A fussing and a fighting.

[BadenP 93]

Bklyn

 

So you understand my viewpoint, I am a former Catholic and Catholic youth minister, then I went to grad school at Notre Dame and Harvard Theology School and received my masters and doctorate degrees in Theology and Ministry. I am now an ordained minister and an associate pastor for a fairly large Christian denomination. I am very familiar with the inner workings of the RC Church and the internal scandals on both the Archdiocesan and Vatican levels from personal experiences which I can not discuss in this forum. I have studied the history of Christianity in great detail and am well informed as to the injustices committed by the RC Church over the centuries, as well as their many doctrines which directly conflict with Scriptures and the teachings of Jesus Christ. Since the average lay Catholic in the pew has not been involved with these scandals as I have directly I can not expect you to understand my passion in wanting to see RC hierarchy held more directly accountable for the suffering they have caused others, especially in recent times. But in no way am I anti religion, quite the opposite in fact.

For the record Benedict has ended all dialogue with the Jewish religious leaders after they objected to the wording in the new Roman Missal stating that "the Jewish people were responsible for putting Jesus to death", which now will be part of the Eucharistic prayer at each mass. Does that sound like reconciliation to you?

 

It is my hope for you that you have a happy and blessed New Year as well.

[Scoutfish 16]

Eamonn: I see where you are going with this,and I agree!

Scouting is not a sex based environment. Heterosexuals do not get together for orgies or one night stands. Sex is not a merrit badge activity, nor is it regularly on any agendas or "to do" lists. It isn't sanctioned at meetings or camporees or jamborees.

Why people think having a gay person would suddenly change this is beyond me.

As a group, we do not allow any type of sexual conduct( straight or gay) to happen. THis is about scouting, not scouting out partners. Gay or straight doesn't matter here.

If people just stuck to that logic, then nothing else would matter,.

Again, I agree woith yoou line of thought...everything else is just a distraction or knee jerk reaction!

I will not allow my 9 year old son to be in bed with a girl right now. Scouting will not allow co-ed sleeping with a girl scout or girlfriend ( assuming he could bring one along).

Youth protection pretty much seperates the grown up from the kids, and only parents or legal guardians can share sleeping arrangments with their own kids.

So as it is, no sex of any type is allowed, recognized or permitted! PERIOD!

 

Now, as a friend of a gay person, let me put another perspective in front of them: JUst because a man is gay (or woman) - it does not mean they are suddenly going to hit on you for sex. Matter of fact, they are twice as likely to not hit on you as compared to your average heterosexual woman.

Now, I don't know about anybody else, but aside from the rare friend flirting...I have not had a female stranger just suddenly come up to me trying to have sex.

Basically put, my gay friend once told a man- afer being told that he better not try anything - "Don't flatter yourself honey...you are not evem all that!"

Seems like the only issue was the heterosexual man's ego! LOL!(This message has been edited by scoutfish)

[evmori 11]

While both the VFW and American Legion are very religiously conservative, neither one appears to exclude atheists. The VFW removed their "believe in god" requirement about 5 years ago.

 

What does that have to do with the topic of this thread? Absolutely nothing!

[FScouter 24]

Ed, don't start !

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed, if you had bothered to read the thread, I was responding to these statements, which suggested the VFW and/or Am. Legion doesn't admit gays or atheists now, and might not charter BSA units if they started. I was pointing out they already admit gays and atheists.

What happens when (Or maybe I should say if?) the military stand on gays is changed and the VFW has openly gay members? Will they want to charter a Scouting unit that wouldn't allow them to serve?

 

The VFW and the American Legion have been willing to pick up dropped charters, indeed their National bodies tell the local posts to be Chartered Partners when other folks drop Scouting. That said, they are also strong on the values of America, and that includes faith. BSA opens the door, this support may also evaporate.

[packsaddle 753]

BadenP, your statement on Benedict ending the dialogue..is that in reference to the beatification of Pius XII? I'm trying to catch up on this so some clarification would be just great. Also, that quote about "the Jewish people were responsible for putting Jesus to death": where can I read the whole thing? Is that version of the eucharist available online? Is the source document available to read? Thanks.

 

 

[BklynEagle 10]

BadenP

 

Not being an average layman in the pew, I have a better understanding of Diocesean politics than you might imagine. In addition, I'm very sorry that you have had negative personal experiences with the more recent scandals which have rocked the Church; I have had some second- and third-hand experiences with that tragedy myself. You might be surprised in that I too would prefer to see more accountability within the Church, but I do think that it must be a two-way street: let us hang the offenders and their abettors by their toe-nails, but let us not sit quietly when we realize that someone has been smeared falsely. (Partial disclosure - I've known guilty and I've known innocent) I don't suggest that the Church or its history is perfect (just ask Galileo), but it is hardly one bad thing after another, and it has produced good things too (Catholic Charities, varied hospitals and colleges, Boys' Town, etc.). I am pleased to know that you continue to be a person of faith, and sincerely hope that you continue to grow in and be nourished by that faith.

As far as Benedict and the Jews go, I believe that the quote which you reference, "the Jewish people were responsible for putting Jesus to death", was related to something that was going into a Misal for the Tridentine Rite, not the Revised Roman Misal that is used by most parishes today. I may be in error on that, but I do try and keep tabs on such things. In any event, I believe that your source may be in error, as it is my understanding that the reference is actually made with regards to the Jewish people of that time in Jerusalem (let's face it, it wasn't a mob of angry Buddhists that were screaming at Pilate), rather than the faith group as a whole, as a declaration such as you suggest would run counter to a variety of promulgations made both by this Pope and his predecessor, which have, among other things, in no uncertain terms classified anti-Semitism as a sin. Again, I could be off on this new Misal, but given where I am and what I do, I try to keep tabs on such things.

 

As a side note, I hope you'll join me in wishing ND the best of luck in the next football season.

 

Again, a Happy New Year.

 

BklynEagle

[BadenP 93]

Merlyn & Bklyn

 

The best source/site with the offending wording can be found under the heading New Roman Missal, Wikpedia website, "Good Friday Prayer for the Jews". Not only does it say that the Jews killed Christ but that they are "an unfaithful arrogant people" but you can read the full text for yourself, there are many other sites listed as well. This prayer has been reincorporated into the New Roman Missal, in print for all Catholics, and others to read, if they get the new missal. This missal will become necessary as Benedict as declared that the old Tridentine (Latin) Mass is now the "primary Mass" and as Latin will become the primary language of the mass once again replacing the venacular of the country where the mass is said. Benedict is not a man of change or reconciliation rather he is a relic bringing back the offensive and divisive prejudices of the Pre Vatican II Church, which makes him a dangerous individual.

[JerseyScout 10]

I'm not so sure that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (aka, the Mormons) would be horribly opposed to allowing homosexual (but not sexually active, which none of the boys should be anyway) young men into their Boy Scout programs if there was some broad discussion ahead of time at the National level and if a change was made for the right reasons (opportunities for all boys to be involved in this quality program) and not the wrong ones (caving to pressure to be "politically correct").

 

 

Salt Lake OKs gay rights laws with Mormon backing

From the Associated Press.

 

http://tinyurl.com/yje74ys (that's a shortened URL, the article is an AP article posted at the San Francisco Chronicle)

 

It worked for that particular peice of common sense legislation, why not for Scouts?

 

(This message has been edited by JerseyScout)

[skeptic 992]

Still see little recognition of realities in the world. It is one thing to say someone has a right to do something. It is quite another thing to accept that few will "actually" associate when it happens. The so called more open minded youth referred to still do not generally "hang" with Gays; nor do most of the outspoken PC adults. They can allow them to exist, but choose to not include them in their personal spaces in most instances. And, that is what would happen, most likely in a scout unit. Acceptance would be marginal, unless the entire unit was made up of similar individuals. This is seen with African Americans, Latinos, and most other culturally defined groups in large urban areas, and even small towns at times. That is why we have recognized areas within the large cities that reflect these preferences.

 

Thus, the local option would likely simply see few, if any successful units absorb openly Gay individuals. And if forced to accept them, the units would most likely fold, defeating the intent in the first place.

 

These "realities" are ignored. This is clearly apparent if you are looking at what is actually occurring in communities. Acceptance simply allows a group to exist with less, hopefully, animosity. It does not change the fact that they will still pretty much be a group within their own world, and only peripherally involved with the larger populace. Maybe that will change eventually, but right now, it is the way it is.

 

In regard to the atheist, it simply is not part of scouting. And, if that is your belief, then accept that you are not able to be a member. It is a core value dating back to BP himself. Agnostics, on the other hand, could be assimilated without much effort, if they are willing to simply admit that something spiritually greater exists, but they have yet to make a decision as to what works for them.

 

Simply MHO.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

BadenP, can you provide a link to exactly what you are talking about? I looked on Wikipedia and found no article named "New Roman missal" (despite using various capitalizations) but did find one named "Good Friday Prayer for the Jews." (Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Prayer_for_the_Jews)

 

What it says is that Pope Benedict revised the "Good Friday Prayer" to read as follows: "Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men. (Let us pray. Kneel. Rise.) Almighty and eternal God, who want that all men be saved and come to the recognition of the truth, propitiously grant that even as the fullness of the peoples enters Thy Church, all Israel be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen."

 

Is there a different version that you are talking about? I don't see anything there about Jews killing Jesus Christ or anything about an "unfaithful and arrogant people." (Older versions do refer to Jews as being "faithless" and "in darkness" and various other negative comments, but not this version.) Now, I suppose if I chose to, I could comment on my feelings about a prayer that calls for my conversion (being that I am Jewish, and as it happens, married to a Catholic), but I don't choose to.

[Eamonn 61]

Not sure how?

But I seem to have not made myself very clear.

 

I don't, not now or anytime in the near future see the LDS or the R/C Church changing their stance on gays.

 

I do see other organizations that charter Scouting units taking a closer look at this issue and I believe that many will not agree with the BSA.

 

As far as I'm concerned this gay thing is much a do about nothing.

As I posted I couldn't care less what other people do in their own bedrooms.

History has shown that there have been some gay men who were very good leaders and some were outstanding soldiers, who I really don't see anyone having a problem following.

While there are effeminate acting gay men. I kinda think that they might not want to participate in the outdoor programs (Yes I know I might come off sounding like a bigot!) I also kinda think that a good many of the youth we lead might not want to be led by a person like that.

Sure for a while there might be some kind of a shock?? But in time that would just fade away.

The HS my son attended has two openly gay teachers.

While every now and then I do hear the odd whispered comment that so and so is gay. However for the most part both the students and their parents accept that the teacher is just that a teacher.

 

Today's teenagers will be the people who replace us old codgers. They see things in a different light than many of us.They just don't see being gay or homosexual as being a big deal.

Ea.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

skeptic, for all your talk about little recognition of realities in the world, many european countries have had gays and/or atheists as members for quite a while.

[Oak Tree 15]

HiLo - there are some self-chartered units in the US. Well, typically the charter goes to "Friends of Troop XXX", or something. Finding a meeting place might be an issue. In our case, I think it's possible that our church could ask not to be our chartered organization, but would let us continue to meet at the church. That would almost certainly be the case if the policy was that the troop was not allowed to discriminate on that basis.

 

Eamonn - I don't think the fussin' and-a fightin' is going to end anytime soon. I agree with you that it wouldn't be a big deal, practically speaking, for those of us who are on the ground running the units. In fact, if the Supreme Court had agreed that the BSA was indeed a "place of public accomodation" and required them to accept homosexual leaders, I think it would be a moot point by now. People would have realized it wasn't a big deal. But because of the Court's ruling, any change in policy now has to come from the BSA, not from an external force. And because it has to come internally, you start to see some of the same debate that you see in the various churches. Pretty powerful argument.

 

I agree with others that I'm not sure what the LDS or RC churches would be arguing about, in the case of a local option. That just means that homosexuality would be considered the same way as everything else that the churches believe is inappropriate. Is homosexuality really somehow worse (in their eyes) than all the other possible things that could have rules?

 

Maybe the BSA could start by giving a couple of councils the option. Maybe give the option to San Francisco and Iowa (gay marriage is now legal in Iowa but not San Francisco - how odd). Let them give the local option to their units. See what happens. I think that once it happens, the argument will die away. Is there any state that has voted in gay marriage and then voted it out again? People don't like to be forced to accept something, so they've overturned decisions of the courts or legislatures, but once the people vote it in, I think it's a done deal. People will realize it doesn't affect them much at all, and will decide to live and let live. But that still seems like it's a ways off for the BSA. Nevertheless, you'd hope that these discussions are going on between the BSA and some of the sponsors.

[vol_scouter 365]

Oak Tree,

 

I do not believe that the voters of any state have approved homosexual marriage. I tried searching on the net but did not find any case that the voters approved it. Did I miss one?