Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
NH195SM

Is your troop/pack in danger?

Recommended Posts

Man, this is even weirder! I tried to write a response to Eagledad, and I wound up in a post by AZMike! What's going on? Where am I? I'm lost in cyberspace!

 

Packsaddle

Now I have an evil twin! I don't even have to write anything and stuff just shows up under my moniker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the exception of 2 folks in my neck of the woods, everything I've heard is negative, very negative. So negative, that only two of the liberal folks I know are for the change. When the topci came up at RT, I mentioned how the UMC and Presbyterian Churches are internal movers for this change. One of the comments was "Can I give you my dollar now?" as my CO is more conservative and he is sponsored by a local UMC.

 

I do not know what will happen, but I see us losing members. As stated repeatedly, I lost one CO when DALE was going to SCOTUS. And I think we just loss the district commissioner over this issue. When I talked to him prior to the postponement announcement, he was furious.

 

One fear I do have if the change occurs, those outside groups applying pressure will NOT be happy with local option, and will continue with the iractivities. Several folks have already said "it is a good first step," and "while not the ultimate, it's better than 7 months ago" (referring to the report that came out on the topic after a 2 year study).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AZMike wrote, among other things

 

Thanks for bringing this up, as it probably is an issue that hasn't been fully addressed in this discussion. If people will dissolve their congregations and long-standing synods over their moral stands, which are presumably much more important and intense relationships for them than which scout troop their sons are in, what does that bode for the future of Scouting under the New Model?

 

This formerly thriving church in St. Paul closed its doors after the congregation rejected the pastor's new hobbyhorse of support for gay marriage: http://www.twincities.com/stpaul/ci_20975779/pastor-whose-congregation-dwindled-after-supporting-gay-marriage

 

The Lutheran schism over gays will wind up impacting many of the social service networks they have built up, which also doesn't bode well for the BSA - again, the demands of the few will outweigh the needs of the many: http://www.pewforum.org/Religion-News/Lutheran-split-over-gays-and-the-Bible-shakes-up-multibillion-dollar-social-service-network.aspx

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/lutherans_split_over_gay_pasto.html

 

The Ethiopian Lutherans just severed their relationship with the English church over this issue: http://www.christianpost.com/news/ethiopian-church-severs-ties-with-lutherans-over-homosexuality-89745/

 

First of all, your constant reference to the proposed new local option policy as a "New Model" of Scouting is clever, but I don't think it's correct. The new policy would really just be a slight expansion of the very wide latitude that local units already have in selecting their own leaders. Almost all factors that I can think of are already matters of local option. The exceptions are child abusers, criminals (generally speaking; even there, ther is some local latitude) and atheists -- and currently, people who are openly gay. Maybe there are one or two others but I cannot think of them at the moment. All the new policy would do is move openly gay people from one column to the other column -- the one that already contains most factors that go into selecting leaders. This does not seem like a "new model", especially not with capital letters.

 

Second, your observations about the different churches only confirms what is already obvious: Our society is deeply divided over how to treat gay people. It is inevitable that this division will be reflected in our institutions, including religious organizations and the BSA. Since the BSA tries to encompass all segments of society, including all religions, a policy that reflects this division, and allows the unit-owners (the CO's) to make the decision that works for them and their members, is the right policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eagle92, what I am hearing is just the opposite.

 

I suspect that this has something to do with the fact that I live in New Jersey, and you live in North Carolina. Across the country, there are a number of states that are more like New Jersey on this issue, and a number that are more like North Carolina. So how does the BSA deal with this issue and continue to be a nationwide organization?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Actually I believe that our troop and pack are beyond the danger threshold . Without any discussion with the church/ CO, we were sent a certified letter (via the council, I understand) that our 36-year relationship was ending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. Actually I believe that our troop and pack are beyond the danger threshold . Without any discussion with the church/ CO, we were sent a certified letter (via the council, I understand) that our 36-year relationship was ending.
Letter from who? The CO? Based on what? A policy change that hasn't been made, that wouldn't affect your units anyway? If that's the case, it sounds like you will be better off with a new CO anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. Actually I believe that our troop and pack are beyond the danger threshold . Without any discussion with the church/ CO, we were sent a certified letter (via the council, I understand) that our 36-year relationship was ending.
Double post; if I could average out the double posts with the posts that don't post at all, I'd be a happier man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AZMike wrote, among other things

 

Thanks for bringing this up, as it probably is an issue that hasn't been fully addressed in this discussion. If people will dissolve their congregations and long-standing synods over their moral stands, which are presumably much more important and intense relationships for them than which scout troop their sons are in, what does that bode for the future of Scouting under the New Model?

 

This formerly thriving church in St. Paul closed its doors after the congregation rejected the pastor's new hobbyhorse of support for gay marriage: http://www.twincities.com/stpaul/ci_20975779/pastor-whose-congregation-dwindled-after-supporting-gay-marriage

 

The Lutheran schism over gays will wind up impacting many of the social service networks they have built up, which also doesn't bode well for the BSA - again, the demands of the few will outweigh the needs of the many: http://www.pewforum.org/Religion-News/Lutheran-split-over-gays-and-the-Bible-shakes-up-multibillion-dollar-social-service-network.aspx

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/lutherans_split_over_gay_pasto.html

 

The Ethiopian Lutherans just severed their relationship with the English church over this issue: http://www.christianpost.com/news/ethiopian-church-severs-ties-with-lutherans-over-homosexuality-89745/

 

First of all, your constant reference to the proposed new local option policy as a "New Model" of Scouting is clever, but I don't think it's correct. The new policy would really just be a slight expansion of the very wide latitude that local units already have in selecting their own leaders. Almost all factors that I can think of are already matters of local option. The exceptions are child abusers, criminals (generally speaking; even there, ther is some local latitude) and atheists -- and currently, people who are openly gay. Maybe there are one or two others but I cannot think of them at the moment. All the new policy would do is move openly gay people from one column to the other column -- the one that already contains most factors that go into selecting leaders. This does not seem like a "new model", especially not with capital letters.

 

Second, your observations about the different churches only confirms what is already obvious: Our society is deeply divided over how to treat gay people. It is inevitable that this division will be reflected in our institutions, including religious organizations and the BSA. Since the BSA tries to encompass all segments of society, including all religions, a policy that reflects this division, and allows the unit-owners (the CO's) to make the decision that works for them and their members, is the right policy.

My (admittedly somewhat snarky) Cromwellian reference refers to the acceptance of a range of potential new policies, as we do not know for sure what will arise - a local option that survives legal challenges from homosexual political committes, a local option that causes the collapse of Dale under legal challenge from the same committes, or as some have demanded, the removal of any restrictions in any troop for homosexual membership. It's a convenient shorthand for a range of possibilities, all of which their individual proponents are eyeing with revolutionary zeal.

 

My comment on the recent history of churches and denominations and synods collapsing after the change of their doctrine to the acceptance of homosexuality (in the face of opposition by many of their members, who had devoted much of their lives and their tithing to their denominations) was in response to a request for information on the subject, which I thought was common knowledge. I bring it up merely because I was asked, and as a cautionary tale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sortof feel that a lot of you are missing a point here.

To me, it's not really about how it might affect my unit, my personal experience, or my son't experience..... well yes it is to a lesser degree, but there is something bigger.

It's a case of watering down the moral experience. A case of dilution.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blw2, Please explain. What IS the "moral experience" that is being "watered down"?

How does the exclusionary membership policy qualify as some kind of experience? What does that policy teach boys?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I sortof feel that a lot of you are missing a point here.

To me, it's not really about how it might affect my unit, my personal experience, or my son't experience..... well yes it is to a lesser degree, but there is something bigger.

It's a case of watering down the moral experience. A case of dilution.

blw2, the problem is that in the case of admitting or excluding gay people, different people define the "moral experience" differently. Some peoples' morality seems to require that gay people be excluded, other peoples' morality requires that gay people NOT be excluded. You can't completely satisfy everybody's definition of a "moral experience", but with local option you can come the closest, with the largest number of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. Actually I believe that our troop and pack are beyond the danger threshold . Without any discussion with the church/ CO, we were sent a certified letter (via the council, I understand) that our 36-year relationship was ending.
Sequoia I think you better review how scouting works, the units are owned by the CO not the leaders, you have no authority to terminate any relationship period. As a leader all you can do is to resign from your position, so you wasted your time with a meaningless and hollow gesture. If your CO wants scouting in their church then there is NOTHING you can do about it.

 

Bottom line this will be a CO decision to make and no one elses, so get over yourselves already!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mean to imply that we should not be friendly, courteous, or kind to everyone.... but we should be reverent as well.

 

What I mean packsaddle, is that Boy Scout used to mean something, and still does.... call it Duddly Do Right, Call it whatever you want.

But as soon as the BSA bows to the pressures of this issue, it means far less.

 

IMO, Scouting should not be teaching boys about this issue at all, from either perspective. This issue has no place at all in a youth program.

So, why are we letting it have a place?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mean to imply that we should not be friendly, courteous, or kind to everyone.... but we should be reverent as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BadenP, I think you misread Sequoia's post, although it is not perfectly clear, which is why I asked for clarification. It says "we" (the unit leaders, I am assuming) "were sent" (meaning, we the unit leaders received) a letter "via council", meaning it wasn't sent by the unit leaders, or the council, which presumably only leaves the CO. So this appears to be a CO acting perfectly within its rights (though not necessarily based on correct information) to terminate its own units.

 

Hopefully the council, in forwarding the letter, offered assistance in finding a new CO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×