Boy Scouts Vote To Accept Gay Youth

[Stone holm]

I also concur with what others have said. The BSA has a legal right to exclude whoever they want from their association based on the Supreme Court case about this very issue. The change was both initiated and approved by the BSA, not by the courts. You are trying so desperately to make this all about gay activism, but the facts simply do not support your assertion.

Your opinion that Americans are sheep following what the media tells them to do on this issue is your opinion. I am sure blaming the news media is much easier for you to do than to actually look at the facts of this issue. The problem you have is that no matter how you try and explain away the reasons for this change in policy, you can not get away from the fact that BSA discriminates against gays. You are confusing two different meanings of the word discrimination when you bring up things like restrooms. To help you understand your misuse of the word discrimination within our discussion let me point you to the dictionary definition of discrimination.

People in the news media report that BSA discriminates against gays because that is exactly what they are doing. (see definition above). Their new policy discriminates less, but they are still discriminating against gays. I agree with Stone Holm and others that this new policy continues the very issue they are trying to resolve. The first proposal took discrimination away from the BSA and put it upon the organizations sponsoring the program. It was a much better solution for scouting.

It not only would have been a better solution for BSA, it would have been a better strategic solution for the Church since it would have reaffirmed the right of the Chartered Organizations to follow their own moral codes on gender orientation and would have let the spotlight fall on the ultra conservative churches in the former Confederacy. This is going to keep the spotlight on us.

[Calm]

Actually, no it read as I indicated.

Well, then it was very poorly phrased if so leaving it to make an incorrect statement.

[Calm]

I also know several Muslims who were not involved in polygyny and have been baptized and they have never had to have permission from the First Presidency based on "belonging to an apostate group". There is no way that the official position of the Church is that Islam is an apostate group such as the FLDS.

[Stone holm]

Well, then it was very poorly phrased if so leaving it to make an incorrect statement.

Granted, it is not the way I would have written it, and not the way I would have conceived of Islam ( bear in mind this was some thirty years ago). But I suppose if you consider any group which existed or came into existence after the original church as somehow apostate, then I guess it made some sense.

[Stone holm]

I also know several Muslims who were not involved in polygyny and have been baptized and they have never had to have permission from the First Presidency based on "belonging to an apostate group". There is no way that the official position of the Church is that Islam is an apostate group such as the FLDS.

Well the case did specifically involve a branch of Islam that was engaging in polygamy and I am sure that they did not mean merely being a Muslim who was not so involved gave you a taint. Back during that era the oil companies were sending a lot of Americans over to Saudi Arabia and LDS workers were in high demand because they were less prone to offend the natives. BYU was also sponsoring colloquies, etc studying the similarities of Mormonism and Islam. We were trying to establish warm cultural ties with the Middle East, so what you are saying is correct.

[EllenMaksoud]

I don't buy that the whole of Islam was labeled an "apostate" group because they allow the practice polygyny. They would have to have roots in the LDS faith to be such a one and having started at a significant time prior to the LDS faith....nope, just don't make that connection.

I think the letter was likely not explained well, misunderstood or conveyed to you improperly and it was more likely stated something along the lines of "like those apostate faiths (such as the FLDS or other breakoff sects) that practice plural marriage, anyone who has been involved in polygamy needs to receive permission from the First Presidency".

I'm not understanding how Islam got associated with the Boy Scouts.

[jwhitlock]

I also concur with what others have said. The BSA has a legal right to exclude whoever they want from their association based on the Supreme Court case about this very issue. The change was both initiated and approved by the BSA, not by the courts. You are trying so desperately to make this all about gay activism, but the facts simply do not support your assertion.

You ignore the fact that gay rights groups demanded - and are continuing to demand - that gay leaders be required to be accepted in all BSA units. Without exception. That's the agenda. That's what they're pushing. That's what they want, and they aren't going to quit pressuring not only the BSA, but also corporate and other sponsors until that happens. Given that clear fact, I find it disingenuous that you continue to downplay gay rights groups' involvement in this process.

It is worth noting that gay groups are not the only ones trying to gut the foundational concepts that the BSA embraces. The Freedom From Religion Foundation has again indicated that it is going to pressure the BSA to make God-related aspects of the organization optional, since they discriminate against atheists. Sound familiar?

Your opinion that Americans are sheep following what the media tells them to do on this issue is your opinion. I am sure blaming the news media is much easier for you to do than to actually look at the facts of this issue. The problem you have is that no matter how you try and explain away the reasons for this change in policy, you can not get away from the fact that BSA discriminates against gays. You are confusing two different meanings of the word discrimination when you bring up things like restrooms. To help you understand your misuse of the word discrimination within our discussion let me point you to the dictionary definition of discrimination.

It appears that, according to gay groups, when Americans agree with sound bites such as "the BSA discriminates against gays" they are well informed. However, when the American people disagree with talking points of gay agendas, they are sheeple who don't think for themselves. Organizations such as the BSA that are founded on certain general religious principles do so because they appeal to the segments of the population they are designed to serve, and because they are successful with that agenda. That's not discrimination. That's targeting a specific demographic that you want to serve, and it's the exact same thing that gay rights groups themselves do. This ridiculous mantra that gays MUST be included in everything isn't going to work, and is going to end up badly.

Your continued claims that the American public is somehow well informed about all this flies so far in the face of clear reality that I'm astounded that you keep repeating it. Americans in general have a particular reputation for having rather narrow, uninformed viewpoints about things. Gay rights is one of them. Most people that I talk to about the issue are clearly uninformed about the details, and many of them parrot what they hear on TV as their "opinions". Saying that an "enlightened" American public demands that discrimination be unacceptable in any form is simply not credible as justification for anything.

People in the news media report that BSA discriminates against gays because that is exactly what they are doing. (see definition above).

As long as you're going to misrepresent the right of association as discrimination, there's going to be no discussion. Since gay rights groups are misusing the term now, I will not be surprised when they start misusing the term in order to attack churches. The BSA and gay groups' attacks on it are simply a harbinger of the attacks that are going to be made on freedom of religion.

[Calm]

I'm not understanding how Islam got associated with the Boy Scouts.

Side issue

[Tacenda]

Saw this on KSL today......

"Scout Council Demands Apology From Leaders Who Marched in Pride Parade"

http://www.ksl.com/

One of the comments in the "comment section" on KSL was this...... "Are they also demanding an apology from the scouts and leaders that violated the BSA "no political" policy when they greeted Romney coming off the plane?"

Hmmmm, they do have a point

[rockpond]

Saw this on KSL today......

"Scout Council Demands Apology From Leaders Who Marched in Pride Parade"

http://www.ksl.com/

One of the comments in the "comment section" on KSL was this...... "Are they also demanding an apology from the scouts and leaders that violated the BSA "no political" policy when they greeted Romney coming off the plane?"

Hmmmm, they do have a point

They were carrying the U.S. flag in a community parade. I don't think that qualifies as political.

[Sleeper Cell]

Saw this on KSL today......

"Scout Council Demands Apology From Leaders Who Marched in Pride Parade"

http://www.ksl.com/

One of the comments in the "comment section" on KSL was this...... "Are they also demanding an apology from the scouts and leaders that violated the BSA "no political" policy when they greeted Romney coming off the plane?"

Hmmmm, they do have a point

I’m not so sure. Merely greeting a political leader as he gets off a plane is a respectful courtesy. It does not imply endorsement. Marching in a “Pride parade” implies endorsement.

I would be greatly honored to greet President Obama and shake his hand as he came off a plane. I would not march in a pro-Obama parade.

[rockpond]

I’m not so sure. Merely greeting a political leader as he gets off a plane is a respectful courtesy. It does not imply endorsement. Marching in a “Pride parade” implies endorsement.

I would be greatly honored to greet President Obama and shake his hand as he came off a plane. I would not march in a pro-Obama parade.

I think that carrying a U.S. Flag in a community celebration also is a respectful courtesy. While there may be political entries IN a pride parade, the parade itself is not a political event. Carrying a U.S. flag is not an endorsement of anything but patriotism.

[thesometimesaint]

I think that carrying a U.S. Flag in a community celebration also is a respectful courtesy. While there may be political entries IN a pride parade, the parade itself is not a political event. Carrying a U.S. flag is not an endorsement of anything but patriotism.

This is not helpful. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014517337