The Gay, Communist, Gun Club!

[Scoutfish 16]

HORIZON,

 

That was a great answer. To be honest, I feel theexact same way. Lots of rules and decisions in all kinds of groups do not completely mesh with my ideals and beliefs either.

 

I do not agree with the gay and athiest ruling myself, but do realizeI am only looking st the surface too.

 

I don't follow the whole "Immoral" attitude about it either. Immoral is an attitude that changes over time and between cultures.

 

Take for example, the MP of Uganda. Apparently it's acceptable to kill somebody of a different lifestyla than you.

 

Butthen again, look at us who hate immigrants: We came form overseas, pretty much ran the Native Americans off their own land and then had the nerve to call them savages and kill them when they fought back against our intrusion and invasion. Yet the "Morals" of the time said we were right and the Native Americans were immoral and in leagues with Satan.

 

 

But my bigget point is: Althought I may not agree with every rule BSA has, I still look at and like the overall product. My son will do well to learn what Scouting teaches, and honestly, I doubt scouting will change his religios or moralistic beliefes just because he goes camping.

 

Now in my post though, I meant those who join up and fight BSA at every corner and at every oppertunity.

If I was to go so far as fight a particular church, social club or whatever at every chance, I woul;d noyt join that club. I mean, what would be the tradeoff? What would I get in return?

 

 

[acco40 95]

Scouting has ideals. If the BSA did not allow anyone membership that did not meet these ideas it would be a very, very small organization. Look up the definintion of ideals.

 

The Scout Oath has us promise to be morally straight. For some that means not to be gay. For some, not to eat pork. For some, not to work on the sabbath. Heck, religions can't even agree what day of the week the sabbath is for God's sake! By excluding gays (i.e. avowed homosexuals) someone is passing judgment on what is moral. As a private institution that is their right. I also think it is an unwise decision.

 

Ed - let's say like me, you've lived in two different states. One state had a law against capital punishment and another one did. The Scout Law asks us to be obedient, brave, trustworthy and loyal. If I didn't cause a "stink" about the state law with which I disagree (choose to your liking) am I being dishonest? Cowardly?

 

In my interpretation of the Scout Law, Oath and application, nothing prevents one from being a member if one eats pork or is gay. I have not stated to my council or district leadership that yes, I have eaten pork. Am I being dishonest? If anIslamist/Jewish entity took over the BSA and had a secret position paper/memo stating that no members should be allowed that eat pork, I was unaware of that - would you consider that dishonest behavior?

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Well said, Acco.

[Eagledad 2777]

Intesting.

 

Scoutfish suggest that immorality changes with time and cultures and that makes homosexuality OK, for now I guess. I half agree with Scoutfish, immorality does change over time, but morality does not. Morality is a gift from God and his word hasnt changed through time or cultures. If one reads the bible, they learn that God says sin is a self-serving act that generally leads to corruption in one way or another. Homosexuality is one of those sins.

 

Trying to convience folks that they are smarter than God rarely changes a mind. Maybe trying to understand why God says homosexuality is immoral would make a better discussion.

 

Barry

 

[Lisabob 13]

Barry, I wonder what you say to people who are not Christian and who, therefore, do not follow the same religious text as you do?

 

I am not asking about your view of the eternal state of their soul, but rather, what you tell them in a scouting context, since (as we all know), the BSA is not a Christian organization?

 

When someone uses a specific religion's sacred texts to make an argument about policy for the wider group, does that not present a problem?

 

 

[DeanRx 69]

Rally Barry?

 

Then what does God and the Bible (I assume you are refering to one of the many Christian religions) say about the morality of the Jews, Hindus, Buddist, or Muslims? In my bible it says these folks are as immoral as the gays and thus will not find salvation in heaven. I don't begrudge you the right to believe in your Christian faith and definitions (I in fact share many of your same views). I just think it narrows the definition when "morally straight" is de facto connected to morality as defined in a judeo-christian model. Our soicety is far more diverse than that (especially within the USA). While my personal religion is very clear on morality, I don't feel well about imposing my personal beliefs on others even when I disagree with their choice of lifestyle (I really don't like it when other try to do it to me either - kind of a live and let live thing). Scouting on the other hand, most often attempts to teach tolerance, inclusion and acceptance. Unfortunately, with TWO glaring exceptions. These exceptions are carved out based on the underlying senior leadership and senior religious supporting institutions that currently guide scouting policy (namely LDS, Catholic and other christian churches).

 

However, BSA has a position that states Jews, Hindus, Buddist and Muslims ARE "morally straight" enough to be part of this "private organization". Just the all around non-believers and the gays are not "morally straight" enough to be included. The hypocrisy is in BSA's own position statement! I'd be more inclined to agree with and support a policy that BSA is in fact a christian based organization, thus gays, atheists and the jews, muslims, hindus, buddist, native american spiritualist, etc... are not welcome. It just doesn't make sense that the same biblical definition of morality that is used to exclude gays & athiests is not applied to other religions as well.

 

Aside from that - I don't understand (even though the Supreme Court has ruled this way) how BSA is a "private organization" when it routinely couples with public institutions for both monetary and land use support - PLUS the national charter for BSA is given by the U.S. Congress!! How the hell is the U.S. government the CO to a "private organization"? If BSA wants to be considered a "private organization" then they need to fully seperate itself from the national charter and the U.S. federal government and cease to be afforded any preferential treatment in pricing when using public lands. Then BSA can include / exclude whomever they want. They can change the criteria on a yearly basis if they so choose.

 

However, while they continue to opperate on public land, with public dollars supporting them, and a national charter from the federal government, they need to include ALL U.S. citizens in their membership - period! Thats the best thing about our country. It was founded on the idea that a group of people didn't want their government telling them who and what they should worship. In a country such as ours, if you want freedom of religion, you must also be willing to tolerate freedom from religion. If you want your beliefs tolerated, you must be willing to tolerate those with which you do not agree.

 

My hope is that by the time I am in a rocking chair and my son is busy with his boys in scouting, I can look back and LAUGH at this silly roadbump of prejudice that BSA was able to overcome in my lifetime. Just as my father chuckles as he recounts the first black kids in his Troop and what a stir it caused at the time. I hope this comes true. If not, I fear scouting in the U.S. will not live to see its Bicentenial Birthday. It will die out like segregation and the scar of its biogotry will be placed rightfully on its tombstone.

 

Horizon - Bravo... well said. Just because one might not like one aspect of an organization, one doesn't have to quit it. I prefer attempting internal persuasion to help affect a change. While I too don't think the current policy is forefront in what we do as scouts, I do believe it is like a cancer. The longer it goes ignored, the harder it will be to defeat. I just hope that one day the open dialogue can actually take place in Irving without the opposing view getting summarily bounced from scouting, just beacuse they have a counter viewpoint.

 

That's the real shame. You have an issue with a camping policy, an advancement policy, etc... you can at least get listened to. They might ignore you, but they won't revoke your membership. But, you try and speak up on the issue of religion or homosexuality - then you open yourself to exclusion. BSA national should at least be willing to sit at the table and have an honest discussion with the opposing viewpoint.(This message has been edited by DeanRx)

[Eagledad 2777]

>>Barry, I wonder what you say to people who are not Christian and who, therefore, do not follow the same religious text as you do?

[Eagledad 2777]

>>I just think it narrows the definition when "morally straight" is de facto connected to morality as defined in a judeo-christian model.

[Lisabob 13]

So Barry, if I understand your arguments, they are essentially that

 

1) There is a written rule (in the bible) and people ought to follow this written rule, and

2) You believe that the behavior has tangible, negative, impacts on families and children.

 

On the second argument, I can only say that you are entitled to your beliefs, but that one person's beliefs are a very poor basis for creating national policy for a larger group where not everyone shares that belief. There needs to be something more substantive than just what you believe to back up this policy.

 

On the first argument, I have to say that your comparison between biblical writings and traffic laws is a poor one. We follow the law - hopefully - because that's part of good citizenship, something that all responsible members of a society are ethically and legally bound to do. It doesn't matter what our religious backgrounds are, the law is the law and applies equally to all.

 

You follow the bible because you believe it to be true, and/or because you feel you have a moral and religious obligation to do so. I do not begrudge you your beliefs, or the fact that you, personally, use these beliefs to guide you in your everyday life. But if I am not of the same religious persuasion as you are, then I am not morally, ethically, or religiously obligated to follow your bible. On the basis of your argument, if I were Muslim, I might say to you that *you* have to follow the Koran because it spells out religious rules which *I* believe to be true. As a non-Muslim, my guess is that you would decline to accept such an approach, no?

 

Since the BSA is not a Christian organization, using the bible as the source or explanation for BSA policy simply doesn't work so well. People who are not Christian, yet who are BSA members, may not recognize rules that are derived from specific Christian religious texts to be applicable to them. To say otherwise is to suggest that the BSA welcomes non-Christians, but only if they accept Christian teachings. I don't think that is the BSA's position.

 

 

[Lisabob 13]

Barry, I see that our posts crossed on the last one there. I have no doubt that you've been a fair-minded person who strives to keep your specific political and religious views out of your dealings with others where it might be inappropriate to do otherwise. I appreciate that about you, and I would say I've known many good scouters about whom I think the same could be said. I see this as a strength of scouting, that boys can see lots of different role models using lots of different personal/internal measuring sticks to figure out what it means to be a decent human being, without ever trying to force our various beliefs on the boys.

 

I also don't spend my scouting time talking about religion and politics with youth, or attempting to proselytize in any way. Most scouters don't.

 

So here we are on this thread though, talking about the basis for our beliefs and our views on the BSA's membership policies. Not a topic that comes up in day-to-day scouting very often (thankfully), but one that I hope we can still talk about here in a more abstract kind of a way.

[Eagledad 2777]

>>So Barry, if I understand your arguments, they are essentially that

 

1) There is a written rule (in the bible) and people ought to follow this written rule, and

 

[CalicoPenn 729]

I belong to the NRA - I disagree with some of their stands but I agree with many of their stands. I belong to the ACLU - I disagree with some of the stands but agree with many of their stands. I believe if you're a member of the NRA you should be a member of the ACLU - and vice-versa as both of these organizations ultimately have a similar goal - the defense of the Constitution - the ACLU tends to concentrate on 1st Amendment issues, the NRA on 2nd Amendment issues - and I can live with that.

 

I belong to many environmental organizations. I disagree with some of their stands, I agree with most of their stands. I belong to a book readers group - I disagree with some of their book choices and agree with most of their book choices. I disagree with some of the BSA's policies, I agree with most of the BSA's policies.

 

One argument I just can't stand is "If you don't like the policies, quit and join another group". You may as well be saying "If you don't like the USA, move to another country". That last I heard an awful lot of from the neocons who worshipped George W. Bush. I've not heard many supporters of Barack Obama repeat the same to the neocons this time around. That is an absolutist view of someone who hasn't progressed intellectually beyond 8th grade playground politics. We do not live in a black and white absolutist world - we live in a world of many colors - and many shades of gray. The groups we belong to or have an affinity with have many shades of gray. Hopefully none of us will ever truly believe in everything an organization believes, says and/or does.

 

Organizations that require such absolute fidelity with no questioning allowed have a word that describes them - that word is Cult. The followers of Jim Jones swore absolute fealty to him and his organization. The followers of Marshall Applewhite swore absolute fealty to him and his organization. The followers of David Koresh swore absolute fealty to him and his organization. Look what happened to them. Hopefully the BSA will never become a cult with only people who believe the same things in absolute lockstep.

 

I can understand James Dale taking a stand - part of the coming out process includes an "in your face, kick butt, take names, and no prisoners" attitude - it's quite likely Mr. Dale was smack dab in that part of the coming out process when he got that letter revoking his membership. It's not much different from a newly minted non-smoker who is militant about people smoking by them for a whle, or newly minted vegetarians who become militant about people eathing meat, or newly minted parents who become militant about what people say or do in front of their children. All of us have likely gone through something like this in some part of our lives.

 

I still oppose the BSA's stance on this. I think they reached a bit far in some of their statements. Declaring themselves a religious organization has done short term damage and it appears they are quietly trying to back away from that position. The loss of public sponsors and meeting places resulting from their declarations and policies has not been good for the organization as a whole. It's allowed people's prejudices - on both sides - to fester. I've seen people not buy Scout Popcorn from Cub Scouts at a grocery store because the unit was sponsored by the Catholic Church. I've seen people not let their children join Scouts because of the anti-gay policy.

 

Someone mentioned that they wouldn't, as a straight person, join a gay club expecting that club to accept everybody. My question is "Well why not?" I believe such thinking is so last century. Such thinking leads to segregated pool communities (as I recall, a pool community that kicked out a day camp because the kids were mostly black which offended the sensibilities of the mostly white membership got their butt kicked all over national television and was universally derided - and that's the way it should be). Such thinking would have continued the inhumanity of racially segregated country clubs - it took a Tiger Woods to pretty much blow those gates wide open - and even then it was a struggle just a few years ago when Tiger was first starting out. It took people willing to buck the system, Jews, Women, Blacks, Hispanics, Gays - to join or try to join such clubs in order for changes to be made. So go ahead Mr. Straight Person - join that gay club and demand that straights be allowed membership - chances are you're too late though - they probably already do. There was a gay bar in Chicago that decided they were going to stop letting straight people in - the biggest outcry was from the gay community - two weeks of drastically reduced business on Friday and Saturday nights as all the gay men avoided the place like a plague changed that policy pretty quickly.

 

The bottom line is that if all of us decided we wouldn't join a club or organization if we disagreed with some aspect of it, there wouldn't be any clubs or organization - except of course for the cults. I'd find it difficult to believe that anyone in the BSA agrees with absolutely everything the BSA does - sure, you may support their gay policy but if you don't agree with their policy on laser tag, wouldn't the "leave and join an organization more to your liking" meme apply to you too?

[Lisabob 13]

Great post, Calico.

 

 

I have to ask this tangential question though (curiosity is killing me). You wrote: "There was a gay bar in Chicago that decided they were going to stop letting straight people in" My question - how did they know??? Sexuality pledges at the door?

 

 

[skeptic 992]

It seems to me that we need to quit lumping the God and Gay issues together; they are not the same. While there are similarities, one is literally based on views regarding physical characteristics and responses to life style choices. The other relates directly to a foundational tenet of Scouting, belief in a spiritual entity greater than oneself. As such, I fail to understand why it continues to be put in the same arena with the Gay issue. It IS something that should be accepted or rejected at the point of joining. If you cannot accept it, then the organization is not for you.

 

On the other hand, much of the contention on Gay issues stems from the over the top, public view, of a small, but strident few, in the Gay community. This translates to a "lifestyle" in a lot of minds, and it is one that is not deemed acceptable to many. And while the issue may have many similarities to infidelity, free-style heterosexual life choices, and even drugs and alcohol to some extent, most individuals engaged in those types of life choices do not try to make it such a public thing. I suspect, as has been pointed out numerous times, that even many in the Gay community are often chagrined by the "over the top" displays of likely a small percentage of their communities. But, because it is so out spoken, and often outlandish, it really pushes buttons.

 

So, maybe it is time for reasonable people to stop putting the two in the same basket. Just my views from having lived more years than many.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

[CalicoPenn 729]

Lisa,

 

The target was mainly Bachlorette Parties - it's been a bit of a trend over the past few years for bachlorette parties to head over to gay bars on Friday and Saturday nights instead of the Chippendales joints. Why pay to see hot, shirtless men dance when you can go to a gay nightclub in Chicago on any given Friday or Saturday night and see hot, shirtless men dancing for free - and surround themselves with a bunch of men who aren't going to be hitting on them all night but are considered fun loving and outrageous and will probably take you for a spin on the dance floor if you ask or cajole them enough.