"Boy Scouts thrive after lifting of gay ban."

[qwazse]

I don't understand that attitude.  If you don't do something because someone "might sue", you would never do anything.  There's always someone who might sue.

Or, you only do that which you would put up a fight for.

[NJCubScouter]

Not necessarily.  Those with an intolerant political agenda will sue.  Those who are tolerant will just consider the source and just walk away.

 

Well, on this particular issue, as far as I know nobody has filed a lawsuit yet, after a year.  So maybe qwasze's prospective CO can rest a little easier and accept the charter.  Unless the talk of "activists" is really just an excuse for whatever the real reason is that they do not want to charter a unit.

[NJCubScouter]

Or, you only do that which you would put up a fight for.

 

That assumes that there would be a fight.  I have seen no evidence that an organization that charters a unit under the new policy, and uses the "religious local option", would be in for any sort of fight.  Zack Walls or whoever he is talking to the media does not count as a "fight" in my book.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Not necessarily.  Those with an intolerant political agenda will sue.  Those who are tolerant will just consider the source and just walk away.

 

 

Only if the BSA violates the law.  Simple, isn't it?  The BSA is still a private, discriminatory organization; just act like one.

[qwazse]

Only if the BSA violates the law. Simple, isn't it? The BSA is still a private, discriminatory organization; just act like one.

Thanks for making my point, Merl.

It's not the legal action itself. But, the potential rhetoric promised to all who step outside "the line."

That's what certain CO's have limited stomach for.

Sticks and stones, no problem.

Names, they hurt.

Edited July 25, 2016 by qwazse

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Thanks for making my point, Merl.

It's not the legal action itself. But, the potential rhetoric promised to all who step outside "the line."

That's what certain CO's have limited stomach for.

Sticks and stones, no problem.

Names, they hurt.

 

 

 

There IS no legal action.  Names hurt?  When hasn't there been namecalling for the last three decades in this BSA nonsense, hypocrite? (cf. your reference to "the permissive")

[Eagle94-A1]

If losing membership is "thriving," I'd hate to see what dying is like.

[NJCubScouter]

It's not the legal action itself. But, the potential rhetoric promised to all who step outside "the line."

That's what certain CO's have limited stomach for.

Sticks and stones, no problem.

Names, they hurt.

 

This seems irrational to me.  Similar to what I said above about suing, but take out the suing part:  So someone somewhere says something to a newspaper reporter or tv camera and a church halfway across the country (or whatever) doesn't want to charter a unit anymore?  People are always saying things.  One of my brother's in-laws thinks the BSA is a "paramilitary organization."  (Edited to add:  Since there are a variety of people reading this, I suppose I should clarify that "paramilitary" was not meant as a compliment.)  She told me this years ago, probably even before the "membership policy" became a big deal, but now that the BSA has resolved that issue, presumably she still thinks it is a "paramilitary organization", because one has nothing to do with the other.  

 

So now that I have reported that someone somewhere in New Jersey has this opinion, does that mean someone else should decline to be involved with the BSA?  After all, my brother's in-law may think that someone should raid the BSA to take all the guns away.  Doesn't make sense, right?  Neither does the situation reported by quazse.

Edited July 25, 2016 by NJCubScouter

[NJCubScouter]

If losing membership is "thriving," I'd hate to see what dying is like.

 

Well, what are the actual figures?  The article said membership is "stabilizing".  I hope they're right.

 

(Just want to add, I don't necessarily agree with the assumptions a lot of people make regarding "cause and effect" between the action on the "issues" and the movements in membership.  I think there are a lot of things that cause individuals to join or not join the BSA, and when you add together all these individual decisions there is no one thing that causes the numbers to go up or down.  For example I still don't think the "improved Scouting program" of 1972 played anywhere near as as big a role in the membership decline of that era (which was happening before that anyway), but I know I'll never convince a lot of people about that one, either.)

Edited July 25, 2016 by NJCubScouter

[Stosh]

Somehow Thriving and Stabilizing don't ring true as synonyms.  Sounds more like a PC spin with an agenda to me.

[Eagledad]

Since I'm not presently involved, I don't know if the program is stabilizing, stalling, thriving or whatever. What I do see is that the Boy Scouting is not on the front page of the news and discussed in the context of a political talking point. The decision to accept gay boys has for the moment calmed the activism against the movement. It's nice to have a discussions more about the boys. 

 

Barry

[qwazse]

There IS no legal action.  Names hurt?  When hasn't there been namecalling for the last three decades in this BSA nonsense, hypocrite? (cf. your reference to "the permissive")

There is nothing hypocritical about finding non-incendiary terms for broad movements. The organization in question identifies itself as restrictive in terms of sexual ethics. The prevailing mood nationally is toward a permissive ethic. As far as I can tell, this is precisely what people are arguing about. If you have more neutral terms for these opposing sides, suggestions are welcome.

 

Now the published desire of certain activists is to ensure insure that BSA goes further in mandating a permissive ethic, regardless of the wishes of the chartered sponsor.

 

So, my repeating to a board -- one that recently came off of litigation to preserve it's right to uphold restrictive sexual ethics -- that "there IS no legal action" rings sufficiently hollow as to give half of them pause. Add the one guy who thinks two dozen 10-year-olds will wreak havoc on a building, and the scouting proponents can't overcome a motion to table.

 

@NJScouter, obviously, I think none of this is rational. I am just describing a situation where perhaps other programs are fast-tracked, but rolling out a BSA unit is shelved. If the opposite is occurring elsewhere, it would be encouraging to hear that story.

[Stosh]

Hmmmmm, the day is coming......

 

Christian worship services are open to anyone wishing to come... thus it can be defined as a public place.

 

Christian pastor reading from scripture about such things as sin, will soon be held accountable for promoting hate speech and be arrested.

 

This is how the intolerant work to silence free speech.  Free speech in America is no longer a basic freedom in the Bill of Rights, the others will fall one by one after that is successfully implemented.

[qwazse]

Well @@Stosh, that day may come -- or it may not, but I think your speech trickles down to lay leadership as "don't make waves".

[NJCubScouter]

Let's please avoid name-calling in here.  (The person whose post precipitated this has received a PM, but it applies to everybody.)