Desnews: 33 Scout Councils Ask Bsa To Delay Decision

[Scott Lloyd]

If I had meant to say the words you're inserting into my mouth, I would have simply said them.

A classic Watergate-era non-denial denial.

[Scott Lloyd]

Status quo, status quo, status quo....must defend the status quo.

Not at all. I'm all for seeing the Church jettison BSA now, if there's such widespread and brazen acknowledgment that the ultimate aim is to have it slide down into total capitulation to pressure groups.

Dumping BSA would be a radical departure from the status quo.

[jwhitlock]

Yes, they have that in common with gay groups - they simply want the same rights as anyone else regardless of their sexual orientation.

Let's get back to basics, then, since you're tap dancing around this.

Gay activists want nothing less than to have ALL units in the BSA accept gays, without any qualifications. That means that those engaging in an active gay lifestyle would have to be accepted.

There is to be no religious exemption. That means that religious groups will be required to put aside any moral qualms about engaging in gay behavior, and instead embrace that behavior as acceptable.

I am aware of no other group that demands total acceptance based ultimately on behavior. Your "comparison" with "heterosexual groups" (as if any have ever defined themselves that way) is invalid because gays demand acceptance not only of who they are, but the behavior they choose to engage in. The church has already made it clear that SSA in and of itself is not an issue; however, gays demanding changes in the BSA want to go further and demand that groups such as the church accept whatever behavior they decide to engage in.

This is why the BSA debate is interesting to me. It is, again, a clear indication that gay rights groups will not stop with "religious exemptions" on anything, but will instead demand nothing less than total acceptance of their behaviors - even if those behaviors are viewed as sinful by religious groups. In other words, the gay "rights" agenda is designed to make religious freedom subject to broadly defined acts of "discrimination" when others choose not to accept their behavior and embrace it as normal.

The battle lines are being clearly drawn here, and there is no particular rationalization or past civil rights clash that compares the ultimate right being demanded by gay groups - which is accept us and our behavior as we are, without exemption, or be subject to sanction by the state.

[Saints Alive]

If nothing else the BSA knows how to compromise, I can't remember who said it but you know you have a good compromise when both sides are unhappy.

[jwhitlock]

If nothing else the BSA knows how to compromise, I can't remember who said it but you know you have a good compromise when both sides are unhappy.

The BSA is between a rock and a hard place here. Over the years, they've let politics and special interests start to dilute the core message and foundation of the organization, which was geared from the beginning to very traditional moral and religious values, and raising boys in that environment. Now, they have gay rights groups pressuring corporate donors to pull money from the scouts, while on the other hand they have 70% of their units being sponsored by religious organizations that oppose where they gay agenda is taking scouting. I don't think that they're going to be able to broker a compromise in this situation, since both sides have expressed significant displeasure with that compromise. They are instead going to have to give in to one group or the other.

I can be optimistic and hope that the BSA will retrench back to its core values because of this, that the politics and special interests will be diminished, and that the organization can go back to its roots. If it did that, I think its core supporters would be willing to step up and fill the gap, even though there would be some pain associated with it. That would be the long term right thing to do and I think the organization would flourish. But it would have to clean house, so to speak, and get rid of the baggage that its accumulated. Perhaps this situation will serve as the catalyst for it to do so.

On the other hand, I'm realistic enough to know that organizations don't change so easily. If they give in to gay demands, the organization will self destruct and cease to exist. It will be unacceptable to the 70% to require active gays to participate in scouting, and so they will simply withdraw. The BSA will not be able to overcome that kind of loss.

I think they recognize this, and that's why they postponed a decision. I also think that this is bringing too much of BSA's ongoing baggage back into the discussion, and if it doesn't show some backbone and retrench to where it's supposed to be, some of the larger sponsors may just decide they're finished with them, and withdraw their support of their scouting units. It's going to be interesting to watch what happens in the next 12-24 months, which I think are going to be critical for the future of the BSA.

[gkearney]

Not all of the 70% of the sponsors are of one mind on the issue. I can foresee a situation much like that which exists in Europe where there can be multiple national scouting bodies in the same country.

If the BSA falls apart over this I think it very likely that either your congress or the courts will move to strip the BSA of their legally imposed monopoly over scouting in the US.

[Calm]

to strip the BSA of their legally imposed monopoly over scouting in the US.

Legally imposed? This I was not aware of....more info please.

[gkearney]

In the US congress granted federal charters to the BSA and the GSUSA. These are the only two groups permitted to use the term scout or scouts in their names and programs. Early on there were several legal battles with other groups using the terms. This situation is unique to the US and is not found in other countries.

[Saints Alive]

In the US congress granted federal charters to the BSA and the GSUSA. These are the only two groups permitted to use the term scout or scouts in their names and programs. Early on there were several legal battles with other groups using the terms. This situation is unique to the US and is not found in other countries.

So the term scout is legally protected, so what? That doesn't prevent another group from teaching similar values and outdoor activities.

[gkearney]

That's true and there are groups that do just that, Campfire for example. But the term scout has become so intertwined with the system of non formal education as divided by Baden Powell that creating a similar program has proven to b almost impossible.

The track record of the church in departing from scouting has not been, in my opinion, a good one.

[thesometimesaint]

Boy Scouts of America is a legal Trademark. It is jealously guarded by the organization.

[semlogo]

A classic Watergate-era non-denial denial.

Objection, badgering the witness.

[semlogo]

Let's get back to basics, then, since you're tap dancing around this.

Gay activists want nothing less than to have ALL units in the BSA accept gays, without any qualifications. That means that those engaging in an active gay lifestyle would have to be accepted.

There is to be no religious exemption. That means that religious groups will be required to put aside any moral qualms about engaging in gay behavior, and instead embrace that behavior as acceptable.

I am aware of no other group that demands total acceptance based ultimately on behavior. Your "comparison" with "heterosexual groups" (as if any have ever defined themselves that way) is invalid because gays demand acceptance not only of who they are, but the behavior they choose to engage in. The church has already made it clear that SSA in and of itself is not an issue; however, gays demanding changes in the BSA want to go further and demand that groups such as the church accept whatever behavior they decide to engage in.

This is why the BSA debate is interesting to me. It is, again, a clear indication that gay rights groups will not stop with "religious exemptions" on anything, but will instead demand nothing less than total acceptance of their behaviors - even if those behaviors are viewed as sinful by religious groups. In other words, the gay "rights" agenda is designed to make religious freedom subject to broadly defined acts of "discrimination" when others choose not to accept their behavior and embrace it as normal.

The battle lines are being clearly drawn here, and there is no particular rationalization or past civil rights clash that compares the ultimate right being demanded by gay groups - which is accept us and our behavior as we are, without exemption, or be subject to sanction by the state.

How would I know what gay people want for the BSA? I don't have my finger on their pulse and neither do you, I suspect. I still don't see what sexual orientation has to do with knot tying and campfire building, any more than race or hair color and handedness. This is all very silly.

Heterosexual people also choose to engage in heterosexual behavior. The audacity!

[CV75]

I still don't see what sexual orientation has to do with knot tying and campfire building, any more than race or hair color and handedness.

But is has to do with the values of the chartering organizations. The larger mission and values of scouting have nothing to do with knot tying and campfire building either. The activities have more to do with learning the values than the other way around (the values are not the vehicles for learning the skills).

[semlogo]

But is has to do with the values of the chartering organizations. The larger mission and values of scouting have nothing to do with knot tying and campfire building either. The activities have more to do with learning the values than the other way around (the values are not the vehicles for learning the skills).

They are the ones instigating this possible change in policy. Perhaps they think excluding people isn't as valuable as they once thought.

I was a scout. The lessons we learned had a lot to do with citizenship, doing good in the community, and being prepared and self-reliant. Still not much to do with sexual orientation.

[Scott Lloyd]

They are the ones instigating this possible change in policy. Perhaps they think excluding people isn't as valuable as they once thought.

I was a scout. The lessons we learned had a lot to do with citizenship, doing good in the community, and being prepared and self-reliant. Still not much to do with sexual orientation.

There is very much a religious component to it, reflected in the phrase "do my duty to God" in the Scout Oath.

Adaptable, to be sure, to various religious organizations that sponsor Scouting, but present nonetheless.

Opening it up to sexually active gays infringes on the religious values of many of these sponsoring organizations to the point that it will become unpalatable for them to continue their association with it. It will surely result in the fragmentation -- perhaps the total demise -- of the Scouting movement.

That will be one legacy of the gay-rights pressure groups.

[Scott Lloyd]

Objection, badgering the witness.

This is not a court of law, and you're engaging in Nixon-era evasion.

Pointing that out is not badgering, especially when I've already dropped the matter.

[CV75]

They are the ones instigating this possible change in policy. Perhaps they think excluding people isn't as valuable as they once thought.

We'll have to see what the vast majority of faith-based charter organizations have to say about that.

I was a scout. The lessons we learned had a lot to do with citizenship, doing good in the community, and being prepared and self-reliant. Still not much to do with sexual orientation.

That may be what you got out of it, but you're evading a discussion of values, the rights of charter organizations to uphold them, and the proper relationship between values and activities. Traditional churches uphold traditional values, including traditional marriages and families which are valued as the foundation for citizenship in a civilized world, nation, community, etc. Tolerance of (and not conversion by) those who do not is also valued.

[The Nehor]

We'll have to see what the vast majority of faith-based charter organizations have to say about that.

That may be what you got out of it, but you're evading a discussion of values, the rights of charter organizations to uphold them, and the proper relationship between values and activities. Traditional churches uphold traditional values, including traditional marriages and families which are valued as the foundation for citizenship in a civilized world, nation, community, etc. Tolerance of (and not conversion by) those who do not is also valued.

I do not understand what is so great about tradition. Well, unless you are a Russian Jew singing of course.

Traditional civilized values led the people of this great nation to hound us into the desert and then follow us there with an army. Or at least just call them Victorian values or something like that. For people who are supposed to live anticipating a Millenium we sure do spend a lot of time going on about the good ole days of racism, imperialism, and motorized carriages still being seen as a pretty neat idea.

[Glenn101]

There is a matter of privacy that no one seems to be addressing. I don't think that anyone would advocate putting a boy and a girl together as tent mates on a camp out. Not having boy and girsl scouts use community showers at the same time. Those types of problems need to be worked out.

Those types of problems were the only things I had against gays in the military. Especially on board ships. I do not know if that is going to become a problem or not. Time will tell.

Glenn

[semlogo]

There is very much a religious component to it, reflected in the phrase "do my duty to God" in the Scout Oath.

Adaptable, to be sure, to various religious organizations that sponsor Scouting, but present nonetheless.

Opening it up to sexually active gays infringes on the religious values of many of these sponsoring organizations to the point that it will become unpalatable for them to continue their association with it. It will surely result in the fragmentation -- perhaps the total demise -- of the Scouting movement.

That will be one legacy of the gay-rights pressure groups.

What possible deleterious effect could "sexually active gays" have on a group of weekend knot tiers and hikers that they wouldn't have in sacrament meeting, where they are currently welcome to attend?

[semlogo]

This is not a court of law, and you're engaging in Nixon-era evasion.

Pointing that out is not badgering, especially when I've already dropped the matter.

No, you're trying to put words in my mouth, and I'm not letting you. Sorry!

You may speak for yourself. I will speak for myself.

[semlogo]

We'll have to see what the vast majority of faith-based charter organizations have to say about that.

That may be what you got out of it, but you're evading a discussion of values, the rights of charter organizations to uphold them, and the proper relationship between values and activities. Traditional churches uphold traditional values, including traditional marriages and families which are valued as the foundation for citizenship in a civilized world, nation, community, etc. Tolerance of (and not conversion by) those who do not is also valued.

The Supreme Court already ruled that organizations such as BSA may engage in discrimination if they wish. It seems they are unsure that they still want to be associated with that sort of thing, and the kinds of people who defend discrimination.

[CV75]

I do not understand what is so great about tradition.

I'm sure this is at the root of the whole issue, as is the great thing about charter organizations' rights to assert them.

[Scott Lloyd]

What possible deleterious effect could "sexually active gays" have on a group of weekend knot tiers and hikers that they wouldn't have in sacrament meeting, where they are currently welcome to attend?

It boils down to an abridgment of the freedom to associate with like-minded believers who share certain values.