Northern Star Council - Inclusive

[BSA24 10]

Please guys, stick to the issue instead of the raw criticisms and assumptions about someone's character. nld should have the ability to disagree without being called names or told they are hateful.

 

 

[Lisabob 13]

I agree, everyone should be able to disagree without being hateful. Problem is, someone didn't do that. You may have missed it, as their posts were eventually deleted by a moderator. I do not, however, believe it is hateful to point out when someone in a position of power (nld has stated that he is a judge in NY) spews hate at others.

 

That's the last I have to say on this topic.

[packsaddle 753]

BSA24, that is the reason I hope that the post in question which was Posted: Sunday, 7/29/2012: 8:21:57 AM, will not be removed by a moderator. Take a look and you'll see the words in question.

[BSA24 10]

I see it.

 

There is a psychological effect called polarization. A person's politics opinions become more extreme in the face of opposition. Most people are in favor of a government that blends freedom and security in balance. However, if a troll says the government should run everything, we will answer him angrily that government shouldn't exist. Even though we don't believe that really.

 

I assume nldsscouter was just trying to provoke us. No one in the thread self-identified as gay, and he didn't direct the words at one of us as name-calling. He simply listed them out to annoy his debate opponents as a way of expressing frustration with a point of view he doesn't understand or agree with.

 

I still am not comfortable making a character judgment about him or calling him names. I will only say that those words shouldn't be used because they are not courteous, kind, or friendly.

 

Then again, those three points of the scout law invalidate most of what appears on the I&P forum. Most people cannot be courteous, kind, and friendly while discussing issues they believe are defined by the word of God or basic human rights.

[FScouter 24]

"I still am not comfortable making a character judgment..."

 

Everyday we all "judge" everyone we interact with based on the things they say and the things they do. How else do you "judge" a person's character? Judgments are made instantaneously all the time. It's the nature of the species and required for survival.

 

Refinements come with more information. If all you know is that a person refers to gay people with derogatory and nasty terms, it is natural and appropriate to "judge" that person as hateful and a bigot.

[nldscout 18]

Oh please, cry me a river. I said what half of the people on here think and say in private. It doesn't matter if you think its PC or not. The fact is they are words that people, a majority of americans use in thier everyday speech.

 

Fact is, I don't like gay's. Never had and never will. It is an unnatural abomination plain and simple. If you disagree, thats your choice, just like its gays choice to be gay. No one is born gay, they choose to be that way of thier own free will.

 

But BSA rules say no gays, no athiest. So if you can't live within BSA rules then your free to leave anytime.

[moosetracker 132]

NldScout statement

I said what half of the people on here think and say in private.

 

 

Scratching head..... Which half do you think he is refering too??

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

But BSA rules say no gays, no athiest.

 

I've only seen this in press releases, public statements, and the like. Where does it say this in the rules?

[Oak Tree 15]

It is an unnatural abomination plain and simple.

 

Once upon a time, way back when I was a teenager and had barely a concept of gays, this was my initial reaction, too. I do think it's hard-wired into most heterosexuals to kind of get an "ewwwww" feeling when you first see two guys kissing. Over time, though, as I got to know some gays, and as I listened to the arguments and tried to think them through, I eventually decided that just because this is an initial reaction that's built into the operating system, it doesn't mean that I have to let this make my decision for me.

 

There are all kinds of things that I have an initial aversion to. People come with a fear of heights; a fear of loud noises; a desire to look away from all kinds of medical treatments (shots, surgery, etc). There was once an argument against umbrellas because they were unnatural. Clearly God intended for us to get wet when it rained.

 

It's unnatural for a person to lose part of a leg. That doesn't mean we should shun the disabled. Check out Leviticus 21:17-23 - it clearly seems to imply that the disabled were not "worthy" - but that just seems foreign to our thinking today.

 

its gays choice to be gay. No one is born gay, they choose to be that way of thier own free will.

 

I used to think this too. After all, the act of kissing another guy is clearly a chosen act - you don't have to do it (unlike being disabled, or being in a racial minority, or being a woman - those are things you pretty much do have to do.) The question that really got me to think about was whether it would be possible for me to choose to be gay. Could I actually choose to be attracted to guys? I just didn't see that I could realistically make that choice.

 

Also, if you look at a picture of Julia Roberts and Lyle Lovett (like this, for example: http://www.people.com/people/archive/issue/0,,7566930712,00.html) - and you find yourself more attracted to the guy than to the girl, that seems like a built-in reaction much more than a choice. Really, how can you choose who you find attractive?

 

People's opinions do change over time. Maybe yours will never change. But is there something that might make that happen? For some of you, I can just say statistically that yes, there might be something that might get you to rethink your position.

 

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

nldscout says:

 

I said what half of the people on here think and say in private.

 

Really? Which other members of the forum do you think call gay people those nasty names in private? When I think about the people in this forum who support the BSA policy, I cannot think of a single one (currently) who I would suspect of doing that.

 

There are a few people who have posted in the forum in the past who might. They include a couple who have been banned, and then there's one who seems to have vanished fairly recently who, at some point in almost every discussion of the "gay issue", could be counted on to say "No flames in tents." But you are the first one who has let loose with a string of names like that, that I can recall. So I wonder who else you think speaks and talks that way in private but maintains what you call "PC" standards in this forum.

 

And I think there is a difference between what you keep to yourself and what you display in public. (As I would think anyone who supports the BSA membership policy would agree with, at least part of the time.)

 

Just out of curiosity, do you actually use those words publicly, or just when you are behind the anonymity of an account name? Do you use them when you are sitting on whatever bench it is that you sit on?

[NJCubScouter 1389]

But BSA rules say no gays, no athiest.

 

I've only seen this in press releases, public statements, and the like. Where does it say this in the rules?

 

As far as gay people, it isn't anywhere where you would expect to find "rules" or "policies" of the BSA. As I have pointed out many times, it is in the places you mention as well as legal briefs, and that's it. No handbooks, guidebooks, rulebooks or anything like that, that I am aware of. Kind of odd that they have rules about little red wagons (to quote the favorite example of the day) but not about something that is supposedly a core moral principle of the organization.

 

Speaking of which (and still on the subject), there is a passage in the Supreme Court's majority decision in the Dale case that I have always found fascinating, and disturbing. It says:

 

The Boy Scouts asserts that it teach[es] that homosexual conduct is not morally straight, Brief for Petitioners 39, and that it does not want to promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior, Reply Brief for Petitioners 5. We accept the Boy Scouts assertion.

 

Since the first time I read that, I have wondered, where does the Boy Scouts teach that? I joined the BSA as a Cub Scout more than 45 years ago, and although I have not been a member straight through that period, I have been a Scout up to the age of 18, an active ASM for a short period after that, then as a parent I have been a den leader, assistant cubmaster, and troop committee member for about 12 years. I have read all the books and taken all the required training for all the positions that I have been in, and I pretty much know what has been in the last few editions of the Scout Handbook even though I have not studied every page. This "teaching" about homosexuality is nowhere to be found. In the occasional discussions I have had "in person" with other Scouters about this subject (never in earshot of the boys) I have sometimes asked them if they know of this "teaching" either, and nobody does. Just recently I was speaking with an old friend of my father's, and this guy probably has his 50-year pin at this point, if not more, because he never left Scouting when he aged out, like I did. I quoted that phrase to him, and he was surprised to hear it, and confirmed what I thought about it. (He is not a supporter of the current policy anyway.)

 

As for atheism, however... I think the language of the Declaration of Religious Principle and the explanation for "A Scout is Reverent" in the Scout Handbook pretty much represent "rules" saying that a Scout or Scouter must have a belief in God. I'm not saying that's right, or that it should remain that way, or that there aren't a lot of "closet atheists" in the BSA (because there are), but it is there.

[Oak Tree 15]

Seconding everything that NJCubScouter said...

 

as for Where does it say this in the rules?

 

The atheist part is covered by the application:The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God [...] Only persons willing to subscribe to these precepts from the Declaration of Religious Principle and to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of [membership or leadership]As far as the no gays part, I'm not aware of anywhere that it says that, either, as far as the program material goes.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

The atheist part is covered by the application:

The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God [...] Only persons willing to subscribe to these precepts from the Declaration of Religious Principle and to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of [membership or leadership]

 

 

The problem is, it's MORE than covered; the above also excludes agnostics (which the BSA has also said, at least on their legal website, cannot be members), and it also excludes polytheists, since it requires a belief in a single god, and it excludes some Deists and other theists who believe in a god but don't believe that god puts any obligations on people.

 

So really, people need to say that the BSA excludes atheists, agnostics, Hindus, some Deists, some UUs, etc etc

[eolesen 10]

Merlyn, how do you explain how the existence of UU, Pagan, Wiccan, Buddhist, Hindu, Sihk, and Scientology Scouters?

 

All that the faith statement requires is a belief in a higher power. Atheism doesn't acknowledge that, agnostism and all of the others mentioned do. Doesn't have to be monotheist.

[Abel Magwitch 10]

And let's not forget Buddhism. From what I remember from college days is that the religion does not believe in a god. I may be wrong. Perhaps a Buddhist out there could enlighten me on this.(This message has been edited by abel magwitch)