Lgbt Group Will Pay Bsa $50,000 To Lift Ban On Gay Adult Leaders

[Gone]

@@moosetracker, it's a fact that a majority of BSA members polled were against allowing gay scouts. It is also a fact that BSA membership decreased after the vote. It is also a fact that many districts and councils lost more units than they started after the vote. if I recall correctly the decline in BSA numbers was greater after the vote than in years previous. You can say that's happenstance but I don't buy it.

 

I also don't buy that there's some huge ground swell of people who'd suddenly join BSA if gay leaders were allowed in. I have seen nothing concrete to even suggest that's the case. However there is at least one religious group (Church of Christ) that's said they'd gladly support BSA if they went back to their old policy.

[skeptic]

Maybe we need a new slogan or something along the lines of "A scout minds his own business" and accepts that there are other opinions than his in the world in which we live.

 

But, in response to Slow Derby, the reason is just that.  It was not really an issue unless it was made one; then the individual units dealt with it on their own within their membership and guidance from their respective CO if necessary.  They did the same with other disruptive things that might arise within the group that concerned someone; but it was "their" decision.  Personal lives were not part of the mix for the most part, and few stirred the pot unless it was blatant or dangerous.  Obviously, CO's had input; but then they have that right.

 

Today, we have to have everything somehow a public issue and generate legal and monetary challenges.  Much of it has to do with the broad reach of today's media and the focus on the negative and shocking.  The radical elements have taken these modern tools of communication and use them to prey on the fears of others.  Unless the proverbial "silent majority" finally finds a voice, the trend will simply grow at the expense of common sense (which is on its death bed) and the tyranny of the fringes.

 

But, as noted, I tend to think my personal life is just that. And I was raised with parents and grandparents from the first half of the 20th century, and was fortunate to experience the hey day of Scouting when it was developing the reputation that now somehow is made fun of by comments such as "he is such a Boy Scout", or "What are you, an Eagle Scout?', as if somehow that is a bad thing.

 

Yet, with all the hyperbole, most of us can generally still see more positive than negative when we simply focus on the local units, and work to use the best and not let ourselves be overly influenced by those that would throw out the baby with the water.

[moosetracker]

Mozart - I can tell you as fact, at the last vote my DE as well as other DE's in our council  had a list of promised donations if the vote was against homosexuals and another list equal if not greater of promised donations if the vote was to allow homosexuals (both youth & adult)..  He had another decent list of new CO's interested if the policy was changed.. When the council changed the vote to only allow in homosexual youth even though it passed none of the lists panned out.. In order for those who will not donate or host a BSA unit until the discrimination stops it has to be a full change in policy.. As far as donations and membership goes the half a$$ed change was the worst choice for BSA..

 

As for your poll the way you ask the question skews the response, because the majority of scouts and scouters are for local options.. But if you word it if they are for BSA forcing CO's to accept homosexuals, then you can get the response you want.. I also remember with the last vote the conservatives so positive they had the vote in their favor.. They were very wrong.. Conservatives are poor at getting accurate polls due to how they ask the questions and who they poll.. It makes them feel good, but in the end they are left with very rude awakenings.. Or as in the case of the last BSA vote I recall plenty protesting they were robbed, and the vote was rigged..

 

However there is at least one religious group (Church of Christ) that's said they'd gladly support BSA if they went back to their old policy.

 

 The United Church of Christ, Presbyterian, Episcopalian and several more will gladly support BSA if they will change their policy to allow homosexual gay leaders.. 

[Stosh]

Well Stosh, at least we agree on something: The BSA's principles are for sale to the highest bidder.

 

We just don't agree on what the true principles are, or on who the highest bidders are.

 

I am a little surprised that you trivialize one of the major events in your own religion like that, but I guess it's yours to trivialize as you wish.

 

I didn't know it was the job of those placed in the position of moderation to try and piss off the members of the forum.  So I'll set the record straight.  30 pieces of Silver has become the standard expression for what it takes to sell out one's soul.  If that trivializes that process for your faith, I apologize, but for me it is the price one gets for the ultimate treason to one's cause.  Just because one uses an expression out of one's book of faith does not mean they are trivializing it, it just shows that one is knowledgeable in what is written there and can use the stores to clarify one's point.  Of course, one can use any familiar piece of literature to do the same thing.   "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."  Hamlet Act 3, Scene 2. 

[Gone]

@@moosetracker, I suspect your region may be somewhat liberal and support such policies. Nationally I suspect things are much different.

 

As for polls, I find it interesting you throw conservative polls under the bus when an objective person would throw liberal polls under the bus with them. Very telling.

 

I still fail to see this ground swell you speak of. Regionally i suspect that might be true. Nationally I would doubt it takes root. Even non-aligned polls have the country split on the issue.

[Eagledad]

Rick - This I am aware of.. It was funny when earlier this year the Presbyterians voted to allow same-sex marriage, and the conservative religious stated they were no longer considered Christian. Like they have the right to kick another denomination out over a difference of religious view-point, and an issue the Jesus never even weighed in on.. Still no reason not to school the conservative on why they are on the wrong side of the issue..

 

A bit unfair to paint, tar and feather all religious people who follow the Bible under one malicious insult. However, I think we can all agree that when one doesn't use some parts of the bible for moral guidance, they don't feel moral obligation to follow their parts of the bible where followers shouldn't be condescending, insulting and demonizing. 

 

 

Here is an example of what I was saying about what your religion chooses to highlight..  Eagledad quoted on line from John 8 as if this is the main point of the story.. Another religion would look at the whole story in it's entirety.

 

No scripture survives in a vacuum, however the quot is part of the scripture that he used as the subject of his reply. You are way out of line using my answer to advance an agenda of scripture being use incorrectly. However, since you present yourself as an expert in such things, I'm up to the challenge.

 

The moral of the entire story being that we are all sinners and are not in the position to judge others for their sins.. Something the conservative religious chooses to ignore, while they only choose to highlight the last statement "go and sin no more."..  But since we are all sinners this is more like patting a mischievous child on the head and saying "Try to be good"..

 

Let's get to the whole story as Moose suggested. The Jewish religious leaders went to Jesus with the prostitute to trick Jesus into discrediting Himself. The leaders were not there to set an example of punishing a Jewish crime, their deceiving motives (ironic) were worse in that they were willing to take a life to advance a personal agenda. Jesus turned it around on them and basically said who here is clean of broken laws? The big lessen here that has pretty much been accepted for hundreds of years is that hypocrites are just as guilty as the person those they attempt to persecute. Jesus uses other examples to talk about this same subject, the log in the eye.

 

There is no place I know of in the Bible that says Jesus felt sin was sometimes OK so long as you are forgiven. Jesus is consistent in that He and God do not tolerate sin. They also don't tolerate hypocracy.

 

It would seem that if someone here would want to try and trap others by the using the Bible against them, they would have a better understanding of how they should approach each other in discussion without being malicious and disrespectful, which is very biblical. 

 

Barry

[JoeBob]

Moose, I can agree with you that local option would be a fair position.

 

But then take your reasoning:

But, one religion does not have the right to dictate to another religion what their religious beliefs should be..  So, you in your religion can do what you want within your CO's units, but you do not have the right to force the units that belong to the Methodists or the United Church of Christ or the Episcopalian or the Unitarian Universalists etc, etc, etc, what their beliefs should be..

and apply it to the recent actions of the LGBT lobbies.

 

Bakers, photographers, and florists are being forced out of business and sued because they don't wont to participate in a Gay wedding ceremony.  (Even one pizza joint that has never catered any wedding has been closed due to death threats!)

 

What rational can you use to comfort COs that want to have straight SMs that they won't be bludgeoned into submission by the Gay lobby?

[Stosh]

Local option?  That process of breaking everything down into separate targets only enables the massive lobbies to overwhelm them one at a time, like they are doing with businesses and individuals as recorded in the papers on a regular basis.

 

Either we all hang together, or we all hang separately. - B. Franklin

[Rick_in_CA]

Mozart - I can tell you as fact, at the last vote my DE as well as other DE's in our council  had a list of promised donations if the vote was against homosexuals and another list equal if not greater of promised donations if the vote was to allow homosexuals (both youth & adult)..  He had another decent list of new CO's interested if the policy was changed.. When the council changed the vote to only allow in homosexual youth even though it passed none of the lists panned out.. In order for those who will not donate or host a BSA unit until the discrimination stops it has to be a full change in policy.. As far as donations and membership goes the half a$$ed change was the worst choice for BSA..

I know that my council had a similar experience. For years the council had been talking to multiple groups about becoming COs (and donors), and the response was "we will once you stop being bigots". We have several Churches and Synagogs that have said they will charter multiple units when the BSA stops discriminating. Plus there are several groups that charter Explorer Posts that are interested in chartering boy scout units that won't because of our policies. Our council has been asking national to be exempt from the no-gays and no-atheist rules for years. The BSA shot itself in the foot with the halfway change. We lost several big donors after the vote because of the publicity "corporate didn't know you guys still discriminate, we can't support you anymore". We lost a few COs after the vote (though apparently only one went to Trail Life - I thought more would) but we only gained a few because the change didn't go far enough. Local control might cost us a few more (but it might not, I think we already lost those units), but I think it would gain us several. It won't be a flood of units, but nothing will bring that. It sure would make recruiting easier ("Put my boy in Boy Scouts? I sure loved it when I was a kid, made it all the way to Life Scout and was a member of the OA. But that was before the BSA was run by bigots. I don't want my son in that." (one of my neighbors a few months ago)).

[Sentinel947]

I think the change is inevitable, the writing is on the wall clearly for all to read. One merely needs to find polls that take the temperature of millenals. 

[Gone]

 But that was before the BSA was run by bigots. I don't want my son in that.

 

So I guess they missed the fact that this membership policy was in place back then too, huh? I hope you reminded him of that.

[tyke]

I think that all this in fighting is not good for your movement, and the sooner you just except the inevitable and move on the better, as this half way house just isn't working.

[moosetracker]

Eagledad -  So where did tar and feather ALL religious people with what I said.. It would only apply to religious people with that point of view, which I can assure you is not ALL religious people..  Also why is it condescending to point out their point of view if that is their point of view and they happily state it is.. Also no one follows everything in the bible, it you did you would be arrested..

 

 

Here is an example of what I was saying about what your religion chooses to highlight..  Eagledad quoted on line from John 8 as if this is the main point of the story.. Another religion would look at the whole story in it's entirety.

 

No scripture survives in a vacuum, however the quot is part of the scripture that he used as the subject of his reply. You are way out of line using my answer to advance an agenda of scripture being use incorrectly. However, since you present yourself as an expert in such things, I'm up to the challenge.

 

The moral of the entire story being that we are all sinners and are not in the position to judge others for their sins.. Something the conservative religious chooses to ignore, while they only choose to highlight the last statement "go and sin no more."..  But since we are all sinners this is more like patting a mischievous child on the head and saying "Try to be good"..

 

Let's get to the whole story as Moose suggested. The Jewish religious leaders went to Jesus with the prostitute to trick Jesus into discrediting Himself. The leaders were not there to set an example of punishing a Jewish crime, their deceiving motives (ironic) were worse in that they were willing to take a life to advance a personal agenda. Jesus turned it around on them and basically said who here is clean of broken laws? The big lessen here that has pretty much been accepted for hundreds of years is that hypocrites are just as guilty as the person those they attempt to persecute. Jesus uses other examples to talk about this same subject, the log in the eye.

 

There is no place I know of in the Bible that says Jesus felt sin was sometimes OK so long as you are forgiven. Jesus is consistent in that He and God do not tolerate sin. They also don't tolerate hypocracy.

 

It would seem that if someone here would want to try and trap others by the using the Bible against them, they would have a better understanding of how they should approach each other in discussion without being malicious and disrespectful, which is very biblical. 

 

Barry

 

 

My example did not state your viewpoint is wrong, it pointed out that different religions highlight different parts of a scripture giving their followers totally different interpretations of the meaning within the pages of the bible.. "Here is an example of what I was saying about what your religion chooses to highlight.. ". Now since you added to it, I will point out another difference between religious interpretation..  You state the story's moral is pointing out the hypocrisy of the accusers pretending to want to learn from Jesus when what they really wanted to do was trap him..  Ok, I can see this a form of hypocrisy, but for us it is simply showing the Jesus was very clever and no ones fool..  The answer Jesus gave still applies even if the accusers were not trying to trick Jesus, the hypocrisy is in the fact that you are not in a position to judge and condemn others of their sins when you have sins of your own..

 

I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying different religions interpret things differently..  And one religion (or it's members) is not in the position to call another religion wrong due to differing viewpoints.

 

 

Bakers, photographers, and florists are being forced out of business and sued because they don't wont to participate in a Gay wedding ceremony.  (Even one pizza joint that has never catered any wedding has been closed due to death threats!)

 

What rational can you use to comfort COs that want to have straight SMs that they won't be bludgeoned into submission by the Gay lobby?

 

First off your statement of the situation is simplified to your point of view.. It leaves out the law the governor was passing which was the cause for the anger, it also makes the pizza joint seem like they did nothing to cause the angry mob to turn their attention on them.. It also leaves out that with some alterations to the law most of the anger dissipated.. Did it get carried too far, yes.. People are in their rights not to patronize an establishment they choose not to based on principle, they have a right to voice their opinion about the law.. But, they did go too far.. Unfortunately not any different then any other angry mob, plenty of gun advocates have threatened the lives of plenty of people who oppose them, even those who advocate for gun control due to being a surviving victim or loosing a child or spouse to guns..

 

Now does that apply to BSA when local option is implemented.. Perhaps to organizations who CO's are not a religion.. But, those whose CO is a religion will be left alone.. This was the same argument used when same-sex marriages were implemented..  That religions would be forced to perform the marriages.. Yet religions are left alone and are only being pressured to change by their own members..

 

 

Local option?  That process of breaking everything down into separate targets only enables the massive lobbies to overwhelm them one at a time, like they are doing with businesses and individuals as recorded in the papers on a regular basis.

 

Either we all hang together, or we all hang separately. - B. Franklin

 

Stosh - WE are already hanging separately... This statement makes as much sense as being in a war and deciding to put guns into the hands of your Prisoner of War and putting them on the front line expecting them to fight for your side, rather then turn the gun on their captors and helping their side out..

 

As long as we are forced by rules we can not abide by, we will agree with those who are applying outside pressure.. As soon as we all get local option, then we will side with you in your right to follow your religious principles.. But, I doubt we will need to side with you at all on this issue, as once the BSA is open to homosexuals in all units run outside of the religious institutions with these beliefs.. 

[moosetracker]

So I guess they missed the fact that this membership policy was in place back then too, huh? I hope you reminded him of that.

Depends on how old they are.. This membership policy was implemented in the mid 1990's.. Until then homosexual leaders were local option.  And "NO" Rick-in-CA would not remind them of that even if it had been true. Anyone who does not agree with this policy, will agree with these comments 100%..  Even our DE's and other council leadership will agree that their opinion is valid and assure them that they are working as hard as they can to change this policy, then just put them on a list as someone they can contact when the policy does change.

Edited May 4, 2015 by moosetracker

[AZMike]

It depends what "that" is. If it is local option, which is what some people in this forum have been advocating for years (and my council's SE supported it when National floated the idea two years ago), I think the net impact on membership would be negligible, and maybe positive. Sure, there would be a lot of yelling and screaming and huffing and puffing like there was the last time, but once the action was taken, how many CO's would really leave the BSA because some OTHER unit could POTENTIALLY have an openly gay adult leader? Not many, I believe. Not that that's really the main issue - the main issue what is right and wrong, and the current policy of FORCING CO's to discriminate is wrong. The Biblical example of the adulterer, mentioned above, is interesting because there is NO National policy that REQUIRES a unit to exclude a known adulterer. A unit can choose to have an adulterous leader, or not to. (And here I go on my usual litany.) Same with a leader who is living, unmarried, with a member of the opposite sex. Same with a leader who is grossly overweight to the point of (in the opinion of some) setting a poor example for the kids. Same for the leader who is regularly seen exiting the local watering hole and staggering home (not driving, and not at troop meetings.) Same with the "exotic dancer". And on and on. The CO may accept, or exclude, all of these people as leaders. Why not the openly gay leader? What is that a decision that only National can make, when almost all of the other adult leadership decisions are made at the local level?

 

Where are all these troops that have the exotic dancer troop leaders? Inquiring minds want to know!