Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
AZMike

Lgbt Group Will Pay Bsa $50,000 To Lift Ban On Gay Adult Leaders

Recommended Posts

I think what you are saying Moose is the BSA needs to take God out of the oath and Law.

 

Barry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely not, what I am saying is the religions that are against Gays, have got to learn to respect the beliefs of the religions(and those with a belief system which is not tied to any organized religion)  that are not and allow them to choose their adult leaders based on their beliefs.. 

 

Are you saying that there is no point to believing in a God if you can't  ostracize gays from not only your churches' activities but are unable force other groups to do the same against their will?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I misread your previous post.

 

As to your other question; can a scout deny a bully from participating in a scouting activity and still live by the oath and law?

 

Barry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to your other question; can a scout deny a bully from participating in a scouting activity and still live by the oath and law?

 

Barry

 

I am not quite sure where you are going with this question, but if it is to somehow answer my question of "Are you saying that there is no point to believing in a God if you can't  ostracize gays from not only your churches' activities but are unable force other groups to do the same against their will?"..  Is the bully the homosexuals (I would imagine that might be your perspective)..  For me the bully would be the religions who are forcing their religious beliefs onto CO's who not only do not believe in their viewpoint, but find the viewpoint being forced upon them to be the immoral one..

 

But, don't fear, if you followed the "Singing for lost items" thread, I would imagine the proper answer is, No you can't because you are not suppose to use negative punishment to instill values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is yes, religious believers can deny wrong role models from setting an example in front of youth and still follow Gods word.

 

Barry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

The answer is yes, religious believers can deny wrong role models from setting an example in front of youth and still follow Gods word.

 

Barry

 

But, one religion does not have the right to dictate to another religion what their religious beliefs should be..  So, you in your religion can do what you want within your CO's units, but you do not have the right to force the units that belong to the Methodists or the United Church of Christ or the Episcopalian or the Unitarian Universalists etc, etc, etc, what their beliefs should be..

 

Even when the change is incorporated (Which it will be someday).. Your churches will still have the right to decide for yourself who is and who is not a good role model.. So as with a prostitute, a Wise-cracking loud mouth, or a couple living together out of wedlock, you will have the right to not consider a homosexual to be a youth leader for your scouts.. But another unit run by different CO's could choose any one of these people as good Adult leaders for their youths..

 

Answer is to allow the CO's to decide for themselves if a homosexual is a good role model or not based on their religious beliefs..

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely not, what I am saying is the religions that are against Gays, have got to learn to respect the beliefs of the religions(and those with a belief system which is not tied to any organized religion)  that are not and allow them to choose their adult leaders based on their beliefs.. 

The thing you are missing, that for many religious conservatives (not all), the beliefs of other faiths do not matter. So that Christian denomination over there doesn't believe being gay is a sin? They don't matter because they are wrong. So those Buddhists don't see anything wrong with being gay? Who cares, they are just heathens (and are wrong). The Scout Law says we are supposed to respect other faiths? Sure, but their gay minister can't be a leader because they are wrong. The BSA is "completely nonsectarian"? Well..., but those others are wrong! It's their fault for not being "proper" Christians like us, so who cares about them?

 

It is interesting that Trail Life USA split off from the BSA over the gay issue. But their own policy on membership vs. sexual orientation is almost identical to the BSA's new policy. The big difference? Christians only (and only "proper" ones).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rick - This I am aware of.. It was funny when earlier this year the Presbyterians voted to allow same-sex marriage, and the conservative religious stated they were no longer considered Christian. Like they have the right to kick another denomination out over a difference of religious view-point, and an issue the Jesus never even weighed in on.. Still no reason not to school the conservative on why they are on the wrong side of the issue..

 

 

I'm sure you're right, but somewhere during his time with them he would say, "go and sin no more" (That's from John 8:11).

Barry

 

Here is an example of what I was saying about what your religion chooses to highlight..  Eagledad quoted on line from John 8 as if this is the main point of the story.. Another religion would look at the whole story in it's entirety.

Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.

But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

 

 

The moral of the entire story being that we are all sinners and are not in the position to judge others for their sins.. Something the conservative religious chooses to ignore, while they only choose to highlight the last statement "go and sin no more."..  But since we are all sinners this is more like patting a mischievous child on the head and saying "Try to be good"..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they obviously know what make$ National $it up and take notice, but they're probably about three zeros short.

 

At least three 0's short.

 

They'd lose 70% of their membership if they did that. $50,000? ROFL, now THAT'S out of touch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least three 0's short.

 

They'd lose 70% of their membership if they did that. $50,000? ROFL, now THAT'S out of touch.

 

Mozart - although I agree that they would need way more then $50,000 to buy BSA.. The statement that BSA would lose 70% of their membership is way out of touch also.. This was what was predicted with the last vote to include homosexual youth..  Lost some CO's but most the units just found new CO's to sponsor them and continued on.. I would imagine those CO's accepted sponsorship with the knowledge of which direction BSA will be moving in, in the future..  So with the loss of those CO's against homosexuals and the gain of new CO's who are not bothered by the inclusion of homosexuals, you are now in a weaker position with that threat..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They'd lose 70% of their membership if they did that.

It depends what "that" is. If it is local option, which is what some people in this forum have been advocating for years (and my council's SE supported it when National floated the idea two years ago), I think the net impact on membership would be negligible, and maybe positive. Sure, there would be a lot of yelling and screaming and huffing and puffing like there was the last time, but once the action was taken, how many CO's would really leave the BSA because some OTHER unit could POTENTIALLY have an openly gay adult leader? Not many, I believe. Not that that's really the main issue - the main issue what is right and wrong, and the current policy of FORCING CO's to discriminate is wrong. The Biblical example of the adulterer, mentioned above, is interesting because there is NO National policy that REQUIRES a unit to exclude a known adulterer. A unit can choose to have an adulterous leader, or not to. (And here I go on my usual litany.) Same with a leader who is living, unmarried, with a member of the opposite sex. Same with a leader who is grossly overweight to the point of (in the opinion of some) setting a poor example for the kids. Same for the leader who is regularly seen exiting the local watering hole and staggering home (not driving, and not at troop meetings.) Same with the "exotic dancer". And on and on. The CO may accept, or exclude, all of these people as leaders. Why not the openly gay leader? What is that a decision that only National can make, when almost all of the other adult leadership decisions are made at the local level?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is an example of what I was saying about what your religion chooses to highlight..  Eagledad quoted on line from John 8 as if this is the main point of the story.. Another religion would look at the whole story in it's entirety.

...

The moral of the entire story being that we are all sinners and are not in the position to judge others for their sins.. Something the conservative religious chooses to ignore, while they only choose to highlight the last statement "go and sin no more."..  But since we are all sinners this is more like patting a mischievous child on the head and saying "Try to be good"..

K. No stripping bare and bludgeouning one ahother to death. Got it. (Finally. We can only hope.)

 

What you carefully omit, Moose, is that Jesus did not offer this woman a leadership roll in his movement. And it wasn't a sexist thing, because there were other women noted for their prominent roles in Church history ... after they cleaned up their act.

 

It's the attempt at equating dispensation of mercy to granting ecclesiastical authority and the predictable reaction (a.k.a., "Love vs. Truth") that drives most post-modern rifts.

 

At least three 0's short.

 

They'd lose 70% of their membership if they did that. $50,000? ROFL, now THAT'S out of touch.

 

We can have no doubt that this compilation of debit card transactions to be performed on a future date (a "fund" is not quite the right term) will grow.

 

The membership losses would unlikely be that great. But strident conservatives will make no bones about scouting without the BSA. (In a sense, I see this happening with youth in western PA who go camping independently.) The net effect may very well be a local option of sorts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mozart - although I agree that they would need way more then $50,000 to buy BSA.. The statement that BSA would lose 70% of their membership is way out of touch also.. This was what was predicted with the last vote to include homosexual youth..  Lost some CO's but most the units just found new CO's to sponsor them and continued on.. I would imagine those CO's accepted sponsorship with the knowledge of which direction BSA will be moving in, in the future..  So with the loss of those CO's against homosexuals and the gain of new CO's who are not bothered by the inclusion of homosexuals, you are now in a weaker position with that threat..

 

Sorry, but according to BSA's own membership stats they are in yet another year of decline. In my district we had seven units lose COs and none of them found new homes. They were integrated with existing units. Council-wide the number was closer to 35. Add to that the continuing drop in membership numbers and you have a bleak picture. I highly doubt those supporting gay leader inclusion would suddenly swell the ranks of scouting to make up that loss.

 

If you have official stats on the national loss of units I'd like to see them. Mine was admittedly hyperbole, but even BSA's own pole on the gay scout issue had those supporting it in a minority position. I don't think it is too much a stretch to say that if they added gay leaders to the mix that 50+% would increase a great deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Genuine question here, as I want to know.  I understand the philosophical debate in scouting about gay leaders, but I'm curious, how does it play out in practice?  I don't recall a question on my adult application about sexual orientation.  (Perhaps I just glossed over it?)  I imagine there are gay leaders out there who just don't make a public issue of their orientation and it's a non-issue in practice.  Does the gay thing only become a problem when someone gets wind of it and makes a stink, forcing a council to take action?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mozart - I can also state that the decline in numbers were on going before the vote, and that the numbers would increase if BSA stopped sitting on the fence and finish the move, thus opening the doors to parents who would let their kids do scouting if they did not discriminate and also it would open their doors to more donor funding.. Can I prove it "No" but neither can you, you are just pulling facts out and putting your own interpretation on them to suit your viewpoint..  But, 70% walking due to a policy of local option.. Hardly..

 

As NJ & I have pointed out a few times the adulterer is OK to be a BSA adult leader and role model...  And can you name for me the females that were chosen by Jesus to be his disciples.. For some reason their names seem to elude me at this moment.  Might have not been a sexist thing, but Jesus had none...  If we are going to simply name church leaders I am positive I can find a few who were sinners, even ones who were (or are) homosexuals.. But to state that there are female church leaders, so why didn't Jesus make this specific lady a disciple and to point to her having been a sinner is a ludicrous comparison. I am sure that all of Jesus's disciples were sinners, as we are all sinners.. He did not pluck out the 12 saints, the 12 human examples of perfection and due to their perfection make them him disciples.. He wanted to walk among the people not float above them with his merry band of angels..

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  

×