bible is fraught with contradictions. These inconsistencies are proof that the Bible is of human and not divine origins. Only fundamentalist christians take a literalist view of the bible.

 

Lets look at some of the inconsistencies:

 

Two different creation stories - Genesis 1:1-2:3, and Gensis 2:4-25

The creation of Eve - Gensis 1:27, and Genesis 2:20-22

 

A side note on Noah and the Ark. Consider this Ed; There are over 250,000 varieties of beetles in the world. Don't you think that Noah would have run out of room rather quickly?

 

The contradiction of who wrote the 10 Commandments: Exodus 34:1, and Exodus 34:27

 

In the New Testament the 4 Gospels differ on the story of Mary visiting the tomb of Jesus and with whom.

 

These are just a small fraction of the contradicitons and inconsistencies of the Bible.

 

Even by the the second century CE. Celsus a pagan critic complained that Christians manipulated their sacred texts at will.

 

Contradicitons aside there are many of the stories in the bible which pre-date the bible in some instances by centuries. Much of the Old Testament came about from tales learned in Babylon during the Babylonian exhile. The story of Moses and the 10 commandments for instance was taken from the Zorastorian story of Nebakaneezer decending the ziggurart with the 15 laws which God had given him. Or the invention of hell comes directly from the Zorastorian story of the celestail conflict between the forces of good and evil.

 

There may be parts of the Bible that may be divinely inspired but they are the words of man.

 

 

[SaintCad 10]

I was not accusing the Bible to be inconsistant, but rather people who only follow certain moral rules of the Bible and not others on equal footing. Did you know Joan of Arc was only found guilty of one crime? Wearing men's clothing in battle (Deut 22:5). Yet I assume you have no problem letting female scout leaders wear the men's khaki shirt as per BSA regulations. Read the Epistles of St. Paul. According to him, women are second-class citizens. Do you advocate this position as well or do you merely pull out the parts in which he condemns homosexuality?

 

As for your comment about studying the Bible - I did for four years in a religious high school.

[Kudu 186]

Why Can't I Own a Canadian?

 

When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

 

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

 

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

 

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

 

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

 

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

 

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

 

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

 

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

 

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

 

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

 

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

 

http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html

 

 

[evmori 11]

Creation - two different accounts of the same story. What inconsistencies?

 

Creation of Eve - Genesis 1:27 has nothing to do with the creation of Eve.

 

There are over 250,000 types of beetles now. How many where there then?

 

Ummm, God wrote the 10 Commandments.

 

The Four Gospels were written by four different people. Each is from their own perspective. No contradiction.

 

Those who don't believe the Bible is God's word 100% true always point out these so-called contradictions but they never have any facts to back them up.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[SaintCad 10]

"Those who don't believe the Bible is God's word 100% true always point out these so-called contradictions but they never have any facts to back them up."

 

Look up the stories when the women find the empty tomb and count how many people are there in each Gospel.

But the point of this discussion was never "Does the Bible condemn homosexuality?" or "Should we allow menstruating women into a scout house?" or anything else we can look to the Bible for. The BSA does not use the Bible to set policy so (once again) is there any consistent non-Biblical rationale for the current BSA policy on homosexual that would demonstrate why homosexual can not represent family values while unwed parents, divorced parents, or infertile adults can.

 

Since the only rationales I've seen is:

The Bible says so.

If you don't like it - LEAVE.

and

Homosexuals cannot have children. (neither can sterile people)

 

I'll assume the answer is no.

[Bobanon 10]

SaintCad it is nothing more than pick and choose theology. The unbending approach that Ed and ones like him take toward Christianity forces them to pick and choose what parts of the bible they support. Areas like Leviticus and all the nonsensical laws therein, is one example of a part they would avoid like the plague.

 

Jesus said that he didn't bring a new law but came to support the old law. Which was the law of Moses, and those outlined in Leviticus. However, this point is ignored for convienience sake.

 

Ed, I did point out where the ten commandments came from. That is factual. If you choose not to believe history over what is written in the Bible then that is your business. Just because you believe that the Bible in infallible and the absolute truth doesn't make it so.

 

And Ed this is Genesis 1:27 God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Maybe you don't know the bible like you claim. You certainly don't know the history of your religion, but then you shouldn't feel bad. I have found very few fundamentalist who do.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

BrentAllen writes:

Do y'all think there is a large group inside the BSA who wants this policy to change?

 

Like in 2001 at the BSA national meeting in Boston, when council leaders from New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, West Los Angeles, Orange County, Calif., San Francisco, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, and Boston proposed that the Scouts allow chartering organizations to decide for themselves whether to have gay scout members and leaders?

 

Or is that not "large"?

 

By the way, you never answered my question if this country was also formed as a "white" nation. You seem to think this is a "Christian"-founded nation based on majoritarianism, so I assume race is similar with you.

[BrentAllen 10]

9 Councils proposed the change, and you think that is a large number? 9 Councils?? Out of more than 300? That is 3%! Sorry, no I do not think that is a large number!

 

Come on, Merlyn - you can do better than that. Why not ask me if it was a white, men's nation? Don't waste your time - I have better things to do than argue with someone who is only interested in tearing down the BSA.