May 23rd predictions and post-vote plans

[packsaddle]

AZmike, here's one cherry the religious right seems to have missed in this argument. One of the main points in the Torah is human dignity. A kid that's gay, that didn't choose to be gay, that can't be "cured" of being gay, that won't inherently harm anyone because he's gay, has no dignity in the boy scouts because he is shunned for something he has no control of. He is seen as inferior, immoral, and is an outcast. All of this because of something God gave him. I'm no religious scholar, but I know this type of humiliation is Wrong. Furthermore, human dignity can supersede commandments in the Torah. In this case my rabbis have allowed it.

 

You say these kids can go do 4H, or BPSA, or just do something else. You say they're a danger to the other kids and it would be safer if they went elsewhere. I can imagine lining up 10 kids and walking up to one and saying these things to him. That's humiliating.

 

It seems my religious beliefs don't seem to be good enough for you, that I'm "cherry picking" the "real" beliefs. People that complain about others beliefs not being good enough are the gatekeepers to the dark side of religion. I'm just asking you to respect my beliefs.

MattR, why do you feel like your beliefs need to be "good enough" for anyone else. They're good enough for you and that's all that counts. If someone else disagrees, tough luck. It's one reason that I advocate for people to keep their noses out of other persons' religious beliefs. If only everyone just kept this stuff to themselves..

 

Moreover, that would eliminate the need for 'respect' for the beliefs of others. The way to respect others is not to shove one's own beliefs at other persons. The problem gets worse when people who think they believe the same thing organize and then start shoving their beliefs down the throats of others ...or worse. It gives hate a way to have a veneer of acceptability.

[DigitalScout]

Our fearless leader is engaging in some pre-vote vote writing. Amazing that we pay this person to write opinion pieces in USA today espousing

views that are in stark contrast to the poll he just commissioned. I wonder what his response will be if his side loses tomorrow.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/05/22/boy-scouts-president-let-in-gay-boys/2351907/

From the tone of the editorial, it is safe to assume the resolution has been approved. They know the results already because the votes have already been cast.

[eaglewolfdad]

DigitalScout, I read the article again after reading you post and tend to agree with you. I suppose that they could also be doing some private polling among the councils.

[DigitalScout]

The big vote is right around the corner. Any thoughts on how it might turn out?

 

Personally, I suspect it will go in favor of allowing gay scouts. I just don't think there is enough support for the exclusion of kids. If this were a combined vote, asking people to allow or disallow gay scouts and adults at the same time, I think there would be far stronger support for maintaining the current ban.

 

If, somehow, it goes badly (in my opinion) then there's no future in Scouting for my family. We'll be looking at alternative organizations like the BPSA. I would continue to push the BSA to change the policy and hope that they did eventually change it, and I would continue to hold my Eagle medal and retain my rank (I'm not in favor of giving up the rank in opposition to a policy, I think Eagles should hold their rank and push the organization to right a wrong). But I couldn't in good conscience enroll my kids in the program knowing that after repeated defeats to efforts to make the change happen, it was highly unlikely that any significant change would occur any time soon.

 

 

I don't see the big deal. Gays are about 2-3% of the population. The chances of a gay scout are small.

To most Americans it's no big deal. But the BSA has a large number of conservatives who think that once gays are allowed in, they will start recruiting impressionable boys to become gay because many conservatives believe homosexuality is a choice. So to them it is a matter of life and death of the BSA.

 

Personally we should open the doors and focus on more important matters.

[AZMike]

AZmike, here's one cherry the religious right seems to have missed in this argument. One of the main points in the Torah is human dignity. A kid that's gay, that didn't choose to be gay, that can't be "cured" of being gay, that won't inherently harm anyone because he's gay, has no dignity in the boy scouts because he is shunned for something he has no control of. He is seen as inferior, immoral, and is an outcast. All of this because of something God gave him. I'm no religious scholar, but I know this type of humiliation is Wrong. Furthermore, human dignity can supersede commandments in the Torah. In this case my rabbis have allowed it.

 

You say these kids can go do 4H, or BPSA, or just do something else. You say they're a danger to the other kids and it would be safer if they went elsewhere. I can imagine lining up 10 kids and walking up to one and saying these things to him. That's humiliating.

 

It seems my religious beliefs don't seem to be good enough for you, that I'm "cherry picking" the "real" beliefs. People that complain about others beliefs not being good enough are the gatekeepers to the dark side of religion. I'm just asking you to respect my beliefs.

I take a different approach than packsaddle, out of respect for your dignity...

 

You can understand, MattR, that I can disagree with you on your religious beliefs and respect your right to have them, without being a "Gatekeeper to the Dark Side of Religion," yes? When you describe me like that, I sound like Saruman or something.

 

My religious beliefs hold that people who practice an act that degrades their personal dignity, and threatens the dignity and safety of others, should not be allowed to be involved in the formation of youth or volunteer activities, By your own argument, you must also respect my right to have those religious beliefs, right? They must be accorded the same respect I offer to your beliefs, even if I respectfully disagree with them. Have I said anything to insult your beliefs? I certainly haven't said anything to insult Judaism, for which I hold the highest respect. (If you took offense at my statement about theological liberalism cherry-picking out of a sacred text, I apologize and should have written it more clearly to indicate that I was referring to theological liberalism (both Christian and Jewish) as a movement, with whom I have obvious disagreements, and not to you as a person or your beliefs.)

 

I also have a strong religious belief in the dignity that is inherent and due to all men and women (and kids) as children of God. We are in agreement, However, you then make the leap to a statement that is unsupported by either science or religion: "A kid that's gay, that didn't choose to be gay, that can't be "cured" of being gay, that won't inherently harm anyone because he's gay, has no dignity in the boy scouts because he is shunned for something he has no control of. He is seen as inferior, immoral, and is an outcast. All of this because of something God gave him." I frankly don't see support for that in any sacred text, Jewish or Christian, not do I see any scientific basis for it. I understand that your religious leaders disagree on these matters as well, so we will have to continue to disagree. And part of respecting your beliefs is to offer your views the respect they deserve by taking them seriously enough to disagree with them, to enter into an argument as to whether the values you espouse are being correctly applied in this case (you will agree, I hope that even if I don't share your denominational beliefs, I am allowed to suggest that I can challenge your interpretation of your faith's beliefs, and even those of your spiritual leaders - people do it with my faith all the time), and offering your views the ultimate respect of considering them as capable of affecting the world, and pointing out what I consider to be the flaws in your theological arguments. Respect does not equal assent. It does include challenging views that I consider incorrect.

 

I would further note that we discourage many behaviors in youths, some of them probably bearing a genetic component. In your view, God may "given" a child diabetes. We don't encourage the poor eating habits that make this condition worse. God may have "given" a child a genetic predisposition to an addictive personality. We don't encourage substance abuse in such children. God may have "given" a child any number of tendencies towards self-destructive behaviors - masochistic masturbation practices, such as autoerotic asphyxiation or insertion of foreign objects in the orifices; "cutting" disorders; anorexia; self-destructive behavior; a whole gamut of paraphilias that aren't appropriate to discuss in this forum. We discourage such behaviors, if we were to hear a child talk about them. In the Scouts, we are not in the business of sex education, and that's appropriate; but if someone were to bring up the claim (in a Board of Review, around the campfire, or on the ride up to a campsite) that they practice such behaviors, we would not allow the discussion, nor we would we allow them to describe themselves as a "Cutter," as an "Anorexic" or a "Proud Follower of Saint Annie's," or as a "Stoner" or a "Juicer." We would certainly refer the matter to their parents rather than discussing it further with the boy. But we would not allow them to discuss the matter or continue to identify themselves by such behavior. Why should we allow self-identification by another sexual behavior or behavioral problem?

 

If your religious beliefs will have an impact on the free exercise of my religious beliefs (as in this case), of course we will have to express our disagreement. That will include me pointing out my disagreements the movement of theological Liberalism, which sees the goal of humanity as the continuing liberation of individuals from all binding spiritual authority (IMO). I would fall under the theological Orthodox camp (Judaic and Christian) which acknowledges the ultimate role of divine authority in the affairs of men, and the need to conform the human will to the divine law. This seems to be the fundamental disagreement between the two camps.

 

Making an appeal to "dignity" is not very useful in this argument, as it appears high-minded but only accords dignity to one small class of the people involved (boys who identify as "gay") without according the same respect for the dignity and safety of the boys who may be adversely affected by the consequences of what you see as a religious imperative.

 

Should one be cruel in telling a boy that the choices they have made in behavior (either sexual behavior, or an insistence on defining oneself by one's sexual behavior) disqualifies them from membership? No, of course not, why would you want to do such a thing? Why would you want to create an environment where boys adopt a man-made term that defines them by their sexual behavior?

[eaglewolfdad]

Looks like the press is ramped up for the vote tomorrow. The press coverage promises to be intense.

 

http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/21/gay-boy-scouts-employee-i-cant-live-a-lie-any-longer/

[GarScout]

The Connecticut Yankee Council is in the news for a statement by the Council President openly defying the current BSA membership policy. From their website: "Scouting in the Connecticut Yankee Council is open to all youth and adults who subscribe to the values of the Scout Oath and Law regardless of their personal sexual orientation"

http://www.ctyankee.org/news/news#002248

 

When the Cradle of Liberty Council tried that the BSA didn't let allow them to do it. Some units that made inclusive membership declarations earlier this year were also stopped pretty quickly. Anybody have any local information about the Connecticut Yankee Council? Either they are naive or they know something. Maybe other councils will follow suit.

[MattR]

AZmike, here's one cherry the religious right seems to have missed in this argument. One of the main points in the Torah is human dignity. A kid that's gay, that didn't choose to be gay, that can't be "cured" of being gay, that won't inherently harm anyone because he's gay, has no dignity in the boy scouts because he is shunned for something he has no control of. He is seen as inferior, immoral, and is an outcast. All of this because of something God gave him. I'm no religious scholar, but I know this type of humiliation is Wrong. Furthermore, human dignity can supersede commandments in the Torah. In this case my rabbis have allowed it.

 

You say these kids can go do 4H, or BPSA, or just do something else. You say they're a danger to the other kids and it would be safer if they went elsewhere. I can imagine lining up 10 kids and walking up to one and saying these things to him. That's humiliating.

 

It seems my religious beliefs don't seem to be good enough for you, that I'm "cherry picking" the "real" beliefs. People that complain about others beliefs not being good enough are the gatekeepers to the dark side of religion. I'm just asking you to respect my beliefs.

AZMike, I accept your apology, and I apologize for offending you. Yes, the cherry picking comment was over the line. No, it absolutely has nothing to do with me being Jewish. I'm not trying to argue and win you over. I apologize if I implied that. I'm trying to find common ground. After the vote there will be a lot of angry and smug people, neither of which will help the BSA. Machiavelli will rule.

 

Packsaddle, respect would be a good thing not just for me, but for everyone. If there were mutual respect then 20 years ago people could have sat down and worked out a solution to keep people reasonably happy. That's real respect and I'd be for that. Rather, it's a zero sum game, and an ugly one at that.

[packsaddle]

Welcome to the forums, GarScout. I salute Connecticut Yankee Council for their courageous stand and wish them success. It will be interesting to see if the people in Texas respond as if backed into a corner, rather than having painted themselves into it.

[Kahuna]

Our fearless leader is engaging in some pre-vote vote writing. Amazing that we pay this person to write opinion pieces in USA today espousing

views that are in stark contrast to the poll he just commissioned. I wonder what his response will be if his side loses tomorrow.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/05/22/boy-scouts-president-let-in-gay-boys/2351907/

It should be pointed out that Wayne Perry is a volunteer, just like most of us. We don't pay him anything. I'm fairly confident that he has sampled the vote enough to believe that the outcome will be to pass the resolution as it is.

[King Ding Dong]

Welcome to the forums, GarScout. I salute Connecticut Yankee Council for their courageous stand and wish them success. It will be interesting to see if the people in Texas respond as if backed into a corner, rather than having painted themselves into it.

With Rick Perry leading the way the likely response from Texas will be talk of 5 things, "second amendment remedies" and succession chest beating. Followed by "God hates fags" country songs and WNA II (war of northern aggression II) and, uh, hold on, uh, mmmm, uh, I forgot the 5th thing. Oops.

[EmberMike]

The Connecticut Yankee Council is in the news for a statement by the Council President openly defying the current BSA membership policy. From their website: "Scouting in the Connecticut Yankee Council is open to all youth and adults who subscribe to the values of the Scout Oath and Law regardless of their personal sexual orientation"

http://www.ctyankee.org/news/news#002248

 

When the Cradle of Liberty Council tried that the BSA didn't let allow them to do it. Some units that made inclusive membership declarations earlier this year were also stopped pretty quickly. Anybody have any local information about the Connecticut Yankee Council? Either they are naive or they know something. Maybe other councils will follow suit.

On the one hand, I applaud these councils that stand up against the policy. On the other hand, I think it's a potentially dangerous proposition. As we saw in the case of Ryan Andresen, it only takes one person at the district level to stop an Eagle Scout application from going through, even if the troop and the Board of Review determines that a scout is fit to receive the rank. I think it's a potentially risky move to allow kids to enter the organization with no guarantee that even if they do the work and satisfy the requirements on paper, they can still be denied an earned rank.

 

It puts the council in a tough position when they say they are welcome to all, but they can't really guarantee that such inclusion will come with equal treatment in every regard, including rank advancement.

[EmberMike]

If the vote reaffirms the policy, the fight ends for me today. There's not much more I'm willing to do to try and help get the BSA on the right path.

[relapse]

If the vote reaffirms the policy, the fight ends for me today. There's not much more I'm willing to do to try and help get the BSA on the right path.

The problem is that the current policy and the resolution are bad. The current policy just sucks and anyone found/reported to be a homosexual can be kicked out of the program. The resolution sends a horrible message to our youth that they are good enough to achieve the highest rank in scouting but because they are homosexual they are not good enough to then serve our youth once they age out. Disgusting.

[Pack18Alex]

AZmike, here's one cherry the religious right seems to have missed in this argument. One of the main points in the Torah is human dignity. A kid that's gay, that didn't choose to be gay, that can't be "cured" of being gay, that won't inherently harm anyone because he's gay, has no dignity in the boy scouts because he is shunned for something he has no control of. He is seen as inferior, immoral, and is an outcast. All of this because of something God gave him. I'm no religious scholar, but I know this type of humiliation is Wrong. Furthermore, human dignity can supersede commandments in the Torah. In this case my rabbis have allowed it.

 

You say these kids can go do 4H, or BPSA, or just do something else. You say they're a danger to the other kids and it would be safer if they went elsewhere. I can imagine lining up 10 kids and walking up to one and saying these things to him. That's humiliating.

 

It seems my religious beliefs don't seem to be good enough for you, that I'm "cherry picking" the "real" beliefs. People that complain about others beliefs not being good enough are the gatekeepers to the dark side of religion. I'm just asking you to respect my beliefs.

Just to go out there on this...

 

Are we referring to gay orientation (attracted to the same sex), or sodomy (engaged in sex with someone of the same gender)?

 

I mean, a 14 year old attracted to boys comes out as gay, he hasn't acted on it, he's an "avowed homosexual," but hasn't engaged in prohibited sexual acts.

 

Under Jewish Law, no sin has been committed, being attracted to someone is not a sin.

 

Indeed, one of the basics for Judaism is to overcome the evil inclination. Jewish Law prohibits stealing. If you have no desire to steal, that's no big deal. If you have a compulsion to steal, that's a challenge for you. By not stealing, and overcoming your evil inclination, you're on a higher path of righteousness, because you are overcoming your evil inclination.

 

There's an old Jewish story of a great Rabbi asking G-d why his role in the World to Come is lesser than the farmer in his town (who person #2 is changes in different tellings). He's a great Rabbi, a Torah Sage, renowned for towns around him. The other guy was just a farmer, a "Person of the Land," not steeped in Torah knowledge.

 

G-d explained to him that while he was a great Sage, his father and grandfather were Rabbis. While he achieved greatness, it wasn't a huge step up. The farmer was the son of thieves, from a family of thieves and murders. His rising to become an honest farmer was greater than the Rabbi growing into a sage.

 

So there in lies my issue with this. A boy coming out as gay doesn't need our condemnation for his inherit nature, he needs our support and love. Assuming a Torah view, we should encourage him to overcome that desire. Whether he can channel his desires in a heterosexual direction is up to how great a challenge it is. If he is capable of doing so, he should be encouraged to marry and have children (a positive commandment), but if not, celibacy means avoiding transgressing a negative commandment.

 

Despite all that, I see no reason why I would want to kick a gay boy out of a troop even he got into a gay relationship than I would kick him out for getting a cheeseburger. Both are prohibited actions, and I'm not sure why the former merits exclusion and the latter ignoring.