Npr Story On Bsa/lds Relationship

[NJCubScouter 1389]

For anyone who is confused about this, I removed a "cartoon" from this thread, which is the subject of a couple of comments by walkinthewoods, above. For anyone who saw it and sees the comments about it, I will explain that I removed the cartoon because I thought it was "graphic" to a degree that is inappropriate for our forum. I do not think the cartoon "denigrated" any "group" but rather it criticized an idea, which is fair game.

 

Walkinthewoods, I need to reply to your comment that "the silence of moderators is deafening." The cartoon in question was posted at 11:55 p.m. last night. Your comment, which is the first and only thing that anyone said about the cartoon itself, was posted at 6:04 a.m. today. I saw all of this and decided to remove the cartoon at 7:04 a.m. The moderators are volunteers and we are not patrolling the forum 24 hours a day, especially in the middle of night. I would say this was acted on pretty quickly.

[Peregrinator 85]

I do not think the cartoon "denigrated" any "group" but rather it criticized an idea, which is fair game.

It criticized an idea while denigrating those who (in the artist's eyes) hold it.

[Horizon 97]

My point remains, the country is split on the gay rights issue. It not like those against are some small minority. The liberals are merely demonizibg those who don't agree with them and belittling the religious beliefs behind the conservative's reasoning. If that's no intolerance I don't know what is.

 

Let's not sugar coat it.

 

Kinda like those of us who support gay rights have been demonized on this very site? Told that my faith (Presbyterian Church USA) is a fringe one? Told that by allowing my son to go to youth group a with a gay minister made me an unfit parent?

 

Then we can add in glossing over gay bashing, gay murder, and the long list of states that still have laws that allow someone to be fired for being gay? A man knifed 6 people in Israel at a gay pride parade, one teenage girl is dead. On Monday of this week, a guy assaulted a gay couple in New York. His mistake was that one of the couple is West Point grad and veteran of our various adventures in the Middle East. These types of attacks are still going on today.

 

This conversation has become so intense, and both sides have met each other with nastiness. When one side pushes hard, the hard side will push back. That turns into a fight. Gays and those that support their rights have been on the losing side for a long time. Now that they are approaching a semblance of parity in civil rights, NOW all of a sudden those that don't want them around are whining, yes whining, about tolerance.

 

I welcome local option, and as a Scouter I will respect the faith of others who will not allow gay adults into their unit. There is room around the campfire for us all. There are Troops who don't have any women in uniform - no problem with me. There are Crews and Ships that are male only as well - no problem. There are units that only allow people of their faith - no sweat. I have openly tolerated all of these, I just ask for the same consideration from the other side.

 

Friendly. Courteous. Kind. Reverent. 1/3 of our Law has been ignored for too long in this debate.

[walk in the woods 888]

For anyone who is confused about this, I removed a "cartoon" from this thread, which is the subject of a couple of comments by walkinthewoods, above. For anyone who saw it and sees the comments about it, I will explain that I removed the cartoon because I thought it was "graphic" to a degree that is inappropriate for our forum. I do not think the cartoon "denigrated" any "group" but rather it criticized an idea, which is fair game.

 

Walkinthewoods, I need to reply to your comment that "the silence of moderators is deafening." The cartoon in question was posted at 11:55 p.m. last night. Your comment, which is the first and only thing that anyone said about the cartoon itself, was posted at 6:04 a.m. today. I saw all of this and decided to remove the cartoon at 7:04 a.m. The moderators are volunteers and we are not patrolling the forum 24 hours a day, especially in the middle of night. I would say this was acted on pretty quickly.

We'll have to disagree on the denigrated part, I found it offensive.  I'll concede to the speed of response.

[CalicoPenn 729]

I found it rang true

[CalicoPenn 729]

It seems to me and has been stated earlier, maybe not in this post, that the BSA wants all religious affiliated COs out.

They can't be that inept and short sighted to not consider the fallout with the LDS and Catholics, etc..

I'm taking my money and leaving after this year in Cub Scouts. I will work with the boys in my den to get them through

Bear.

 

Unless someone can point to a BSA document that states this, it is just speculation on the part of a poster.

[Gone 435]

That turns into a fight. Gays and those that support their rights have been on the losing side for a long time. Now that they are approaching a semblance of parity in civil rights, NOW all of a sudden those that don't want them around are whining, yes whining, about tolerance.

 

This is amusing. Why? Because I don't care what other people do, I just don't want to have it forced down my throat. I've never denigrated anyone for who they are, I just don't believe it in reasons of faith.

 

Let's not lump people who disagree with you with murders, gay bashers, etc. That's the sort of hyperbole that the left uses to shut down real discussion. No one here that I have seen have taken such a radical position. To equate us with people like that is as if we were to identify you radical left-wing activists. Most normal folks here haven't done that...I don't think anyone has, so let's stay grounded, shall we?

[Rick_in_CA 401]

 

Wow. So when I ask that the BSA follow it's stated values and allow my CO to follow it's religious beliefs when picking it's leaders, I am being intolerant of the conservative religious COs that don't agree with my CO? But when they insist that my CO NOT be allowed to follow it's religious beliefs, they aren't being intolerant? I don't think I undestand your definition of "intolerant".

If you think the left's management of this issue with regard to the right's exercise of their religious beliefs is tolerant then I can't help you.

 

Religious protection is expressly called out in the constitution. Need I say more?

 

In the various threads on this topic, you appear to be saying that those of us that support the change in the BSA rules, are being intolerant of religious conservatives. That asking the BSA to show the same respect to "liberal" COs as they do to conservative COs is inherently intolerant of the conservative COs. Basically that we are being intolerant simply by wanting to be allowed too follow our own religious beliefs?

 

That is the argument that you appear (to me at least) to be making. And I am finding it very hard to follow the logic behind that argument.

 

My reply is: The ones that are insisting on having their religious faith override mine, are the intolerant ones. And if you can't understand that, then I simply can't help you.

[Gone 435]

In the various threads on this topic, you appear to be saying that those of us that support the change in the BSA rules, are being intolerant of religious conservatives. That asking the BSA to show the same respect to "liberal" COs as they do to conservative COs is inherently intolerant of the conservative COs. Basically that we are being intolerant simply by wanting to be allowed too follow our own religious beliefs?

 

 

No. I am saying that some of those that support the BSA policy change, and gay rights as a whole, are being intolerant of religious conservatives (or simply anyone who is using their religious beliefs as a basis for opposing gay rights) in the exercising of their Constitutional righ to apply their religious beliefs to who can/can't join their unit.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Bad Wolf

[Stosh 3452]

Intolerance is always measured in what other people do, not what I do. -- Anonymous Hypocrite.

 

What I find objectionable in other people is never a trait I reserve for myself. -- U. Gottabe Kidding

 

What's good enough for the Goose is good enough for the Gander is Politically Incorrect as viewed from my side of the fence. -- I. C. Nothing

 

I wonder if it's time we invent a new word like Christophobic for today's culture? 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

The irony is thick today.

[Rick_in_CA 401]

No. I am saying that some of those that support the BSA policy change, and gay rights as a whole, are being intolerant of religious conservatives (or simply anyone who is using their religious beliefs as a basis for opposing gay rights) in the exercising of their Constitutional righ to apply their religious beliefs to who can/can't join their unit.

Ah, OK. Just like some of those that are against the BSA policy change, and are againt gay rights as a whole, are being intolerant of religious progressives (or simply anyone who is using their religious beliefs as a basis for supporting gay rights) in the exercising of their Constitutional right to apply their religious beliefs to who can/can't join their unit.

 

Right?

[Stosh 3452]

One can be against what the BSA did and still believe all US citizens should be equally protected under the law.

 

@@Rick_in_CA your assumption is not true.  If one sits down to pay a game of chess and half way through the game the opponent decides no one can castle, one must stop and pause to ponder whether or not we are still playing chess.  It has nothing to do with the integrity of the opponent nor the validity of one getting up and leaving in the middle of the game.  When one changes the rules they run the risk of changing the game.  There are other games going on out there and chess is one of them.

[Rick_in_CA 401]

One can be against what the BSA did and still believe all US citizens should be equally protected under the law.

 

@@Rick_in_CA your assumption is not true.  If one sits down to pay a game of chess and half way through the game the opponent decides no one can castle, one must stop and pause to ponder whether or not we are still playing chess.  It has nothing to do with the integrity of the opponent nor the validity of one getting up and leaving in the middle of the game.  When one changes the rules they run the risk of changing the game.  There are other games going on out there and chess is one of them.

OK, but apparently one can't be in favor of what the BSA did and still believe all US citizens should be equally protected under the law. Now I understand.

[Gone 435]

Ah, OK. Just like some of those that are against the BSA policy change, and are againt gay rights as a whole, are being intolerant of religious progressives (or simply anyone who is using their religious beliefs as a basis for supporting gay rights) in the exercising of their Constitutional right to apply their religious beliefs to who can/can't join their unit.

 

Right?

 

Yes, some on the right are doing that. I support their right to do what they want. Problem is, they seem to be aligned with those who what to totally change BSA and take away my rights.

 

 

OK, but apparently one can't be in favor of what the BSA did and still believe all US citizens should be equally protected under the law. Now I understand.

 

 

One can be afforded equal protection (gays being allowed in BSA) while still allowing others the ability to exercise their religious beliefs (to have a unit that does not allow gays on religious grounds).

 

The problem is that many of those supporting gay leaders being allowed in BSA don't want to stop. They want to abridge my freedoms and change BSA. The evidence of this approach has been posted elsewhere in this forum.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Bad Wolf