The Community Organizer in Chief and the BSA Report to the Nation

[TheScout]

"But I'm sorry that you think it's "nonsense" to have to tell a group of 15 year old Scouts that BSA thinks that homosexuals can not be the "best type of citizen", while full well knowing that some of those boys will eventually discover that THEY are homosexual.

 

This is the way I see ("skew") it: BSA is telling two minority groups that they are not welcome while at the same time knowing it has no factual basis for claiming they can not be the "best type of citizens"."

 

Not everything can be based on facts. Some things have basis in faith alone. Why not try to improve boys by trying to get them away from bad lifestyle choices? Isn't that what we are about?

 

The real question is what is a bad lifestyle choice. We all have different views. Why should we discourage smoking, but not homosexuality? Or insert any other behavior we discourage.

 

 

"skeptic, why can the BSA make some people pariahs by excluding them, but it's not OK for people to make the BSA or their members pariahs? Seems to follow the golden rule."

 

Because one side is on the side of God and His morality, the other is not.

 

 

[Trevorum]

Homosexuality is NOT A "LIFESTYLE CHOICE".

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

TheScout, you don't seem to understand the golden rule. If the BSA treats some people like pariahs (and they do), it shouldn't even be surprising, much less objectionable, when people treat the BSA and/or its members as pariahs also. The golden rule doesn't say that people on "god's side" get to treat other people like pariahs with no backlash. It doesn't refer to whether one party is "right" or "wrong" at all. It just says treat other people the way you would like to be treated. Since the BSA treats some people like pariahs, they're reaping what they sow.

 

That's about enough biblical references for this atheist for now.

[TheScout]

Nobody makes one man have sex with another. It is a choice.

 

We all have sinful urges which we must fight.

[OldGreyEagle]

SO, does this mean we are back to the nature of Homosexuality and whether or not a person can be born Gay?

 

Gern, may I add a corrollory to Gern's law:

 

The longer a thread runs in the Issues & Politics section of Scouter.Com, the probability that the question of Homosexuality being a choice or inate being discussed approaches 1 (one)(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[skeptic]

Trev:

"This is the way I see ("skew") it: BSA is telling two minority groups that they are not welcome while at the same time knowing it has no factual basis for claiming they can not be the "best type of citizens". "

 

First of all, no reputable leader is telling the scouts either/or in relation to homosexuality; it is not a topic for discussion. But, if it becomes a problem due to various scenarios (most, again likely due to adult intervention), then they could be asked to leave. As far as Atheists are concerned; they cannot meet the criteria of membership. If they choose to adher to those beliefs, or lack of, then they cannot be members. No one is saying they are "BAD" people (or, at least nobody should be saying that), simply that they do not meet the parameters for membership.

 

Why is it so hard for a few to understand that membership is a privilege, no matter what the organization? Why do a few feel they somehow should change a group, rather than live their lives as they choose, and let others do the same? As has been stated and reinforced numerous times on these forums; scouting is not for everybody! It has requirements for membership. If you do not meet them, and do not like them, then find something else to do. The harder you push, the less effective you will be. Case in point; more private donations directly to Scouting, and fewer to United Way in some parts of the country when the PC people were able to make it an issue. Who got hurt the worst; Scouting, who got direct donations in excess of what they would have gotten, or the UW, which lost money which might have gone to other worthwhile organizations as well as Scouting?

 

Merlyn: While I cannot prove it by any means, I can say that I know of no active leaders on the basic level in my area who make these things an issue, period. And, on the rare occasion that something rears its head, the youth involved are made to understand pretty quickly that disagreement with people does not mean they are bad people or, "pariahs" (thanks for adding the h). The negative tone in most of these discussions is from outside the organization on both sides for the most part. And, so we get back to the reality that there are a few fringe people who do not really care about the youth involved, only in their personal crusades and ideologies.

 

Anyone who recognizes themselves, put the shoe on and walk away for a change.

 

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, GreyEagle's Law.

 

Once again we're off into the land of shoutin'.

 

why can the BSA make some people pariahs by excluding them

 

Yah, clearly we're either bein' hyperbolic or we don't know the definition or history of the word pariah. Simply excludin' someone is nowhere near treating them as pariahs. I expect that you'd call the cops if the local homeless fellow came in and set up on your couch, eh? But excludin' him from your couch isn't the same thing as treatin' the homeless as pariahs. It might mean you're treatin' the homeless like your mother-in-law .

 

But I'm sorry that you think it's "nonsense" to have to tell a group of 15 year old Scouts that BSA thinks that homosexuals can not be the "best type of citizen"

 

Yah, you're getting things all mixed up. Been around Merlyn too long. "Best kind of citizen" is from the DRP, and refers to belief in a higher power. Has nuthin' at all to do with sexuality.

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Excluding someone because their beliefs make them incapable of being "the best kind of citizen" is almost the textbook definition of a pariah; someone shunned because of their lower social status.

[Trevorum]

Sorry about the shouting. Never works anyway.

And you're right about the DRP

[TheScout]

"Excluding someone because their beliefs make them incapable of being "the best kind of citizen" is almost the textbook definition of a pariah; someone shunned because of their lower social status."

 

So? Do you think we should accept someone with immoral beliefs?

 

[BrentAllen]

Merlyn,

I'm thinking the BSA does treat others as we wish to be treated. If one of the Gay & Lesbian Associations tell me I can't join because either I'm not a homosexual or because I'm a member of the BSA, it won't bother me a bit. That is their right under free association. They can even claim that I can't be the best kind of citizen unless I'm a member of their group, or believe in gay marriage, or whatever, and it won't bother me a bit. They can think what they want - it doesn't affect me.

[GernBlansten]

OGE, that is covered in Gern's Axiom #6. If a scouter.com thread approaches the topic homosexuality in the slightest, it is impossible to alter its path and will be sucked into a shout-fest of biblical proportions.

[Kudu]

Well, this answers John-In-KC's original question, "Why did the Community Organizer in Chief close the White House to reporting while the BSA delivered its annual report?"

 

Obviously both parties needed time to discuss their shared socialist agenda!

 

The BSA is socialized Scouting, and at a hundred years it is a wonderful example of a successful single-player policy for the President to emulate!

 

This is how socialism works: The BSA agrees to train boys in Scoutcraft using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916. In return Congress picks the BSA as the corporate winner and shields us from free market forces:

 

Sec. 30902. Purposes

 

The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916.

 

What liberals don't understand is that our conservative membership policies are the face of socialism in the 21st century!

 

All the BSA has to do is make the "ethical choice" and stick by the agreement. Which begs the question, if we had to CHOOSE one or the other, what do we value more: Our membership policies, or doing away with "the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916"?

 

"Camping is not necessarily a big thing with them, as a matter of fact in some cases it is not big at all. So we need to kind of think about, is it more important that we reach that child with the kind of things we have for children and we have for families in character development and leadership skill growth and all of those things? Or is it more important that we get them in a tent next week? And so I think the answer to that is fairly obvious to us.

 

"The other is that marvelous passion for family in the Hispanic world and when we say 'we want to take your twelve-year-old son but you can't come' we're making a mistake there. We have to engage an entire family. We need to reach out and do those sorts of things that recognize their cultural issues and accommodate them. For example one of our pilot programs over the last recent years has been Scouting and soccer, using the attraction of the soccer game to gather Hispanic families around...."

 

Robert J. Mazzuca, Chief Scout Executive, Boy Scouts of America

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#29491940

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

TheScout writes:

"Excluding someone because their beliefs make them incapable of being "the best kind of citizen" is almost the textbook definition of a pariah; someone shunned because of their lower social status."

 

So? Do you think we should accept someone with immoral beliefs?

 

What, like Jews you mean?

 

BrentAllen writes:

I'm thinking the BSA does treat others as we wish to be treated.

 

Don't tell me, tell skeptic. He was the one complaining about the BSA being treated like a pariah because the BSA treats some people like pariahs.

[TheScout]

I don't think it is really immoral. Just wrong. Thats why the Catholic liturgy has prayers for the conversion of the Jews.