its baaackk.... BSA policy on homosexuals and leadership

[DLChris71]

Paper Clip vs. Murder

 

I don't know that I'm much of a convincing type. If I had foreknowlege of such things I would ask the person why they wanted to do such a thing. Talk to them about why it is wrong. And then failing that I would have to offer up my own paper clip/life to protect someone else and/or seek assistance from a higher authority.

 

But these are things that a person would do, and I understand that some may disagree. But then God holds all sin to be equal. You might think that a paper clip is not equivalent to a life, or that it might not be worth losing a friend or a life for certain things.

 

In either event trying to deal with someone with a sin weighing on them, for it does weigh on a person's soul once it is even considered, should be done with as much grace, humility, and love as possible.

 

I am often reminded that unlike Christ's original 12 disciples, who you could see and hear about their sins and failings, that really to me Paul's admission that sin weighed on him and that he was only able to proceed with the grace of God to be the most telling. Though not as graphic as Job in the Old Testament.

 

When making these choices a person has to acknowledge who's going to know and who is going to judge. God will always know and his judgement is final. Then also an unrepentant paper clip thief and unrepentant murderer? Really you wouldn't want to open your kitchen table to either.

 

 

Beavah- I think your post about freedom to choose was very apt. Sorry if you (and others) don't get the "sin by degree", I didn't quite know how better to describe some people's perception that stealing a penny is less a sin than stealing a dollar, etc.

[packsaddle]

DLChris71, life is full of choices. My hypothetical is a loaded one as Beavah has sensed. The intent is first to see if you can make a choice (you didn't as far as I can tell). And second, by allowing you to explain that choice, it will allow me to understand better what you are trying to communicate with respect to sin-by-degree.

So if you cannot choose between preventing petit theft and preventing murder, just say so. As it is that seems to be the case and you seem to have explained why you cannot make such a choice.

 

P.S. If "physical harm" was all there was to this, it would be an easy answer. I'm aware that there are more than one aspect of "spiritual harm" involved and that is the part I'd like you to explain if you can. But you have to choose first. Or admit that you can't.

 

Edit: Oops, Lisa, I don't intend to 'equate' paperclips and lives ...to me the choice is easy on all levels. And if anyone needs paperclips, just ask. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[RememberSchiff]

Back to the OP, imagine if Ms. Tyrell resided in West Virginia instead of nearby Ohio and was removed as den leader and booted from the BSA.

 

Would there have been a public outcry by the citizens of WV to the Governor and State House to intervene, perhaps curb state support services for the Summit? Would any council board members resign there ( as I understand one did resign in Ohio)? Would economic forces have prevailed over any other considerations? Or something else?

 

I wonder.

[Fehler]

My bible doesn't say homosexuality is a sin. The BSA makes it very clear that it does not promote a specific faith. Disagree with my faith you can, but you cannot force my chartered organization to deny a leadership position on the basis of a tenant to which it doesn't adhere.

[DLChris71]

Packsaddle- Ah, I did not see where I had to choose one or the other, with both at the same time. If I were to choose which one to attempt to intercede on it would have to be the murder of course. However God still views both as a sin and as such both would need to be addressed.

 

So a scout is juggling axes around the campfire and another is off stealing a patch out of a tent. We stop the axe juggling first. But we don't just let the patch thief off the hook because we are exasperated by the more dangerous situation.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

"My bible says..."

 

That's nice.

 

Earlier I said something to the effect that if you "go to see the cow, you should expect to hear it moo." So BSA has a policy on homosexuals, sends a representative to the world council, and there is a vote on human rights for all regardless of everything including sexual choice. Mind you that such an open ended motion opens up the platform to homosexuality, sodomy, bestiality, etc. So they hold the vote and surprise the BSA votes against...the cow goes moo.

 

You wish to debate with me about the BSA policy on homosexuality. I'm against it. I have a religious belief that I have talked about here. You say that your bible doesn't agree with my bible, or you want to talk about ranking the importance of sin. My position is that God is an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. He describes what is right and wrong. I am bound by love of God and thanks for his providence in my life to live by his commands and to encourage others to do so.

 

Whether "you" listen and agree with me is in the larger scheme of things irrelevant to me. I am bound though to follow my God or suffer the consequences. If asked should a sinner be in a leadership position in anything, my answer is no. Should someone that repents be in a leadership position, yes so long as being placed in that position would not unduly tempt the person. A recovering alcoholic should not be running a bar. Whether "I" listen and agree with the commandments and instructions left to me is relevant to me since my actions must be accounted for. Thus if you go to see the cow, expect it to moo.

 

So if there is nothing else I will simply moo.

 

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

I have to say, I actually find DLChris's approach somewhat refreshing. He basically says, "I have the rules that should govern everybody right here in this book, and the BSA should impose them on everybody else." Obviously I disagree with him, but it's a straightforward argument, and either you agree with it or you disagree with it. I prefer it to arguments like, for example, "If the BSA changes the policy the LDS will leave" or "membership will go down" or "membership will go up" or whatever. Who cares? All of that is just politics. Like DLChris, I believe this is a simple matter of "right and wrong", I just think he has the "right and wrong" backwards.

[Beavah]

Disagree with my faith you can, but you cannot force my chartered organization to deny a leadership position on the basis of a tenant to which it doesn't adhere.

 

Of course not Fehler. And the BSA would never attempt to. It might choose not to grant yeh a charter or recognize your religious award, though, but it doesn't have any interest at all in changin' your CO's position on such things. We just expect yeh to show equal respect to the BSA's position.

 

If asked should a sinner be in a leadership position in anything, my answer is no.

 

Whew. Holy Smoke! Yeh must have an awful hard time votin' for anyone for anything, DLChris71.

 

Now I reckon that there is a spiritual truth to what yeh say, eh? Recognizing Jesus as Lord is essentially a statement that all other 'leadership positions' are bogus in the end. For the things that really matter, there is only one leader, and he is sinless.

 

But I reckon a patrol still needs a patrol leader. In fact, left with no direction at all a leader is likely to emerge. Do yeh really expect all of your PLC to be perfect, even as our Heavenly Father is perfect? Seems like we wouldn't need scouting in that case. We'd be back in Eden.

 

Might I inquire as to your denomination, DLChris71? I'm not really aware of any that take the position yeh do on "sin by degree". I'm curious if this is a personal position yeh have developed or whether it's one that is being taught as a formalism in some faith communities.

 

B

 

[Fehler]

Wow, he's drifting into "Man-on-Dog" territory.

 

 

[Tampa Turtle]

I don't know how this forum, in all it's religious diversity can agree on a concept of sin. Though it is fun to observe.

 

I do know, personally, the deeper I get in my faith and the more I apply it in the real world the messier it seems to get.

 

Of course if we were to eliminate sinners from being BSA leaders it would be slim pickings indeed. I get mighty covetous over some others camping gear. And must confess to the occasional impure thought watching Scarlett Johansson in that Avengers trailer. (must be those rubber britches) But that makes me a Hetero Sinner so I guess that is OK.

[shortridge]

So according to Chris and Beavah, it boils down to this:

 

1. SINNERS!!!! Gays who say they are bad and won't love again are repentant and unavowed, and are this OK, while people who want to love as their hearts tell them are not OK.

2. Might is right. Because the people who believe No. 1, above, have the most votes, that means their position is correct, and everyone else has to take it or leave it, even though Scouts are Reverent toward God, faithful in their religious duties and respectful of the beliefs of others.

 

Except beliefs that say discrimination is a sin, I suppose.

[NJCubScouter]

Fehler, in these discussions, that subject almost always manages to make an appearance.

 

Shortridge, I think that about sums it up.

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmm...

 

Not sure that DLChris71 and I have reached an accord on anything that would merit an "according to...". Certainly what yeh describe is nothin' like my own view of the matter, shortridge.

 

In terms of da BSA policy, as a practical matter the organization is set up as a (somewhat bizarrely insular) representative democracy. Just like da U.S., policy is goin' to be set by the majority of the members. I happen to believe in democracy myself, I see it more as an issue of self-determination that enhances rights. That's a practical statement, though, not a moral judgment.

 

I don't think I've ever claimed on a moral basis that might-makes-right, because I certainly don't believe that in the least.

 

I do believe in freedom of association, though. Indeed, I'm rather supportive of alternate youth and scouting movements, and would not object at all if folks who felt differently started their own group. I'm just not sure why I should let them change our group, particularly when we see from our Anglican brothers and sisters that such efforts lead to a great deal of pain and divisiveness, and probably to a separation in any event.

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle]

"...it would have to be the murder of course." And I would agree. The important part, to me, is how you arrived at that choice. (The potential victim, on the other hand, might not care less.)

I know how I arrive at my choice. And part of that process amounts to ranking things according to how I value them, both good and bad. So please explain how you arrive at that particular choice without some kind of 'weighting' for the 'relative' goodness or badness of the outcome, or some other rationale?

Help me out. I really can't see how you can come to that choice without having judged the two options in terms of relative 'degree' of goodness or badness.

 

"However God still views both as a sin and as such both would need to be addressed."

Who made you God's spokesperson? I place much more validity in your statements if you speak for yourself, and not try to dictate to the rest of us how God views things. As far as I'm concerned, until you persuade me, Fehler's (or anyone else's) version of faith is as valid as yours.

 

RememberSchiff, I'd guess that she would not have gotten much help in West Virginia but I don't know that for sure. What I do know is that she HAS gotten some sympathy in the present situation.

 

 

[Horizon]

An issue BSA has to face with this particular case is a very sympathetic plaintiff. Rosa Parks was not the first one to refuse to give up her seat, but she was the best one to rally behind. Heller was not the first person to fight for his 2nd Amendment rights, but his background made him a great person to be the face of the case.

 

Jennifer Tyrell makes a much better face, because we don't have the same cultural visceral reaction to lesbians as we have to gay men. You can't accuse her of trying to get close to young boys, or pedophile tendencies, or anything like that. Even more, she is in a committed relationship and just trying to be the Den Leader for her son.

 

So the child molesting red herring can't be used on this one, and instead we are left with the moral clause.

[Eagledad]

>>Who made you God's spokesperson?