"Boy Scouts thrive after lifting of gay ban."

[Stosh]

Whereas lay personnel have their gatherings and there are gatherings of clergy lead lay groups.  But there are also gatherings of clergy where such topics are shared not only within one's own persuasion, but those of others in the neighborhood.  I cannot cite who said what from which authoritative body, but it is a discussion that has come up and doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon.  Armed security, conceal carry in churches, and a number of other issues are not just talk anymore.  What was "never going to ever happen in America" is happening.

 

Oh, by the way, confidentiality is a strong trump card when it comes to clergy.

Edited July 26, 2016 by Stosh

[F-P]

It depends on which numbers you're looking at.

 

My unit hasn't had any significant change in registration numbers due to the decision, but we have changed where we go camping.  We don't go to BSA council camps anymore.

 

The council camps were hurting before this decision.  I wonder how they are going to do now?

 

I have personally had a major change of attitude in regard to the rash of campground closings we have seen in recent years.  I was previously very much opposed to closing the camps.  I was very vocal about it.

 

Now that we won't be using them anymore, why should I even care?

Please excuse the ignorance but why will you not use council camps any longer?

[Sentinel947]

 

 

Now that we won't be using them anymore, why should I even care?

 

Wow. Do you think that way about schools too? Public pools? Parks? 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

The clergy in our area have already been warned that saying homosexuality is a sin constitutes hate speech.

 

 

By whom?  Hate speech is perfectly legal in the US.

[MrBob]

By whom?  Hate speech is perfectly legal in the US.

 

 "legality" matters naught to the Court of the Aggrieved Social Justice Warrior.

[David CO]

Wow. Do you think that way about schools too? Public pools? Parks? 

 

I am taxed to support public schools, pools, and parks.  It's involuntary.  I have absolutely no choice in the matter.

 

When I do have a choice in how to spend my money, I choose to do so in a way that better reflects my beliefs and values.

Edited July 27, 2016 by David CO

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 "legality" matters naught to the Court of the Aggrieved Social Justice Warrior.

 

 

It does to fulfill stosh's imaginary governmental repression.  It's the difference between being arrested for being a jerk vs. being treated as a jerk for being a jerk.

[David CO]

Please excuse the ignorance but why will you not use council camps any longer?

 

Do you not understand what this topic is about?

[David CO]

But you WANT Scouting to thrive, right?

 

That was a very fair question, and I think it deserves an answer.

 

I would like to see the local units thrive.  But no, I have no reason to want BSA to thrive.  

 

There is a restaurant in my town that used to be part of chain.  The chain has since gone bankrupt, and no longer exists, but the restaurant can still use the name and logo.

 

The owner of the restaurant is absolutely thrilled with how this has turned out.  He has all the advantages of having a recognizable name brand, but he no longer has to deal with all the interference from the chain management or pay the exorbitant franchise fees. 

 

If we were legally allowed to continue to refer to our unit as Boy Scouts, without a BSA charter, I would drop BSA in a heartbeat.

Edited July 27, 2016 by David CO

[qwazse]

Lacking any suggestion of more neutral and adequate terms besides "permissive" and "restrictive", I will proceed ...

I have seen no one leave because of the ban. I know it was an issue, but then died out. People my area seem to not care about it. Personally, I do not know why it was a big deal...then again I grew up with people who were gay.

it's safe to say there is wide variation in the country about this. I grew up with people who were perfectly comfortable with restricting the activities of homosexuals (until their best buddy or family came out to them). In one sense the ban was an attempt by restrictives to use BSA as a tool in social engineering.

Local variations aside, we aren't hearing anecdotes of folks seeing membership booming at their permissive CO. Maybe it just takes longer in this activist climate for any group to move forward with chartering. Or maybe more concessions are in order ...

There's still the ban on atheists, and yes, atheist organizations do and will object to recruitment in public schools.

This is also a consideration of COs who may have a restrictive sexual ethic. Even very conservative church boards have members who may be offspring of atheists and may be parents of atheists. On one hand, BSA tells them they can select who leads the program, on the other it says that they have specific restrictions on philosophical grounds that must be followed for leaders and participants. Except for confirmation classes, this regulation probably does not apply to any of the church's other programs. It amounts to one more nuance that gives a board pause.

 

The other secular trends that may play:

More CO's may be looking for coed programs,

With more readily available public land, boys are hiking and camping independently.

Edited July 27, 2016 by qwazse

[F-P]

Do you not understand what this topic is about?

I understand the topic. Just not following how boycotting a council camp shows your dissatisfaction with a national rule. Kind of runs counter to your assertion that you want local units to thrive.

Edited July 27, 2016 by F-P

[Stosh]

People need to be allowed to associate with whom they want and not associate with those whom they do not want.  The government and any other authoritative body should not interfere with one's personal freedoms, such as the freedom to associate with others on their terms, not the government's.

 

With that being said, we now apply the authoritative presumption of fuzzy logic.  It's okay for the boys to associate with liars, cheats, gossipers, adulterers, homosexuals, bullies, etc. the kinds of morality that doesn't show up on a background check.  People have the freedom to determine who they wish to have associating with their children and once that line of choice becomes hazy enough the parents will simply avoid the questionable issue.  Sure, homosexuals can be SM's, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with a parent picking a unit where the SM is heterosexual.  Blur the lines enough, the parent will find an alternative activity for their children altogether.

 

I for one have taught my children to respect all people regardless of race, sex, religion, social status or whatever.  One can respect them and treat them decently, but one does not have to allow them the right to dictate any moral instruction to them because of that.

 

Once the organization no longer designates such clear cut choices, the trust factor tanks, and alternative programs are out there that do have clear cut choices that one's children can participate in.

 

If a clergy begins to promote morality contrary to the tenets of the religion, there is nothing holding me from moving on down the road to some place where the tenets of the religion are adhered to. 

 

It's not an issue of hatred, I don't need to ply any political agenda, I don't have to force my will on others, all I have to do is express my personal freedom of choice.  Just like everyone else.  I have no right to impose my choices on others and they have no right to impose theirs on me.  Anything other than that is hypocrisy on the one hand and tyranny on the other.  The Bill of Rights used to define that rather clearly. 

[walk in the woods]

People need to be allowed to associate with whom they want and not associate with those whom they do not want.  The government and any other authoritative body should not interfere with one's personal freedoms, such as the freedom to associate with others on their terms, not the government's.

...

 

I for one have taught my children to respect all people regardless of race, sex, religion, social status or whatever.  One can respect them and treat them decently, but one does not have to allow them the right to dictate any moral instruction to them because of that.

...

 

It's not an issue of hatred, I don't need to ply any political agenda, I don't have to force my will on others, all I have to do is express my personal freedom of choice.  Just like everyone else.  I have no right to impose my choices on others and they have no right to impose theirs on me.  Anything other than that is hypocrisy on the one hand and tyranny on the other.  The Bill of Rights used to define that rather clearly. 

You crazy libertarian kid, you!

[Stosh]

Is that what that is?  I'm not into any agenda branding.  I never vote for a party, just the person.  Well sometimes I vote against a person as well.  I always just thought of my self as an Independent with Constitutionalist leanings.    At best I just render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar.... and my soul doesn't belong to Caesar.

[Hedgehog]

If we were legally allowed to continue to refer to our unit as Boy Scouts, without a BSA charter, I would drop BSA in a heartbeat.

 

 

What benefit do you get from refering to the unit as "Boy Scouts"?  What parts of the the BSA program do you find essential to your school's youth group?

 

Wouldn't you have more freedom to craft a youth program without the guidelines and restrictions imposed by the BSA?  

 

Our church youth group is not affiliated with the BSA and it very much thrives.  Why not just call your youth program the "[Name of School] Outdoor Adventure Program?"