its baaackk.... BSA policy on homosexuals and leadership

[moosetracker 132]

Shortridge I think qwazse answered you with this..

 

 

Christians reserve the right to impose on culture. They demanded the Roman Empire end the practice of molesting young boys, among other things. They appealed to Britian to abandon the imperial slave trade. They drive capitalism towards pacifism. (Okay, that one's not going very well.) They oppose slaughter of innocents. And they put constraints on one's sexual expression.

 

 

I think that means that their Christian faith to condmn what is a sin, trumpts your christian faith to treat everyone with kindness, curtious, and Christian love of fellow man.

 

As other have stated, it will be that way until the newer Generation takes over the $$$$$$$$$$$$$... As it doesn't really matter who is correct or not, it just matters who can pay for the win. Morality these days can be bought.

 

Of course whenever a state wins same-sex marriage, there is undoubtly someone from the conservative side, yelling "unfair, "You got out-of-staters throwing money around" As they try to hide the out-of-state big bucks that they were using.

 

So really it only works if the side you are on has the big bucks, otherwise you are unfairly spending money to do the devils work.

 

 

 

[DLChris71 10]

DLChris,

 

You focused on the "yucky" part without answering the actual question.

 

Why does your moral code take precedence over mine within Scouting?

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

I don't know. Maybe one day I'll go talk to the National Committee and find out.

 

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

rWhy does your moral code take precedence over mine within Scouting?

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

I don't know. Maybe one day I'll go talk to the National Committee and find out.

 

I think shortridge was asking a rhetorical question. The point is, the BSA teaches that we should have respect for all religions, and that people of any religion (organized or not) can be members, but then gives a preference to the religious beliefs of some religions in imposing a membership requirement on all units. This creates first-class religions and second-class religions, and the Unitarians, Episcopalians, Reform Jews (raising hand) and others, not to mention non-religious groups and individuals who oppose discrimination against gay-people, are riding in the back of the bus. With a local option, we could all sit where we want.

 

[DLChris71 10]

I suppose that's why my response to his rhetorical question was a facetious remark.

[shortridge 184]

No, it wasn't a rhetorical question. Seriously. We're Scouters, supposed to respect other faiths. Yet you believe that your moral code should take precedence over mine. I would like to hear the justification.

 

Which is more important - hating the yucky gays or showing tolerance to other religions? Irving and Salt Lake City say it's the yucky gays. (I know that's not your terminology, but that's what all this talk about immorality and repentance and sin is all about, really.)

[DLChris71 10]

For what it's worth I've already answered your question and don't see much value in repeating myself. As you are starting to use derogatory remarks I don't see much value in continuing this conversation.

[shortridge 184]

Anyone else who supports the ban on those yucky gays who'd like to explain why a particular brand of conservative Christianity should dictate national policy in an officially non-sectarian organization? Not from a membership POV, not from a financial POV, but from a Scout Law POV. You remember the whole Reverent part, right? Why does your moral code outweigh my moral code?

 

Anyone?

 

Anyone?

 

 

 

Yes, I'm being a bit obnoxious. But it should be clear to reasonable people that this policy is indefensible on all but religious grounds. And since we are all brothers under the gaze of the Great Scoutmaster, no one religion should dictate policy. So a local option is the only Scoutlike path forward.(This message has been edited by Shortridge)

[Horizon 97]

DLChris71 - I didn't see any derogatory remarks in shortridge's comments.

 

Mine - guilty as charged. Then again, I will defend my choice of terminology happily.

[Beavah 205]

Anyone else who supports the ban on those yucky gays who'd like to explain why a particular brand of conservative Christianity should dictate national policy in an officially non-sectarian organization?

 

Yah, hmmmm....

 

I don't reckon it's one religion there, shortridge.

 

It's the overwhelming bulk of Christendom and Judaism and Islam and Bahai, the majority of Hinduism and Buddhism and Sikhism, the Zoroastrians and the African tribal animists and even the majority of the worldwide Anglican community, eh?

 

That's a pretty diverse bunch.

 

Blamin' it on our LDS colleagues hardly seems fair.

 

The reason the BSA policy is what it is is because it's an odd form of democracy, eh? The vast majority of chartered organizations support the policy. Maybe that's because religious folks are more likely to support private programs that encourage citizenship and character and the like.

 

The nature of moral codes is that to be moral codes they have to impose an obligation on us, eh? Yeh either believe slavery is wrong or yeh don't, but if yeh believe slavery is wrong, then yeh believe it is wrong for everybody. Yeh oppose it with your voice, and through your dollars, and yeh oppose it through your elected representatives and your laws, and yeh oppose it by helpin' slaves escape, and, in the end, yeh oppose it by callin' up the Fourth Massachusetts Calvary to march into Richmond.

 

What is challengin' for those who try to live by such codes is to remember that they are fundamentally codes that in the end demand malice toward none, charity toward all. That we are called to oppose slavery, yes, but not to hate the slaver - as tempting as it is to do so when yeh look at all the sufferin' they have caused. That same moral code that demands opposition to some things also demands tactics and choices that are measured so as to invite changes of heart, and measured so as not to do more harm than good.

 

Like others who struggle with their own desires or foibles or sins, we oft as not struggle with ours in that regard.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Cambridgeskip 658]

Bevah

 

A couple of things here....

 

First while the "official" view of those religions you site is to consider homosexuality a "sin" the reality is that within all of those religions there is a significant and growing liberal wing who disagree with that view. This is particularly so within the Anglican communion where there is a growing and I believe an almost inevitable threat of a split in the church over the issue.

 

Second I don't think it is fare to compare the issue to that of slavery. Yes, once upon a time slavery was legal. But we are talking about 2012. Can you find me a single person in the USA or the Western world that honestly believes that slavery is right on any level? I doubt it.

 

If it really is the case that the majority of religious organisations would still not accept gay leaders then why not give them the choice to demonstrate that by giving CO's the choice? And let those CO's, who I suspect in the USA will be a significant minority, the right to be different? If parents really don't like it they will vote with their feet. If they are happy with it they won't.

 

Looking in from the outside BSA's current policy on this makes no sense at all.

[moosetracker 132]

Well Cambridge, in some aspects slavery history does have some baring on homosexuals in parrallels.. We have discussed the place of religions in the issue of slaver in the past.

 

________

Religions who were in favor of slavery

 

 

[slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America

 

The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., a Baptist pastor from South Carolina.

 

 

Religions who were against slavery.

 

 

"...the campaign to end slavery in the United States was for many years largely the work of a small number of Christians who opposed slavery on explicitly religious grounds and who at the time were regularly condemned as fanatical zealots, bent (as indeed they were) on imposing their religiously based views regarding this particular issue on all those who disagreed." Paul Campos

 

 

__________

 

Sound familure??? Except we have also many outside of religion, who are fighting for equality for all simply on the basis of citizenship.

 

Well some differences. It is more like the fight for equal rights for blacks. I don't know how much of a difference that is, but I think there is.. We are not forcing people to give up ownership of what they feel is their property and will thus cause them some economic hardships.. They don't have to be best friends with a homosexual, or become one. But, we are requesting they show civil respect.

 

(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[qwazse 4344]

significant and growing liberal wing who disagree with that view. This is particularly so within the Anglican communion where there is a growing and I believe an almost inevitable threat of a split in the church over the issue.

 

The fabric has already begun to tear in our neighborhood. The Episcopal bishop broke communion with his liberal counterparts and joined the more conservative worldwide communion. (Pardon me if I've botched those terms. I don't keep track of boundaries very well.) From his perspective, they left him. I personally like the guy, he's been an inspiration to a lot of youth around hear, and he tries to make it about more than this one issue.

 

Presbyterians are not far behind.

 

Basically American Christians are torn between two views. One that says "In a pluralistic society, we have to adapt our sexual mores." Versus another that says "In a pluralistic society those who wish for leaders who adapt their sexual mores may choose a different religion."

 

The so-called liberal wing may be growing stronger in their respective denominations, but they are assuming charge of shrinking boats. The same may be said for so-called conservatives. No more oxen liners, just canoes and kayaks.

[Tampa Turtle 1011]

qwazse,

 

I beg to differ with my esteemed colleague. From a US perspective yes we have shrinkage. Internationally there is African and Asian growth in the RC, Episcopal, United Methodist,and Baptist churches. In some cases the new (and very conservative) leadership is coming FROM there to "re-colonize" North America. So we may have more International-Us Splits.

 

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

I don't have time to write a whole dissertation in response to Beavah's post right now, so I'll just say that I don't think the "religious viewpoint" in favor of excluding gay people from Scouting (that is what we're talking about here, right? Not abstract concepts like "sin". Right?) is anywhere near as "overwhelming" or "vast" as it used to be. My religion, or to be more precise, the "movement" I associate with in my religion, has openly gay rabbis, supports same-gender marriage, permits rabbis to perform same-gender marriage-like ceremonies (some do, some don't), etc.

 

But what's the point, anyway? The BSA is not merely a collection of religious groups. But even if it were, the idea of an "overwhelming" or "vast" majority in favor of excluding gay people is simply incorrect, today.

 

As someone else pointed out earlier, this change of attitudes is also evident in this forum. When I started posting here, 10 years ago, the majority was clearly opposed to changing the BSA policy. Today, the opposite seems to be true. Someone like DLChris would not have been put on the "defensive" back then, he would have just been one of many voices talking about "sin". Not that he, or anybody else, isn't entitled to his opinion, but I'm also entitled to mine, and a "local option" policy would allow everyone to at least attempt to adhere to their beliefs on this subject, in the context of Scouting.

[Tampa Turtle 1011]

Sadly one of the factors in this discussion is the fear that the public still associates Pedophile scout leaders with the gay issue. Grown men with boys and all that. So I imagine that is a part of the institutional "drag" on the issue.