True Religion

[Bob White]

"If your religion happens to believe that God does not want us discriminating against those of his children who happen to be gay, then in fact the BSA does not allow you to be a member and at the same time be reverent to God in the manner of your own choice and custom."

 

That is an absolute falsehood NJ and you know it.

 

First I defy you to find one instance where a person was denied membership due to their religion want them to not discriminate against gays.

 

Second. Homosexiuality and membership is a completely separate matter. The BSA requires every member have a belief in and give service to God. Is it your assertion that there is a religion that requires one to be homosexual in order to be reverent? And so by requiring reverence but restricting homosexuals that there is some religion whose members could not join scouting? Please enlighten us, who is this group?

[NJCubScouter]

Bob, you are responding to something I did not say. I was not talking about anyone being denied membership based on their religious beliefs. Read it again, and I'll give you a little help this time.

 

If your religion happens to believe that God does not want us discriminating against those of his children who happen to be gay, then in fact the BSA does not allow you to be a member and at the same time be reverent to God in the manner of your own choice and custom.

 

I'll even help you out some more, and rephrase it:

 

If you are a BSA member whose religion happens to believe that God does not want us discriminating against those of his children who happen to be gay, then in fact the BSA does not allow you to be reverent to God in the manner of your own choice and custom.

 

There, I don't see any way you can twist that. The point is not about denial of membership. It is that among members, the BSA is not even-handed, because it has an Official Religious Belief (homosexuality is immoral and avowed gays should therefore be excluded because they are role models for immorality) that is in conflict with the religious beliefs of some of its members. Therefore, to beat the dead horse again, the BSA violates its own pledge to be absolutely nonsectarian in matters of religion. Or, the way you phrased it earlier, the BSA "allows each to be reverent to God in the manner of their choice and custom." It's not true, on this issue. If you are from a religion that does not preach the immorality of homosexuality, you are getting a conflicting message from the BSA. You are being told that your religion is wrong, under official BSA policy. That's what I object to.

 

And this also answers boleta's comment to me. And, boleta, I was not necessarily talking about a religion that the BSA has banned as a CO. I assume that you are talking about either the Unitarian Universalists or the Wiccans or both, though I have never seen any actual evidence that the BSA has banned either other than the postings of BobWhite. There are other religions, denominations and factions of religions, and individual churches, that share the same belief but have not been banned by the BSA, at least not yet. These would include most Reform Jewish congregations, some Episcopal churches and at least one Presbyterian church that I know of. If you come from any of these, the BSA's position is that your religion is wrong. So officially, the BSA is saying you and your religious practices are "welcome," but at the same time one of your religious beliefs is wrong. That "welcome" is not worth much.

[boleta]

NJCS,

faulty conclusions I'm afraid. Homosexuals are "banned" because National says this is inconsistent with "morally straight". It has little to do with "duty to God". There is nothing in my world inconsistent with fulfilling my duty to God and belonging to a church that may accept and tolerate gays. This will not exclude me from BSA as evidenced by the great variety of Religious Emblems offered by BSA. Since you disagree so strongly, maybe BSA is not the right place for you.

[Bob White]

OK NJ I will address this version as well.

 

There is nothing in the BSA that keeps a member from being reverent regardless of how their religion views homosexuality.

 

First, why limit this just to homosexuality. I know the religion I practice welcomes worshipers regardless of their sins. That doesn't mean that Scouting would welcome them as members. A thief is welcome to church, but that doesn't mean the church welcomes their sins. But that thief could not be a member of the BSA. Does that mean that no member of my religion can show reverence to God if they are scouts?

 

Secondly, It is not the member who is discriminating against homosexuals in scouting, it is the BSA.

 

Thirdly, The BSA has no specific requirement as to how reverence is shown by the member. Leaving the door open for the member to express his Duty to God in an unlimited variety of ways.

 

Fourth, You continue to speak of a scout's obligation to his religion, but scouting speaks of the members obligation to God, which is not necessarily identical. So a Scout can show a reverence to God in ways not tied to specific religious tenets.

 

Last, Do not confuse a church welcoming a sinner with God welcoming the sin. My Church welcomes homosexuals and adulterers, but God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and everyone in it except for those who revered Him.

 

I hope re-writing your post helped you to see the flaws in your argument more clearly.

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Fuzzy Bear]

The BSA does not accept homosexuals.

The BSA does not accept atheists.

The BSA accepts those who believe in a higher power.

The BSA wants Scouts to learn reverence and duty to the higher power of their choice.

Simplistic in its' concepts but powerful. It has been enough to change my life.

 

The concepts beg the question and cries for an answer but there is none because they refuse to be pulled into a fight that has no end. The organization does not request a clarification or a change in policy to become perfect. It is unnecessary.

 

I am sure I don't meet the other criteria posted for heaven but God still speaks to me when I pass Him on the street and that is good enough for me.

 

FB

(This message has been edited by Fuzzy Bear)

[boleta]

Well said Bob White and Fuzzy Bear. Now let's get down to brass tacks. The problem is the Eagle Scout Candidate who does his duty to God and is Reverent but does not meet these criteria as defined by narrow-minded and rigid Board of Review members. One of the recent threads on these issues discussed a 4 hour Board of Review where this was the primary subject of discussion. FOUR HOURS? The guides to Eagle BOR suggest it should be about 45 minutes long. Certainly the young man had other things to talk about besides meeting the BOR members idea of what his duty to God was.

[Bob White]

boleta, please share the objective evidence you have that proves the narrowmindedness of the members of the board.

 

As you prepare that keep in mind that to pass a board of review the decision of its members must be unanimous, that having just one unsatisfied member is enough to halt the advancement. Also, that for all we know the unusually long length of the board was due to the fact that they wanted to give the candidate every possible opportunity to present some evidence of having met his obligation to his Duty to God rather than refuse him the rank advancement.

[Hunt]

"What I don't understand is why those who don't like the BSA and its policies don't form their own group to teach the same things."

 

Why don't you go start one with uniforms and rules you like better, and where insults and namecalling are consistent with the group's values? I get tired of this retort to anybody who has an argument that BSA should change its policies in some way. BSA changed its racially discriminitory policies for some reason--possibly even because the leaders realized it was the right thing t

[Hunt]

right thing to do.

 

(for anybody else having the end of the message cut off, I suspect that it is Norton Internet Security that is doing this.)

[Bob White]

Hunt,

I am not sure where you got your information on the history of the BSA. I am not aware of a time when the BSA discriminated based on color. At the inception of the program there were Scouts of various races. Granted, whites made up the dominant portion of membership. There were some segregated units, but that was do more to regional laws and customs and not the BSA. As Early as the 1920s there were integrated scout units and about 5000 scouts of color under black leadership in a fledgling program.

 

So to say that the BSA changed its stand is not an accurate representation of history as I understand it. In fact it was society that eventually came around to the attitudes of the BSA.

 

On your other issue,

I think what many parents and leaders find annoying is the attitude of "rather than start an organization that represents our beliefs, we demand that you change your beliefs to suit us". Which is precisely the avenue being taken by politically motivated organizations trying to force themselves in the BSA as a means of justifying their lifestyle.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Fuzzy Bear]

Should the BSA change its' policies? They did not ask me and I doubt that one person could change the direction even if they were put in charge and if they wanted to change it. The question is fundamental in outlook and representation and cannot be broached without a landslide of opposition.

 

The problem comes when all of the proponents find that there is little real agreement on the ideas that they think they agree on. It is a strange mixture of ideas that coalesce under a few headings but there is agreement on the general form which looks allot like a symbol steeped in tradition and accepted by the populace.

 

Would the organization benefit from changing its polices is a good question. That approach allows for a larger discussion. Opponents will not need to get angry because their position is being exempted. Proponents of the position will not need to feel threatened that their position is being attacked. It is a matter worth discussion. A fair hearing allows for introspection that gives depth to an argument and/or a personal belief.

 

FB

[Achilleez]

ed,

 

"So you think you can live a life of sin & still go to heaven?"

 

I never said anything remotely close to that. What I said was that I don't believe it to be fact those who don't repent 'sins' will spend the rest of eternity in hell. I can't tell you what I think happens to people after death because I have absolutely no idea, and neither I think do you. Infact my original quarrel was with the comment about athiests going to hell simply because they were athiests, as if that implied immorality and wickedness.

[packsaddle]

Hunt, in response to the message cut-off problem, I have noticed the same thing at certain times of day, or at least it seems that way. I resolve it by copying my message (Control-C) prior to sending. Then, if it is cut off I edit the message by deleting the partial and pasting the whole thing back to the edit. This sometimes must be repeated. So far I haven't discovered a better approach.

Everyone, sorry for the digression from the topic, remember to be nice.

[packsaddle]

Bob White, I said something like this in another thread but it is worth repeating. I personally observed racism by both volunteer and professional scouters in the past - it was a long time ago. However, I can still detect elements of this occasionally today, not among the pros though.

I agree with you that BSA never explicitly supported racism, at least not that I have been able to discover. However, I am convinced that in the past BSA turned a blind eye to the racism of leaders (volunters and pros) and to me that amounts to an implicit nod.

I think huge progress has been made and I believe that anyone who does this today will be "shown the curb", to use your terminology. But it did happen in the past.

[Bob White]

"However, I am convinced that in the past BSA turned a blind eye to the racism of leaders (volunters and pros) and to me that amounts to an implicit nod."

 

The BSA has NEVER endorsed racism. The BSA operates in numerous countries, over 200 councils, over a thousand Districts, with millions of youth members and 1.5 million volunteers. There is no way that you as an individual had enough exposure to enough situations involving enough people to paint the entire program with so broad a brush.

 

If a few individuals were responsible for offensive remarks or actions, they were wrong to do so, and they bare the entire burden of responsibility. If a profession scouters or any volunteer wearing the wreath of service turned a blind eye to it they were wrong and deserve to to be thrown out on their ear. But do not for a minute try to say that the BSA in any way condoned or allowed such behavior. You have no more reason to make that claim than the racists who slandered the BSA's image had in unwarranted behavior.(This message has been edited by Bob White)