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

[NJCubScouter]

TT: True, and I can remember posters in this forum saying that even though the BSA presents this is purely an issue of having "appropriate role models for the values expresses in the Scout Oath and Law" (or words to that effect), they believed that the BSA was really trying to "kill two birds with one stone." (The other "bird" being the issue you are talking about.) What I think that argument misses is that if the BSA really equated gay leadership with child abuse, they could not logically have a "don't ask don't tell" policy or focus the policy only on "avowed" homosexuals. They would really have to "ask", and exclude all those who are "determined" to be gay, not just those who "avow" it. But they don't. In fact I seem to recall a situation a few years ago (reported on this forum) in which a camp staffer was not "avowed", but was asked if he was gay, said yes, was fired, and then when it was realized that BSA policy was violated, he got his job back -- even though he had "admitted" he was gay.

 

And when there are these occasional, terrible stories about a Scoutmaster or other Scouter who sexually abused youth members, there is almost invariably a paragraph in the article that says something like "Smith's neighbors, when interviewed, said they were shocked at the allegations. They all said Smith was such a good family man, typical suburban husband and father, always helping his neighbors", etc.

[Oak Tree]

Why does your moral code outweigh my moral code?

 

Shortridge, I think you are asking this is both a rhetorical and non-rhetorical sense. On one hand, you don't really think anyone can provide an argument for this, so it's rhetorical. You don't expect a real answer. On the other hand, you are truly curious to hear if anyone can provide an argument for this.

 

On some points like this one, it can be hard to argue why an organization like the BSA should choose one moral viewpoint over another. However, I'll note that in more extreme examples, the BSA chooses one moral viewpoint over another all the time. There have been religions that sacrificed children. There have certainly been religious arguments in favor of slavery. There are religions that tell you not to pledge your allegiance to the flag of the US. I feel fairly confident I could find some type of "religion" that says you don't have a duty to God. I also feel confident that there could be some religion out there that doesn't believe that being "obedient" is moral.

 

The BSA, though, has chosen to side with the moral viewpoint that the Scout Oath and Scout Law are part of a moral code that outweighs other moral codes.

 

In fact, in order to have any moral code at all, you have to choose one over another.

 

The hard part for me is not that the choice has to be made. It's that being straight gets lumped in with all the other parts of the Oath and Law. Why is that included? I think it's part because of the Christian heritage, in part because homosexual acts have historically largely been considered immoral by most religions, and in part because of the perceived pedophile issue.

[Beavah]

My religion, or to be more precise, the "movement" I associate with in my religion, has openly gay rabbis...

 

Yah, I think you're sufferin' from what should be called a biased sample, there, NJCubScouter. Reform Judaism makes up 35% of the nominal American Jewish population, amountin' to less than 1% of the American population and a small fraction of the worldwide Jewish population. And as yeh say, you're talkin' about a sub-movement within Reform Judaism.

 

That does not a trend make. There will always be small sects at the fringes that believe all sorts of things. Some may even persist to become mainstream. That's just not where it's at right now. The number of ultra-orthodox sects of your faith in all likelihood outnumber the sub-movement within the Reform community that yeh embrace.

 

My point was only that shortridge is wrong to attribute the issue to only one religion or religious viewpoint. Aside from small sects like your own or the UUA, there is relatively unanimity, at least a large majority, among religions of all flavors on this issue. It's even frowned on by those whose religions don't generally impose a moral code, like the Dalai Lama.

 

So it's fine to disagree, eh? Let's just not put it all on one religious group.

 

Yes, once upon a time slavery was legal. But we are talking about 2012. Can you find me a single person in the USA or the Western world that honestly believes that slavery is right on any level? I doubt it.

 

That's good, eh? That's because religious folks who believed in universal morality worked hard over many centuries to eliminate the practice. Many of 'em gave the last full measure of devotion to that cause. Removin' the acceptance of slavery from the world is a monument to those people of faith and action. Christendom, at least for the moment, has won that particular fight in the western world.

 

We thought we'd won the struggle against various sexual issues after the fall of decadent Rome, but it seems when a civilization becomes wealthy and cosmopolitan and arrogant enough that sort of thing re-emerges durin' its decline. It's sort of part and parcel with other attitudes. Much of your Europe these days is heathen, eh? Declining birth rates, economic weakness, decayed empire. No surprise yeh feel all the moral compunction of ancient Rome.

 

Beavah

 

[fred8033]

... sigh ...

 

how do I get the last 15 minutes back ????

[Horizon]

Fred - you know the old joke about jokes by the numbers? (if not, a version is below) I sometimes think that for this discussion a list of the standard arguments and rebuttals would save a lot of 0s and 1s in the transmission.

 

The only new ground today is the news article, and the general shift in tone vs. 10 years ago.

 

For example, Beavah is trying to paint the progressive Christian side with a broad brush dipped in the paint of decadent Rome. This has been done before, and it is still just as vile in its inferences and insinuations.

 

The standard response would be to point out that it was his fellow conservative Christians who backed slavery to the hilt, using the writings of Paul to justify their barbarism. It was progressive Christians who fought for the rights of blacks in America - not the conservative ones. The conservative ones are the ones at Bob Jones that only dropped the rules against mixed race dating in recent years after all. We could assign a number to this response (maybe a linked FAQ!)

 

The fight will go on. Many of the arguments will stay constant, the only shift is the shift in our culture. We let women work and vote, we elect a black president, we allow gays to be out in public - no doubt to some our nation to some is headed to hell, to others we are growing up.

--------------

A man is sent to prison for the first time. At night, the lights in the cell block are turned off, and his cellmate goes over to the bars and yells, "Number twelve!" The whole cell block breaks out laughing. A few minutes later, somebody else in the cell block yells, "Number four!" Again, the whole cell block breaks out laughing.

 

The new guy asks his cellmate what's going on. "Well," says the older prisoner, "we've all been in this here prison for so long, we all know the same jokes. So we just yell out the number instead of saying the whole joke."

 

So the new guy walks up to the bars and yells, "Number six!" There was dead silence in the cell block. He asks the older prisoner, "What's wrong? Why didn't I get any laughs?"

 

"Well," said the older man, "sometimes it's not the joke, but how you tell it."

[scoutingagain]

With multiple states and whole countries with billions of people recognizing gay marriage, with multiple established religious institutions with millions of members recognizing gay leadership, with hundreds of private employers, with millions of employees, hiring and accepting gay employees, with gay government leaders, with gay members of the military, it's difficult to buy the argument that the idea accepting gay people as regular members of society is some kind of fringe concept.

 

 

SA

[Beavah]

 

The standard response would be to point out that it was his fellow conservative Christians who backed slavery to the hilt

 

Not my fellow conservative Christians, eh? My ancestors were abolitionists, and Lincoln Republicans, and at least a few did give the Last Full Measure of Devotion in union blue.

 

I think you're confusin' Christendom with the state religion of the Confederacy, which had sadly parted ways from Christianity for a fair spell. That's the difficulty with state religions. They've slowly come back 'round, but such things take time.

 

I reckon you're also mixin' up the statements of individual adherents with the position of the religion. If we're to judge any group by its most whacky individual adherents then we're all doomed.

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle]

Wow, so many local references..where to begin...

Cambridgeskip, "Can you find me a single person in the USA or the Western world that honestly believes that slavery is right on any level?"

I can, within a 10-mile radius of this keyboard, find at least a score of such individuals. Expand that radius and I can show you many, many more. Today. Did you ever wonder how a community got the name of 'Sunset'?

 

Ahhhh, the good Reverend Furman. Namesake of a venerable institution which I know quite well. Just remember, Beavah, that Furman was a New Yorker. 'Yankee' does not automatically translate into 'abolitionist'.

The institution, fortunately, has changed and rejected the views of the man for whom they were named. They basically told the Southern Baptist Convention to 'take a hike'. Good for them. Not so good, on the other hand for poor Shorter College (now a university), the crazies are taking over! According to my inside scoop there, 50% of the faculty have already announced their departure...ahhhh, the Darwinian selection process, I love it so.

 

And then the reference to good ol' Bob Jones (same town as the good Rev. Furman's intellectual offspring), one of my favorite hate-mongers (Jones, that is), and founder of another good Christian University bearing his name, and who famously and publicly, at a sermon from the pulpit, labeled First Lady Betty Ford a slut. You know, people just were afraid to take him on the way they did poor Rush Limbaugh. Maybe if Rush had covered himself with a veil of sanctimonious reverence and backed up his slur with Biblical authority...he wouldn't have had to apologize (insincerely) the way Bob Jones didn't.

 

NJ is right. BSA painted itself into a corner. Local option is the only way out...BSA can't possibly DO what the homophobes want and I doubt BSA even wants to. It's bad enough already.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[DLChris71]

Homosexuality is not equivalent to slavery.

 

The acceptance of homosexuals into leadership positions amongst certain Christian religion can not be done with the backing of scripture. Scripture such as Matthew 22:36-40 is often sighted by liberal congregations. But what these congregations ignore is how and to what limit this is achieved by Christ. They sight some of Paul's letters, then ignore others. If anything the congregations that have adapted portions of the bible to re-enforce their social argument for the acceptance of homosexuality are more akin to pro-slavery writers.

 

Christ confirms that all people are important and were created by God. But at the same time he said over and over that he would rejoice for the recovery of the lost sheep. The key word was that they are lost. Yes, Christ won the battle over death and sin, and yes Christ is the only way. However Christ also did not live in sin, he was innocent under the law and the epicenter of the new covenant.

 

So a homosexual and everyone else should be in church, should receive respect and love and support in putting their sins behind them. They should not be treated in a derogatory manner. Thus referring to any person in a negative derogatory manner by either side of the argument to me is wrong. Even if the use of the derogatory term is used by the opposition, referencing homosexuals, in order to elicit an emotional response.

[packsaddle]

While slavery is almost the most extreme way to deny rights, denial of rights to people because of who they love IS denial of rights to a group. If you think homosexuality is a choice then it is denial on the basis of conscience, and if you think homosexuality is their 'nature' then it is essentially the same as denial on the basis of race.

I can't know, for sure, whether or not any of the members of this forum actually hate gay people. I do know for sure that those who would deny rights to gay people (BSA membership policy included) have that in common with the people I know who for sure DO hate gay people.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Eagledad]

>>It was progressive Christians who fought for the rights of blacks in America - not the conservative ones.

[NJCubScouter]

Beavah,

 

First of all I did not say I was talking about a "sub-movement" within Reform Judaism. I do not even know what that means. I would say that the idea of inclusion of gays in society, without branding them as "sinners", is mainstream thought within Reform Judaism. It has some adherents in Conservative Judaism as well. What percentage of American Jewish people that is as a whole, it really doesn't matter. (And yes, I said American, I don't really think people in other countries are relevant to this discussion, one way or the other.)

 

Second of all, I'll choose to ignore the implications of you calling Reform Judaism one of the "small sects at the fringes that believe all sorts of things." Yeah, we believe in all sorts of things, like treating people with respect. Crazy, huh? Many Reform congregations even require their Bar/Bat Mitzvah candidates to do a community service project. Wild.

 

Third of all, when you add UUA, many Episcopalians, some Presbyterians, some Methodists, United Church of Christ, and probably other people I've never even heard of or don't know their views on this subject, it's not such a tiny fringe. I don't know the percentage who feel one way or the other, or in between, but then again neither do you, Beavah. Which brings us to this gem:

 

Aside from small sects like your own or the UUA, there is relatively unanimity, at least a large majority, among religions of all flavors on this issue.

 

With all due respect, counsellor, you're just making that up. There is nothing like "relative unanimity" on this subject. As for "large majority," well, I'll give you "majority," at least for this year. I don't know how large it is. And perhaps more to the point, how large does it have to be before the BSA becomes "morally correct" in ignoring the views of the minority on this "moral" issue? (And to me, it is a moral issue -- excluding gay people is wrong. That's why I generally don't get involved in discussions of how changing, or not changing, would affect the BSA's membership or finances. Changing to a local option would mean the BSA was doing the right thing, which is good enough for me.)

 

I think you're just making up a number of other things as well, but I don't have time to deal with it right now. Your Rome analogy is just ridiculous. I would go on, but what I would say next would get the moderators "on alert," and I don't wish to make them earn their exorbitant pay today.

[NJCubScouter]

Horizon, I have heard that joke too, but I think it was set in a country club, not a prison. I guess it's a matter of who you hang out with, although actually I have been in more prisons than country clubs.

 

Eagledad, actually, unless you were previously registered under another name, it appears I have been a member here about eight and a half months longer than you have. Admittedly I have taken a few breaks in the middle, one as long as two years, so I would call it a tie. The point is, I have seen a change in the past 3-4 years, specifically that of the people who have been joining since then, a majority (and an increasing percentage) seem to favor a change in the policy. I think that more than outweighs the Roosters and BobWhites and others who don't post about it anymore, especially when you consider those on "my side" who don't post here anymore either. Anyway, it's not a big issue, just an observation.

[Eagledad]

>>it's not a big issue, just an observation.

[NJCubScouter]

Eagledad,

 

Yeah, it happens.

 

I think I have a lower profile on these forums than you and many of the others, because I sort of come and go as time and interest permit. So it might not seem that I have been around as long as I have. You do have more posts than I do. I would have more if we included the posts I thought about writing or wrote one sentence of, but then got distracted and never actually posted.