NJCubScouter Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 My family belongs to a UCC church and they were definitely on the side of the change was not enough. In fact, our current leaders still don't think the change is enough. I understand their attitude. But the BSA just ended a policy where other religious organizations were basically able to tell the UCC, and the UU's, and the Episcopalians, and the Reform Jews, and others, who those groups could and couldn't have as leaders of units they charter. That was a bad and wrong policy. It forced people to violate their own religious beliefs, and as a result these groups largely gave up on the BSA. But I don't think it would be any better to just have people change places and for the UCC (etc.) to be able to tell those other religious organizations who they can and can't have as leaders. That is why the local option is the right policy. Now everybody can follow their own religious beliefs. It would be great if everybody was in agreement on this subject, but the practical fact is that they aren't, and if the BSA is going to continue to be a viable nationwide organization it needs to accommodate both groups. I personally believe that at some point, this will no longer be an issue in our society, but I also think that for those of us who are older than, say, 30 years old, it is very unlikely that we will see that day for ourselves. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagledad Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Yes NJ, you seem to loose patience in discussions that don't quite go the way you like, but it is a friendly courteous dialogue and while your opinion that the words are wasted, I disagree. In the Bible, Patience is the first word for defining love and that is not by coincidence (1 Corinthians 13:4-7). We all find ourselves annoyed now and then, but how we respond is what sets the level of the discussion. As long as the discussion is within the boundaries of the scout law, Isn't that enough? Barry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Equivocation is your word. Because I was describing what fred Johnson was doing -- equivocating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJCubScouter Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Yes NJ, you seem to loose patience in discussions that don't quite go the way you like, but it is a friendly courteous dialogue and while your opinion that the words are wasted, I disagree. In the Bible, Patience is the first word for defining love and that is not by coincidence (1 Corinthians 13:4-7). We all find ourselves annoyed now and then, but how we respond is what sets the level of the discussion. As long as the discussion is within the boundaries of the scout law, Isn't that enough? It has nothing to do with my "patience" or lack thereof. People can use whatever words they want, and argue over their meaning if they want, but I can also make a comment that attempts to promote good communications in the forum. In my opinion, an argument over the meaning of a word, when that word is not even necessary to use in discussing the subject, does not promote good communications. I was making a suggestion that would, if people were interested, allow them to stop what I think is a meaningless argument over the meaning of a word. But if you want to keep arguing, it's your dime, as they used to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagledad Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Because I was describing what fred Johnson was doing -- equivocating. Ah, then you should not have responded to my post. But even Fred's response supports the pretense of motivation in how discrimination is implied. Barry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 I replied to your post because you replied to mine with more equivocation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclops Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 NJCubscouter, I do salute your patience. You are obviously frustrated by all this argument for (as you say) literally decades, the waste of time and words and yet - here you are continuing to cast pearls, I'm guessing in the hope that someone might yet feel the issue is resolved. I salute you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagledad Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 I replied to your post because you replied to mine with more equivocation. Your word, my response defined the difference. If it weren't for the difference, you would have no need to bring your apposing opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 I point out when people equivocate because it's a dishonest debating tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mashmaster Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 I'm so confused at this point. I was just stating a fact from our church and nothing more. Obviously I think the change is good but it will take time to heal the wounds they feel they have incurred. This was statement they told me, which isn't necessarily bad, just another point of view. I know that BSA has been an instrumental and positive experience for many boys/men. And not so much for others. Sounds like BSA at the highest level is taking steps to ensure inclusion of GLBT youth and leaders. Like any organization with local groups though I wonder how open the groups will be. My hope is that over time, very! I do think organizations can change but just like when we do wrong, it doesn't always erase the pains and hurts. As far as the UCC, I'm proud to be ordained in a denomination that stands up for justice issues even if that means ending endorsements. Sounds like enough progress has been made towards inclusion that the UCC feels called to reestablish those connections. I don't have boys but I have been very pleased with our involvement in BPSA inclusive scouting. My daughters enjoy learning along their male counterparts and those who historically didn't (don't) fit in with BSA or GSA. Things like sexual orientation, gender identity, physical and behavioral abilities etc. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclops Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Mashmaster, thank you for sharing that. Your church must be a very open and welcoming church and I'm glad for that. Do you think they will continue with BPSA? It sounds like BPSA is working very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSScout Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) A discriminating taste: "I refuse to belong to any club that would have me as a member" = Groucho Marx = Edited October 8, 2015 by SSScout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mashmaster Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Mashmaster, thank you for sharing that. Your church must be a very open and welcoming church and I'm glad for that. Do you think they will continue with BPSA? It sounds like BPSA is working very well. They are an extremely open and welcoming church which is why my wife and I chose it. I think they will continue with BPSA since they have already started that process a couple of years ago. I don't know much about that program other than it is coed and based on the Baden Powell books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrinator Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 I think they will continue with BPSA since they have already started that process a couple of years ago. I don't know much about that program other than it is coed and based on the Baden Powell books.The BPSA advocates "traditional scouting" but is, as you say, co-ed (not very "traditional" there) and "inclusive." They also accept atheists (their national commissioner is an atheist). I have to say, I wondered whether the BSA policy change was aimed in part toward the BPSA, as it removes one of the things that distinguishes them from the BSA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJCubScouter Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 I have to say, I wondered whether the BSA policy change was aimed in part toward the BPSA, as it removes one of the things that distinguishes them from the BSA. "In part", maybe, but probably not a very large part. I think there were a lot of "parts" that went into that decision. The idea of trying to persuade people who had left the BSA to renew their involvement, in general, was a major part. Within that, the specific focus on a small organization like the BPSA, if any, was probably a pretty small part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now