jwhitlock Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 You didn't quote anything from any specific person or group. This is why I don't think you ever bother with the details of what's actually in a thread before you post. Hint - this is not true. Go back and read my posts.
rockpond Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 My statement comes because there are those on this thread that are treating freedom of religion as a privilege that can be overridden by gay "rights". Who on this thread is suggesting that?
mfbukowski Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 It's not about money. It's about political correctness and pressure from gay rights groups and government agencies. The BSA knows very well that it stands to lose up to 70% of their religiously chartered units if they go to far in embracing homosexual behavior - and the significant amount of funding that comes with those units. That's not going to be made up by your corporate sponsors, much as you'd like to think so. The BSA won't fold because corporate sponsors dry up. The BSA will fold because they lost sight of their original mission and decided that embracing trendy political correctness because of pressure was more acceptable than respecting their core demographic. You do have an overactive imagination, don't you. And you did misrepresent what I said in your original post.I say let 'em fold. 1
jwhitlock Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 If the fear is in losing up to 70% of their religiously chartered units & their funding, then why vote the way they did? What is this pressure from outside groups that overrides the ongoing concern of the organization? Because the BSA is going to be a textbook case on how not to respond to pressures to change their core values and emphasis. Penn State horribly botched their response to the Sandusky abuse case. Organizations aren't particularly rational in their responses to issues more often than we'd like to think.
jwhitlock Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 I say let 'em fold. That is becoming a rather common sentiment, and surprisingly so among a growing number of members of the church. But that is another discussion.
jwhitlock Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Who on this thread is suggesting that? As long as religious freedom is misrepresented as simple discrimination, then that is exactly what is going on. 2
stemelbow Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Which is why if the BSA changes its policy any further than it has at this point, it will send a clear message that religious belief is no longer welcome in the organization. Not really. It'll be a clear message that it's silly to discriminate against others because of their inherent difference. Behavior is a big factor in that each individual should meet up to certain requirements, though. 1
Gray Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 My statement comes because there are those on this thread that are treating freedom of religion as a privilege that can be overridden by gay "rights". What freedom are you talking about? Please be specific.
rockpond Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Because the BSA is going to be a textbook case on how not to respond to pressures to change their core values and emphasis. I disagree. This committee vote will be approved and become policy. Years will pass and we'll all realize that the removal of a flawed policy didn't change the organization as some thought it would. 2
thesometimesaint Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Which is why if the BSA changes its policy any further than it has at this point, it will send a clear message that religious belief is no longer welcome in the organization. What?
rockpond Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 I say let 'em fold. I hope not. That would be a shame.
Calm Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 My statement comes because there are those on this thread that are treating freedom of religion as a privilege that can be overridden by gay "rights".I get that, but you still didn't define what you mean by the two and thus how to tell them apart.You claim SSM is a privilege. Is OSM a privilege as well?Trying to understand your argument.
rockpond Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 As long as religious freedom is misrepresented as simple discrimination, then that is exactly what is going on. That's not an answer and I don't see anyone doing that. You wrote: "My statement comes because there are those on this thread that are treating freedom of religion as a privilege that can be overridden by gay "rights"." Who is suggesting that? 1
rockpond Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Which is why if the BSA changes its policy any further than it has at this point, it will send a clear message that religious belief is no longer welcome in the organization. This doesn't even make sense. What policy changes have they made that "send a clear message that religious belief is no longer welcome in the organization".
Analytics Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) This doesn't even make sense. What policy changes have they made that "send a clear message that religious belief is no longer welcome in the organization". Belief in God is a requirement for scouts; atheists--whether as scouts or adult volunteers--are explicitly not welcome. It's absurd to think that allowing a sponsoring organization to choose a gay scout master if it wants to is somehow construed as theists being kicked out of scouts. Edited July 16, 2015 by Analytics 2
jwhitlock Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Both are rights. But you seem to think religious people have a right to violate other Americans' rights. They don't. You seem to think that gays should have a right to violate the rights of religious Americans. That's certainly where the courts have been headed, so you are going to get your way.
jwhitlock Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Not really. It'll be a clear message that it's silly to discriminate against others because of their inherent difference. Behavior is a big factor in that each individual should meet up to certain requirements, though. Since The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been very open about gays in relation to the church, "inherent difference" shouldn't even be brought up in this discussion. However, what Scouts for Equality seem to want, for instance, is that the BSA require ALL its chartered units to include gays without regard to behavior. 1
jwhitlock Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 I disagree. This committee vote will be approved and become policy. Years will pass and we'll all realize that the removal of a flawed policy didn't change the organization as some thought it would. If you consider the majority of chartered units sponsored by religious groups terminating their affiliation with the BSA as not significant, then your statement makes sense. In reality, it does make a big difference. 1
jwhitlock Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 I get that, but you still didn't define what you mean by the two and thus how to tell them apart.You claim SSM is a privilege. Is OSM a privilege as well?Trying to understand your argument. I'll further clarify that SSM is a protected privilege, which puts it above the rights of others. The courts seem to be taking the viewpoint that in any case involving the conflict of rights of two different groups, SSM as a protected privilege will be considered before the rights of others - even fundamental rights as stated in the Bill of Rights, 1
jwhitlock Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 That's not an answer and I don't see anyone doing that. You wrote: "My statement comes because there are those on this thread that are treating freedom of religion as a privilege that can be overridden by gay "rights"." Who is suggesting that? Do I need to spell it out for you? The stock answer on this thread for any conflict between religious rights and gay rights has been that religious rights always discriminate in such situations, and therefore are wrong. Get it now? 1
Gray Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 You seem to think that gays should have a right to violate the rights of religious Americans. That's certainly where the courts have been headed, so you are going to get your way. No. I think rights for both should be protected.
jwhitlock Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 This doesn't even make sense. What policy changes have they made that "send a clear message that religious belief is no longer welcome in the organization". Then read what I actually said. I was specific in talking about policies they may make beyond what they voted on the other day - not what they've already made.
jwhitlock Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 Belief in God is a requirement for scouts; atheists--whether as scouts or adult volunteers--are explicitly not welcome. It's absurd to think that allowing a sponsoring organization to choose a gay scout master if it wants to is somehow construed as theists being kicked out of scouts. Since rockpond misrepresented what I said, I guess I have to state it again. The next step in potential BSA policy evolution is to require religious organizations to accept gay adults in their troops. The policy they just voted on doesn't have that requirement and specifically exempts it, but gay activists are demanding that the exemption be removed and ALL chartered organizations be required to admit gay adults, including religiously oriented ones. That is what would send a clear message that religious belief is no longer welcome in the BSA unless it passes the gay rights litmus test.
jwhitlock Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 No. I think rights for both should be protected. Except where they come into conflict, and then claimed gay rights must always take precedence. That is, of course, where all this is headed.
thesometimesaint Posted July 16, 2015 Posted July 16, 2015 I'll further clarify that SSM is a protected privilege, which puts it above the rights of others. The courts seem to be taking the viewpoint that in any case involving the conflict of rights of two different groups, SSM as a protected privilege will be considered before the rights of others - even fundamental rights as stated in the Bill of Rights, Whose rights should prevail in cases at law? I tend to think that the 14th Amendment is just as binding as the first 10. 1
Recommended Posts