Current BSA Policy Vs local option poll

[Rick_in_CA 401]

Why would an atheist be a member of a religion? Because atheist doesn't mean: "doesn't believe in religion" (though I am sure there are plenty of atheists that don't), but "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of deities." There are plenty of religions that can fit that description. Of course, now you have to define what the word "Deity" or "Deities" refer too.

[Rick_in_CA 401]

dkurtenbach wrote: “I think that the concern is this: By continuing to belong to and participate in an organization that welcomes homosexual leaders (even though they are not allowed in their own units), they would be cooperating in an ongoing moral evil. In other words, guilt by association.â€Â

 

But don’t many Christians believe that denying the divinity of Christ is evil? So wouldn’t cooperating with non-Christians be “guilt by association� What is so special about the gay thing?

[dkurtenbach 348]

dkurtenbach wrote: “I think that the concern is this: By continuing to belong to and participate in an organization that welcomes homosexual leaders (even though they are not allowed in their own units)' date=' they would be cooperating in an ongoing moral evil. In other words, guilt by association.†But don’t many Christians believe that denying the divinity of Christ is evil? So wouldn’t cooperating with non-Christians be “guilt by association� What is so special about the gay thing?[/quote']

 

I suppose that there might still be some Christians in this day and age who would consider that denying the divinity of Christ is evil, but personally I've never come across one that I know about. The only view on that I am familiar with is that such folks may be unenlightened or misguided, and may miss out on attaining the Kingdom of God, but not evil. The Bible contains some specific condemnations of homosexual going all the back to the books of Moses. I'm not sure why that gets special attention when compared to adultery, for example; BSA doesn't have a policy that says that we don't grant membership to open or avowed adulterers. I suppose homosexuality is just one of those things that seems to capture the mind in a peculiar way, resulting in excessive attention as compared to other types of conduct.

 

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

 

[AZMike 173]

Merlyn will no doubt be happy to know that he agrees with Fox News - they believe atheism is a religion, so apparently you can be atheist and still be a member of a religion: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/17/sorry-but-atheism-is-religion/

 

Many atheists will disagree quite angrily with Merlyn's faith that an atheist can be in a religion without compromising his beliefs, but then some atheists certainly want to turn atheism into a soi-distant religion - there is a Church of Atheism in London with regular Sunday services that are quite popular, many universities have atheist chaplains, and atheists are lobbying for atheist chaplains for the military. Christians have Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, atheists have Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett, and even have their apostate Judases like Antony Flew and Thomas Nagel.

 

Heck, Merlyn - 21% of self-identified atheists believe in God, 12% believe in Heaven, 10% believe in Hell, 10% pray at least weekly, Interestingly, 13% of atheists believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, and 14% of all atheists believe homosexuality is a way of life that should be discouraged by society. (http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-key-findings.pdf) You send us those kind of atheists, and we can talk.

 

Re Rick's question about Christians believing that denying the divinity of Christ is evil, no...one has to come to that belief through faith. One can and should cooperate with non Christians and yes, gays. They are not enemies, just our brothers and sisters in Christ. One can accept our common humanity and love the sinner without justifying the sin.

 

[Basementdweller 608]

So how is the local option going to be unworkable??????

[NJCubScouter 1389]

So how is the local option going to be unworkable??????

It's not going to be unworkable. It will be fine. It will present an issue or two that will have to be worked out at the local level, but they will be worked out there, as are almost all other issues in Scouting.

 

I can understand some people who don't want the change coming up with all kinds of issues to try to argue against it, but that's all it is.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

AZMike, atheism is not a religion (it can be a tenet of some religions, just like theism is a tenet of most religions), but atheism qua atheism is not a religion itself, just like theism isn't a religion. There are legal situations where it is (and should be) treated the same as a religion, just like corporations are sometimes, legally, persons, even though they aren't, either.

 

 

 

 

And you as well as a lot of other people keep misquoting that Pew forum survey -- you can't conclude that "21% of self-identified atheists believe in God", because the question was "God or a universal spirit". Looking at the breakdown, it was 6% who believe in a "personal god", 12% in an "impersonal force", and 3% "don't know". Plus, I'm not surprised that many people don't know the definition of "atheist", including some people who apply the label to themselves.

 

[Hal_Crawford 15]

Why would an atheist be a member of a religion? Because atheist doesn't mean: "doesn't believe in religion" (though I am sure there are plenty of atheists that don't), but "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of deities." There are plenty of religions that can fit that description. Of course, now you have to define what the word "Deity" or "Deities" refer too.

I could be wrong but I do not believe that Buddhists worship or recognize a diety or god--they do not recognize Buddha as either. You could argue that they are athiests though scouts can earn a Buddhist religious medal.

[Rick_in_CA 401]

dkurtenbach wrote: “I suppose that there might still be some Christians in this day and age who would consider that denying the divinity of Christ is evil, but personally I've never come across one that I know about.â€Â

 

Unfortunately, I have. Years ago, an otherwise seemingly nice man was being unpleasant to a few members of our group (a Sikh man and his son). And when confronted, he said it was his Christian duty to confront their sin of denying the divinity of Christ - apparently by being rude to them. We asked him to leave. I just don’t understand some people.

[dkurtenbach 348]

So how is the local option going to be unworkable??????

Unworkable because the local option to continue excluding gays and lesbians extends only to the limits of the particular chartered organizations that want that option. But they can't exclude gays and lesbians in other units from camporees, or roundtables, or University of Scouting, or district awards banquets, or Order of the Arrow meetings and Ordeals, and district bike rodeos and district Pinewood Derbies, and merit badge clinics, and Webelos-Rees, and District Committee meetings. So the units that want to continue excluding gays and lesbians will stop coming to meetings, activities and events where they might have to rub shoulders with gay leaders or expose their Scouts to dens with lesbian moms, and attendance drops at those events and activities. And the anti-gay leaders won't go to BSLST or IOLS, so they aren't getting trained. And they will be ticked that they cannot in good conscience attend multi-unit events, so their FOS contributions slow down, and then drop even more because the FOS Chairman is gay and they don't want him contacting their units. And the very conservative unit commissioners won't service units that allow gays and lesbians as members. And when the exclusionary troops get a call from a Webelos Scout den asking if they can come and visit, the troop has to ask them first if they have any homosexual leaders or parents. And the conservative parents visiting a troop get ticked off when they find out the troop allows gay and lesbian leaders. They call to make reservations for summer camp and are told that they will not get any special accommodations -- they will be altogether with other units that may well have homosexual leaders. So they start looking for church camps to attend instead of Council day camps or resident camps. So then the exclusionary units start getting together with each other and holding their own events and camporees and even roundtables. And they realize that they aren't getting much from the district and council organizations, and they are constantly having to deal with the snide comments from the anti-discrimination leaders, and they start to wonder why they don't just move to a more congenial organization that respects their choices of conscience, because BSA is not doing so anymore.

 

That is why it is going to turn out to be unworkable. I wish the local option could be permanent solution. As I've said before, I would love to see Scouting open to all youth and adults regardless of sexual orientation or belief in God. But I know that there are churches out there working on contingency plans in case the policy changes. Even with the local option, some will leave. And if we lose one or two major denominations, that is going to hit BSA very hard.

 

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

[Basementdweller 608]

So how is the local option going to be unworkable??????

How is that different from the current situation???

 

LDS week at summer camp, LDS only camporees.....

 

I think the snide comments at events would go both ways.....

 

But the units getting together would violate national policy and a visit from the DE threatening their membership will fix that, I know first hand.

[Kahuna 172]

I fail to see a "Velvet Revolution" option for Scouting. It would be confusing to the public, not to mention the Scouts. The use of facilities and activities coordination boggle the mind. No, I think we must decide on one standard (no gays) or the other (local option). Either decision will cause problems and cost members, but we need a starting point to go forward from. LFL Cub Scouts? Really? I'm not ridiculing, I'd just have to be convinced that it even might work.

 

Personally, I think the local option is the only thing that makes sense at this point. The God issue will also arise in time and we will have to deal with that. I am Buddhist, which means I can believe in no single god if I so choose. However, there are moral principles (none of which have to do with sexual orientation) that one must practice in order to be a good Buddhist. Something like that is, I think, needed in Scouting, but how to achieve requires someone with a deeper insight than mine.

[moosetracker 132]

So how is the local option going to be unworkable??????

Well dkurtenbach, if we require the local option choice to be under new title A or new title B.. As I stated before, you still will have the mix of the two groups at summer camp, round tables, camporees etc.. Perhaps at roundtable though you will have your breakout sessions of each group in a different room.. Perhaps each group will get a new uniform change, or maybe just a change in their epillet colors, so you will know who to avoid if they are wearing their class A uniforms.. That's about it.

[dkurtenbach 348]

So how is the local option going to be unworkable??????

Hey, if the local option would work, great! I'm all for it. Maybe it will just take a couple of local tweaks and everthing will be fine. Maybe the hard-line conservatives are just pouting when they oppose local option. Maybe the pastor down the street isn't really serious about dropping Boy Scouts if they go to the local option, even though he threw out the Girl Scouts last year and brought in American Heritage Girls.

 

When we are talking about LDS, we're talking about 16% of youth membership: a big enough chunk to get special accommodations from BSA, but too small to really inconvenience the other 84% of members who are not LDS. But keep in mind that 70.3% of BSA units are chartered by faith-based organizations. http://www.scouting.org/About/FactSheets/operating_orgs.aspx. Some of them will have no problem mingling with gays and lesbians in the Scouting context under a local option, certainly. But some will. The poll on this thread shows 31% in favor of the current policy. What percentage of anti-gay units insulating themselves from district and council events and activities is enough for it to become a problem for the local councils and BSA generally? What percentage of anti-gay units leaving BSA is enough for it to become a problem for the local councils and BSA generally?

 

As I've said before, I think there are folks on the anti-discrimination side who are perfectly willing to have BSA suffer large membership losses if it means getting rid of the exclusionary policy. But I don't know how many of them will be voting in May.

 

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

[perdidochas 658]

dkurtenbach wrote: “I suppose that there might still be some Christians in this day and age who would consider that denying the divinity of Christ is evil' date=' but personally I've never come across one that I know about.†Unfortunately, I have. Years ago, an otherwise seemingly nice man was being unpleasant to a few members of our group (a Sikh man and his son). And when confronted, he said it was his Christian duty to confront their sin of denying the divinity of Christ - apparently by being rude to them. We asked him to leave. I just don’t understand some people.[/quote']

 

Exactly. A Scout is Reverent.