Current BSA Policy Vs local option poll

[moosetracker]

I never said scouting would explode with the change, more like we will drop in numbers then slowly grow, most likely if we change we will be stronger for it 10 years from now and going forward.. I don't think there are millions chomping at the bit to join scouting when they change the policy.. It is more likely many never became interested in the program because of it and so found some other program to have their children join..

 

I would not leave if it doesn't happen this time around, I will stay and continue to be a voice which pushes for the change.. After all, even if we don't win, it is obvious we are winning, the cracks are in the walls and they are getting bigger everyday.

 

I see your plan just dividing which units choose to go with the traditional scouting program (whatever it be called) and those units that decide to go with the new program (whatever it be named..) and people of those units deciding based upon the units decision to choose to either jump ship or stay.. Basically the same effects a local option, only you are under different names, because the program is the same, the camporees are the same, the camps you go to are the same.. The only thing that differs is if you are inclusive to all, or not..

 

The new inclusive program will bring in more donations, but like with life-long learning, BSA will go after donations by highlighting their inclusive programs and hiding their discriminatory programs under the rug.. But when the money comes in it will be used for all of the scouting programs evenly, especially since we are still using the same camps, and professional services equally..

 

Wow, it is the local option, exactly.. Only with you stating which local option your unit chose up front by putting it in your title..

[dkurtenbach]

What I do NOT understand' date=' is how so many conservatives appear to believe that a yes on the local option means that they are no-longer welcome. Their COs will still be able to follow their own beliefs in their selecting leaders and members, how is allowing others to do the same an attack? [/quote']

 

I think that the concern is this: By continuing to belong to and participate in an organization that welcomes homosexual leaders (even though they are not allowed in their own units), they would be cooperating in an ongoing moral evil. In other words, guilt by association.

 

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

 

 

[packsaddle]

As someone who my wife has ridiculed numerous times for being a WASP, I can tell you that it doesn't automatically point me in the direction of AHG or AHS, whatever. But I suspect the comment was meant with more humor, although my wife sometimes puts an 'edge' on it. (and I probably deserve it too, lol)

(in reality she refers to me as a 'humorless WASP with thin Nazi lips'. I respond, "I do too have a sense of humor!")

But because I used the forbidden term and in honor of OGE, I'd like to ask everyone to try to temper their comments at least for a few days, to honor him. I'll try too.

[dkurtenbach]

I see your plan just dividing which units choose to go with the traditional scouting program (whatever it be called) and those units that decide to go with the new program (whatever it be named..) and people of those units deciding based upon the units decision to choose to either jump ship or stay.. Basically the same effects a local option' date=' only you are under different names, because the program is the same, the camporees are the same, the camps you go to are the same.. The only thing that differs is if you are inclusive to all, or not...[/quote']

 

I see two differences between a program split and the "local option": (1) The program split -- at least one using Learning for Life -- offers a real, legal separation between the program that allows homosexuals and the program that does not. That legal separation is bolstered by the "physical" and monetary separation that must be carried to its reasonable limits. The conservatives cannot be put in a position where they appear to be supporting a program that welcomes gays and lesbians, and they cannot be put in a position where they will have to associate on a regular basis with homosexual Scouts and leaders in the normal course. Under the local option, both those things would be true. (2) The local option offers no security for the conservatives. The pressure to eliminate even the local option will continue. With it will be pressure to drop the belief in God policy as well. Continuing in the BSA will mean that they are constantly fighting a rear-guard action. All the local option would do would be to give them a short breathing space to find or organize a more compatible religious-based program, and then they will leave BSA. With a program split, BSA will be offering a fully inclusive program that does everything the "traditional" program does. The "traditional" program, more tailored to conservative religious organizations, will be much easier to defend. There is a better chance that they will be left alone, particularly if the LFL Scouting program is treated as the "flagship" Scouting program.

 

Anyway, that is my take on it.

 

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

[moosetracker]

So we are to hold two Woodbadge courses per year in our council, one for those who accept homosexuals and one for those who do not?.. At what cost? Why when right now the WB course is for all programs, CS, BS, Varsity, Venturning, and Sea Scouts?.. And it would be the same course..

 

Who will go out and rebuy all the camps sold off so that they don't intermingle at camps?

 

Where will you find the extra District level volunteers to host two seperate camporees and trainings etc?

 

Split the money from donations?? You first have to get them to stop intermingling the LFL donations with the rest of the scouting programs..

 

Forget it, most councils have a difficult time pulling together enough volunteers to keep the current program afloat..

 

But, I do see some benefits also, after all.. The group that is inclusive will be able to add back in scouting groups chartered by schools and other public organizations.. Of course to do this, our inclusiveness would have to be more then homosexuals.. But, why not?.. It seems ridiculous to make such a move as having every unit choose which name they want to be name A or name B, just because 1 or 2 homosexuals just may join your group and not have to hide their spouse or significant other in order to be a leader..

 

Of course that would mean camporees and scout camps intermingled with not only homosexuals, but girls and athiests and people with green hair or rings in their noses..

[dkurtenbach]

Let's start with this: What do you want the result of this policy debate to be, and why? Then we can talk about the real issues related to this very serious, and quite workable, proposal.

 

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

 

[AZMike]

Rick, the bugs won't let me post a comment to your question so I'll respond here. Non-sectarian means the BSA lets in members of any religion. It doesn't mean we adopt all the beliefs of any and all of those religions. We should accept Christian Scientists if they want to join, but we are not obligated to use their theories of faith healing if a Scout breaks his arm. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to join the BSA, but if they wanted to we would welcome them but would not adopt their practice of refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Pretty much every religion allows both males and females to be members, but we do not include girls in the ranks of Boy Scouts. Several Protestant faiths, (including Unitarians, several branches of the Episcopalians, the Disciples of Christ, several of the Lutherans groups that are schisming the denomination over the issue, the UCC, et al) have altered their doctrine to suit the times, and declared that homosexual behavior may not be sinful after all, and that two dudes can get married if they want, a view that probably would have triggered a heart attack if you had suggested it to James Freeman. Fine, obviously you can believe whatever you want, but we are not required to adopt your views to be non-sectarian. If we adopted every religion's new beliefs we would not be non-sectarian, we would be pan-sectarian, which would be impossible due to the divergence of beliefs.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Rick, the bugs won't let me post a comment to your question so I'll respond here. Non-sectarian means the BSA lets in members of any religion. It doesn't mean we adopt all the beliefs of any and all of those religions. We should accept Christian Scientists if they want to join, but we are not obligated to use their theories of faith healing if a Scout breaks his arm. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to join the BSA, but if they wanted to we would welcome them but would not adopt their practice of refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Pretty much every religion allows both males and females to be members, but we do not include girls in the ranks of Boy Scouts. Several Protestant faiths, (including Unitarians, several branches of the Episcopalians, the Disciples of Christ, several of the Lutherans groups that are schisming the denomination over the issue, the UCC, et al) have altered their doctrine to suit the times, and declared that homosexual behavior may not be sinful after all, and that two dudes can get married if they want, a view that probably would have triggered a heart attack if you had suggested it to James Freeman. Fine, obviously you can believe whatever you want, but we are not required to adopt your views to be non-sectarian. If we adopted every religion's new beliefs we would not be non-sectarian, we would be pan-sectarian, which would be impossible due to the divergence of beliefs.

"Non-sectarian means the BSA lets in members of any religion."

 

OK, the BSA isn't non-sectarian. They don't admit atheists who are members of a religion (such as Unitarian-Universalists, Jews, Buddhists, Raelians, various pagans, etc).

[moosetracker]

AZMike - Sorry, I disagree with you.. If we allow in Christian Scientists and there is a unit who is chartered by them and they want to follow their beliefs (be it medicine or what not) we do not force them to conform to a conservative Christian practice.. Likewise, if you had a member who was a christian Scientist in your group and HE broke HIS leg, you would not force him to go to the hospital against his beliefs and adament protests against it.. It is called being reverent of their beliefs.

 

Merlyn why would an atheist be a member of a religion? Do you mean that they were raised in a certain faith but no longer believe or practice it?.. I thought we did allow in Buddhiest and other religions even if their belief in God is practically non-existant. Not sure about pagans, but we should, if you can believe in a rock then that is just as good as believing in the power of sacraficing a chicken, or believing that Satan is a higher power.. After all, all you have to believe in is that something is of a higher power. I don't think I have seen anything that your higher power has to be dressed in white rather then black or red.. Wouldn't be surprised if BSA did not though, probably one of those unwritten rule things..

[Basementdweller]

I think Az is looking to join the american Heritage boys. WASPhood at it's finest.

 

 

I am good with local option.....But I am also concerned how the Anti gay units will treat the units tagged as welcoming gays.

American heritage girls are WASP's regardless of what the pictures of the website show.

[Basementdweller]

Separate but equal...

 

Wasn't that tried once before....How did that work out?? anyone anyone.

[dkurtenbach]

Separate but equal... Wasn't that tried once before....How did that work out?? anyone anyone.

 

1. The first prerequisite is that there has to be "equal" as well as separate -- which was never the case in the example you mention. I think the conservative churches and other organizations who remain in the traditional programs will have the resources to keep up with LFL Scouting.

2. The separation would be totally voluntary, and doesn't force anyone to be separated if they don't want to be -- which was never the case in the example you mention. If gays or lesbians want to remain in the traditional program, they can, under the same conditions as exist now. If someone who doesn't care for homosexuals wants to join an LFL Scouting unit (for example, to meet girls), no problem.

3. The Venturing/Exploring split seems to have worked out.

 

The difference between the result we would have with this proposed split, and the result we would have with either a local option or a complete disavowal of discrimination by BSA is this: Instead of the conservative churches leaving BSA and establishing their own exclusionary programs, they would still be within BSA.

 

I realize that on each side, there are folks who think that the other side is wrong, illegitimate, has no right to assert their fundamentally evil position, and thus deserve no concessions and no consideration. These hardliners on the anti-homosexual side do not favor the local option or any option that would offer anything to the anti-discrimination side. The hardliners on the anti-discrimination side would prefer a complete rejection of the exclusionary policy, but realize that the local option is a foot in the door and their ultimate goal is just a few years away (after local option proves unworkable); and they would not at all mind if the anti-homosexual crowd left BSA entirely (and good riddance). And so this proposed split is offensive to hardliners on both sides, precisely because it recognizes that each side has sincere and legitimate arguments and concerns.

 

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

[AZMike]

Yeah, that's kind of a series of category errors on your part, Merlyn. "Jewish" as an ethnic group is not the same as Jewish as a religion, so they are a unique case. A person who ethnically self-identiies as a Jew who has foolishly made the decision to abandon the faith of his fathers is an atheist, and would not be eligible for BSA membership as he would still be Jewish as an ethnic group but not be Jewish as a religious choice. Unitarian-Universalists are allowed to declare themselves as members of any religion, or none at all, so to the extent that a Unitarian-Universalist declares himself an atheist, he is an atheist and loses the claim that he is a member of a religion. He is just someone who practices a personal philosophy which makes the specious claim of a religion. Some Buddhists do believe in God or spiritual beings which are gods, those who don't still believe in a higher spiritual law that enforces an objective moral code of right and wrong which governs your spiritual faith in the afterlife, and which fulfills the essential role of a God, so they aren't atheists. Raelians are atheists who happen to believe in a mix of sexual mumbo-jumbo and ookie-bookie extraterrestrials. An alien ain't God, so what they are calling a religion is not what any sane person would call a religion. Deeming your peculiar beliefs as a "religion" does not obligate others to do so. I may feel I have a life-mission to liberate money from banks, may feel that a grand spiritual principle requires me to rob banks, and so declare that you must accept me into the Scouts as a member of the First Unreformed Church of the Willie Suttonists. Again, Merlyn, sorry. One's desire to create a new religion that does not believe in God (or gods) does not require me to recognize that contradiction as a reality.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Yeah, that's kind of a series of category errors on your part, Merlyn. "Jewish" as an ethnic group is not the same as Jewish as a religion, so they are a unique case. A person who ethnically self-identiies as a Jew who has foolishly made the decision to abandon the faith of his fathers is an atheist, and would not be eligible for BSA membership as he would still be Jewish as an ethnic group but not be Jewish as a religious choice. Unitarian-Universalists are allowed to declare themselves as members of any religion, or none at all, so to the extent that a Unitarian-Universalist declares himself an atheist, he is an atheist and loses the claim that he is a member of a religion. He is just someone who practices a personal philosophy which makes the specious claim of a religion. Some Buddhists do believe in God or spiritual beings which are gods, those who don't still believe in a higher spiritual law that enforces an objective moral code of right and wrong which governs your spiritual faith in the afterlife, and which fulfills the essential role of a God, so they aren't atheists. Raelians are atheists who happen to believe in a mix of sexual mumbo-jumbo and ookie-bookie extraterrestrials. An alien ain't God, so what they are calling a religion is not what any sane person would call a religion. Deeming your peculiar beliefs as a "religion" does not obligate others to do so. I may feel I have a life-mission to liberate money from banks, may feel that a grand spiritual principle requires me to rob banks, and so declare that you must accept me into the Scouts as a member of the First Unreformed Church of the Willie Suttonists. Again, Merlyn, sorry. One's desire to create a new religion that does not believe in God (or gods) does not require me to recognize that contradiction as a reality.

"Yeah, that's kind of a series of category errors on your part, Merlyn."

 

Nope, there really are religions that don't require a belief in a god to be a member of that religion. I also forgot the Ethical Culture Society; the Ethical Society of Austin sued and won to be recognized as a religion, even though the texas comptroller tried to require that their religion have a supreme being. It's an officially recognized religion that has no supreme being.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

"Merlyn why would an atheist be a member of a religion? Do you mean that they were raised in a certain faith but no longer believe or practice it?.."

 

"Yeah, that's kind of a series of category errors on your part, Merlyn."

 

There really are religions that don't require a belief in a god to be considerd a member. I forgot about the Ethical Culture Society, where the Ethical Society of Austin applied for a religious tax-exemption. The Texas comptroller denied it on the grounds that their religion didn't have a supreme being, but the TX court of appeals ruled for the ESA:

 

http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/new_devs/RJLR_ND_72.pdf

 

Abstract: On March 6, 2003, the Texas Court of Appeals ruled that the use of the

 

“Supreme Being†test denied the Ethical Society of Austin’s First Amendment Rights.

 

 

The primary issue considered by the Court on appeal was whether the First Amendment

 

 

afforded protection to unfamiliar religions that do not necessarily believe in a higher

 

 

power. The Court held that the “Supreme Being†test was unconstitutionally under-

 

 

inclusive and replaced it with the

Malnak

test, thereby affirming the lower court’s

 

 

decision that the Texas Comptroller violated the Society’s First Amendment rights when

 

 

denying a religious tax-exemption.

 

So the ESA is a religion, and it has no supreme being to believe in to be a member.