Don't ask, I'll tell...

[Quixote]

kwc,

 

First, thanks for the definitions - don't know what i'd do without my trusty little on-line dictionary here (j/k).

 

Believe me when i say that I did in fact read your entire post (several times) and while i may be guilty of having a splinter in my eye concerning my side of the argument, might i point out that (to use a biblical analogy) there is a log in yours? (it's all perspective isn't it?)

 

After several readings, it appears that you are interpreting the last paragraph and "ASSUMING" where it says specifically that if you tell a person of official capacity, it "cannot be assumed to be private and confidential" You are assuming that it IS confidential here.

 

I do see your point, in that the official may say, "gee, tj's gay, but he didn't tell DISTRICT SCOUT EXEC JOE, he only told FRIEND JOE"

 

That's a terrible position to put someone in even if they do share your position on the POLICY of the BSA.

 

As for littlebillie and others encouraging tj to "stay in the closet" after he has informed other scouters and a SCOUTING EXECUTIVE!!!!, might i suggest that you add the term deceiptful to the scout oath? To openly suggest that someone infiltrate an organization for boys to further the political agenda of another group that is at odds with that organization is nothing but deceiptful.

[littlebillie]

Quixote.

 

"infiltrate an organization for boys to further the political agenda of another group..." certainly spins it one way. you might also have said "infiltrate an organization for boys to make sure certain excluded youth could be included", but of course, that's not the way you'd want to say it. and of course if those are the good ol' boys of the Klan, then the FBI should never have infiltrated...

 

from the position of "gay's just another way to be", there's no real issue about gay membership or leadership.

 

but let's just take a look from a different perspective.

 

I'm gonna take the position that gay is as bad, evil, forbidden and corrupt as some of the members here. AND I'm going to acknowledge there is a period of identity confusion in a bunch of lives.

 

SO - now I gotta look at sexually confused kids as kids at risk. And even some so-called avowed gay youth as not even sure about what they're avowing. So from my temproarily assumed perspective I have to see these as kids at risk, as well.

 

SO - who needs Scouting more than kids at risk? Whether sexually, morally, familially, ethically - DOES SCOUTING ACKNOWLEDGE AN OBLIGATION TO SUCH YOUTH? Does Scouting make itself available as a tool to chartering organizations who seek to help such boys? (Frankly, even tho' I recognize that Scouting is on firmer ground in its atheist exclusion, I still say from any faith-based perspective, kids dabbling in atheism should be seen as at-risk, and welcomed!)

 

Anyway. From that perspective - and especially for a 'faith-based' organization that presumably recognizes that even homophobic faith holds out the hope for redemption of some kind - these kids should be made welcome.

 

That said, we're halfway home.

 

NOW let's take it a step further. Let's say some of these kids don't end up straight or religious. They're still going to need role models - and frankly, a gay Scouter is probably one of the best role models such a kid could ever know, just as every Scouter should try to be the best possible role model they can. (And a truly ethical atheist, too, but that's a different soap box.)

 

Some folks just want to help the easy ones - but it's the hard ones that need Scouting most.

 

But no, some folks would rather have every gay kid grow up thinking he's slime, an abomination, and not worthy of associating with decent God-fearing folk - here's where some of the suicides come from.

 

I just wish the BSA would stand up and recognize that they weren't chartered just for certain select kids.

 

deceiptful? sure. but it's definitely not NOTHING but deceiptful. It is self-sacrificing, open-hearted, dedicated - and nothing but human.

 

[littlebillie]

Mark, poke around at

www.uua.org/news/scouts/background.html

for an overview of the issue. Basically, the BSA has said that if the church teaches that gays are ok, then the church can't give sponsored youth a religious award - from my perspective, censoring and censuring that church.

 

 

[SR540Beaver]

Quixote,

 

Logs....perspective, you're free to think what you want. I'll respectfully disagree. I don't have an axe to grind here. I'm on record in these threads (multiple times) as being in favor of the ban on gays. I'm pulling a Bill O'Reilly (ugh) here. I'm presenting the facts aside from the passionate arguments of both sides of the issue. It isn't unlike the issue of people burning the US flag. There are those citizens that are angry with the US and will burn an American flag in protest. There are those individuals who get blood in their eye when they see it happen. When it eventually ends up before a judge, he has to put aside all of the rhetoric from both sides and look at what the law says. The law says you have freedom of speech and are within your right to do it......regardless of how tasreless it is. I'm NOT arguing in favor of allowing gays in scouting. All I'm saying is that as long as the BSA choses to use the verbiage they have in their policy, they have created a "loophole" that would legally allow an unavowed gay person to remain in scouting. BSA is perfectly within their right to close the loophole if they see fit to do so and probably should. I strongly dislike legalism, but some issues have to boil down to that to get past all of the passion that blinds the debate. As I said earlier, I'm just trying to play fair. We are free to interpret the spirit of the law, but at the end of the day, the letter of the law will come out on top.

 

One other note, I agree that a gay person confiding his sexual orientation to another scouter puts the scouter in a difficult position. If I remember correctly, the scouters that TJ confided in were people he already knew disagreed with the gay ban. I don't think they would necessarily feel they are in a tight spot. But that is a seperate issue from making a avowal of being gay.

 

Another note, "assume" has a definition too. As I pointed out, the UMC policy didn't say anything about a church official being REQUIRED to report a confidence. It provided a warning to the person who is confiding that what they said can not be assumed to be confidential. It might be kept in confidence, it might not. It is up to the person holding the information to decide what to do with it.

 

Like it or not, agree with it or not, those are facts, not opinions. My opinion is that gays should not be in scouting and that the BSA has a right to exclude them.

[SR540Beaver]

slont,

 

Yes, Paul ASKS the slaveholder to free his slave because the slave had been sent to attend to Paul during imprisonment. The slave became a Christian and a friend of Paul's, so Paul makes an impassioned plea for the man to be given his freedom. Paul did not tell his benefactor that it was wrong, immoral or a sin to own a slave and therefore as a follower of Christ he must free his slave. Hebasically said, this guy did right by me and I think you should set him free. If you want to charge me for anything he owes you, do it. This scripture passage really has nothing to do with whether slavery is wrong in the eyes of God. In my study, the Bible acknowledges slavery and gives laws for how slaves should be treated, but never says it is wrong. It presents slavery as undesirable for the peron being enslaved and says that God's people should not enslave one another, but that they can enslave people of other lands. Is the world wrong in finding slavery immoral when God recognizes it and lays down specific laws for the treatment of slaves? The Bible does not say, "this is wrong, but since you are going to do it anyway, here is how it should be done". God gave man some laws (divorce as an example) because of the hardness of mens hearts. Right or wrong, he knew they were going to do it anyway, so he gave rules of how it should be handled. This isn't the case with slavery.

 

What say ye, Brothers?

[littlebillie]

kwc57,

 

I think at its broadest, the text may be interpreted to suggest that a Christian should not keep a CHRISTIAN slave. And at its narrowest, it really did address this single situation, and Paul wanted O to go back to him to keep on helping him out in his old age.

 

In either case, it doesn't seem to condemn slavery itself, only a certain kind, with an overriding sense of "that which is Caesar's". Sending the slave back to his owner in the first place seems to recognize the Biblical legitimacy of slavery, as does the offer to pay.

 

just a perspective.

[Rooster7]

But no, some folks would rather have every gay kid grow up thinking he's slime, an abomination, and not worthy of associating with decent God-fearing folk - here's where some of the suicides come from.

 

Nice. So now we're responsible for the suicides of confused boys. Since you've opened this can worms, allow me to state it the way it is -

 

No. The BSA and other like-minded, God-fearing (and God-loving) folks do not want every "gay kid" to "grow up thinking he's slime" What we want is for confused kids to realize that homosexuality is not something they have to embrace. While heterosexuality is a natural attraction, no boy or man is compelled, beyond his ability to abstain, to have sex with a woman. If this was not so, every boy and man would be a rapist. If a boy or man can abstain from sexual urges that are natural, certainly abstaining from unnatural urges is within the realm of possibility. And even if some fail, while we should respect God's righteousness and fear His wrath; He is also a loving and forgiving God. We should be encouraging these confused boys to seek the counsel of their families and churches. If there is a conflict with the value systems of these families and their churches, the parents of these boys are to blame, not the BSA. The BSA has never hide the fact that they are a traditional values based organization. If "enlightened parents" and "contemporary churches" want to preach a guiltless value system that's their business. They are free to do so. But to blame the BSA and its supporters, because their children become suicidal, is ludicrous. The BSA's traditional values system is filled with "round holes". It's the parents and unconscionable ideologues that are trying to pound "square pegs", which they created, into those round holes. The conflict, and any subsequent suicides, is the result of those stubborn people that have embarked on this Godless crusade.

 

I just wish that some folks would wake up and realize that their political crusades are causing young men to stumble and God will hold those folks accountable.

 

And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. "Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! Matthew 18:5-7

 

kwc57,

 

In regard to the slavery issue, there is a link on another thread within this forum that outlines the anti-slavery position of the Bible. I'll try to find it. Regardless, here are three significant points that jump out at me: 1) Not every story in the Bible necessarily represents God's view or teaching on a moral issue. That is to say, just because there are stories of murder in the Bible, that does not mean God condones murder. Of course, we know, He does not condone murder because of the Ten Commandments and other teachings. 2) The fact that the Bible may appear to be silent on an issue does not mean - God does not care or that He does not view it as sin. To my knowledge, the Bible does not speak to pedophilia, but we should have no doubt that it is sin. 3) Lastly, there is a big difference between a bondservant and a slave. Some translations do not make that distinction. It's important because a bondservant is fulfilling an obligation. This arrangement could have come about a number of different ways, but it's not a unilateral arrangement (i.e., forced slave labor with no benefit for anyone but the "owner"). Even so, it cannot be said that God endorsed this arrangement either, just because its not addressed as a moral issue in the Bible.

[berkshirescouter]

Here is my two cents; Could the BSA use of the word 'avowed' with no applied definition be a way to have local option on this question without calling it that? TJ if you don't advocate in public or in front of the scouts maybe national feels there is no issue. It looks like don't ask don't tell has always been there.

[NJCubScouter]

Its Trail Day asks:

 

Could the BSA use of the word 'avowed' with no applied definition be a way to have local option on this question without calling it that?

 

Personally, I think the answer to that is, No. I think the Dale case supports that conclusion. There is no mention that his troop was ever consulted. Once the council found out, he was sent a letter saying (in essence) that his association with the BSA and any of its units was terminated. Now, one might say, his sexuality was basically announced in the newspaper, they couldn't just "look the other way." But that sort of proves my point. If "local option" only exists in the narrow category of cases in which it is not clear whether the person has "avowed" or not, then there isn't really a meaningful local option.

 

Now one might say, there may be units in which some other Scouters "know" someone is gay, and the person does not try to hide it, but nobody outside the unit knows. Some people have written that they know of such situations. TJ is in a similar situation, in which some Scouters (including at district and/or council level) "know." But the problem there is, all it takes is one person to tell council, and that's it. That means that you could have ten leaders in a troop, nine say nothing, but one decides to make a report. That gives any one person veto power over the local option, and again, that does not sound like much of a local option to me.

[CubsRgr8]

littlebillie stated, about the UUA religious award program:

 

Basically, the BSA has said that if the church teaches that gays are ok, then the church can't give sponsored youth a religious award...

 

Umm - how to put it politely? - littlebillie, you're incorrect. What BSA actually says is that the UUA religious award is not recognized by BSA, and therefore is not valid for wear on the BSA uniform.

 

Nothing prevents an UUA scout from earning the award. In fact, "the UUA is unilaterally conferring the award on those Scouts who seek it and meet the requirements." (see www.uua.org/ga/ga01/5052.htlm) The process of earning and giving the award is completely controlled by the issuing religious body, not BSA.

(This message has been edited by CubsRgr8)

[littlebillie]

CubsRgr8 - you are absolutely right - there's nothing to stop the Church from presenting the award; the problem is that the award is not authorized to be worn w/uniform. I stand corrected and extend apologies for any misunderstanding I may have created. You are right when you say "The process of earning and giving the award is completely controlled by the issuing religious body, not BSA."

 

BUT - the authorization to wear the award with the uniform has been withheld by the BSA, and I do not believe that my comments stray to far from the real reasons therefor. If you look at a list of religious awards authorized to be worn - well, there are many, MANY so favored...

[littlebillie]

Rooster, I'm not saying that the BSA is directly responsible for these suicides - and I am sorry if I worded it in a way that was unclear. For so many adolescents, it's the perception of a cruel, uncaring peer group and the influence of family and other authority that can be blamed for many, if not most, suicides (at least those not caused by broken hearts).

 

The point that I really REALLY want to make is that the BSA is in a position to help out these kids and help prevent a great deal of tragedy. Uniquely so, I'd say.

 

When should you give up on a kid? Certainly not BEFORE you try to help him...

[Quixote]

littlebillie,

 

your statement "if those are the good ol' boys of the Klan, then the FBI should never have infiltrated..." is more than a little insulting. BSA may not be as open to all as you would have it, but to compare it to the KKK is ridiculous.

 

As far as having a homosexual man as a role model for a confused and possibly homosexual boy, you logic stopped there. If you were to truly believe that homosexuality is such a bad thing, I seriously doubt you would advocate said boy to be around a homosexual man for guidance.

 

kwc - tj told "in confidence" a scout exec. - that is a TRUE STATEMENT OF FACT.

 

how does telling an official representative of the BSA become confidential - you are assuming (and yes, i'm using the right definitions) that tj is only avowed by anothers actions when in fact, only tj can avow his homosexuality which he has ALREADY done by informing someone who is a) his friend, but more germane to this discussion b) a scouting executive.

 

Therefore, the BSA has officially been informed BY tj himself that he is homosexual. If the scout exec doesn't do anything about it, that's another thing entirely.

[SR540Beaver]

Quixote,

 

This has all already been covered in previous posts. TJ does put himself at risk by confiding in friends who are fellow scouters. He also puts his friends (as souters) in a difficult position. Now it is up to his friends who are scouters to decide whether they keep the confidnece their friend entrusted to them or reports it higher up the line. TJ has said that the scouters he has confided this to are people that he already knew disagreed with the ban on gays.

 

Again, to avow is to make something publically known to everyone. To confide is to entrust information to certain individual(s). The fact that the person confided in is a friend/scouter does not necessarily make it avowed. It just puts you at risk and puts the other person in a difficult position.

[ASM7]

Those misguided about what the Bible says about homosexuality, might want to read Leviticus 18 and then go on to the New Testament and read Romans 1.

 

My question for any homosexual is, If you think that what you do is OK and natural, then why are you so hesitant to come out and stand up for yourself? Timidity seems to be a trait. I think my relations with my wife is OK and natural and I don't have any reservations about hugging, kissing, or dancing with her in public. Could it be that maybe you do think it is wrong? I do believe that homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle, a sinful one!

 

At first, I said that TJ should bow out gracefully, but now I have changed my mind. I think he should be a man, or whatever, and stand up for what he believes and then receive whatever he gets for doing it.

 

Maybe you can tell that I'm not one of those PC guys. Sorry if this offends some of you. NAAAA!