jkwilliams Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 If by BSA you mean the temporary National officers who are concerned about PR and corporate donations, yes they chose. If by BSA you mean the chartered organizations, parents, and volunteers... No. They were not asked about this last change, and a plurality of them didn't support the last change. It was pressure from outside groups that enabled the change. The jury is still out if this is really a victory for religious freedom. Real lawsuits are being prepared by real lawyers calling the current compromise "unsustainable" and preparing to challenge it until they get full capitulation on the gay leader issue from Nationals. The jury's not really out on this. The Supreme Court already ruled that the BSA has the legal right to exclude gays from its membership. In addition, the First Amendment protects a religious organization's right to determine its own rules. Even if gays were a legally protected class (they're not), it wouldn't matter. 2
rockpond Posted July 29, 2015 Author Posted July 29, 2015 Well, MM did forget to say "in theory". Having taught Boy Scouts for over a quarter century I'd argue that one primary benefit of Scouting is allowing boys to cut, tie up, and burn things in an environment that won't cause damage to home and church. Seriously, having a standard on sexuality that does not conform with popular culture is not necessarily bigoted or narrow minded. It could be that the BSA and LDS BSA troops in particular want to perpetuate what they feel is safe conduct for boys, and they want examples of people living that safe conduct to teach boys. You as an individual have the right to disagree with what safe conduct means, but you do not have the right to dictate your standards to that group. The problem is not that those who disagree petitioned for change, it is that when changes are made to accommodate differences, continued pressure is put on until accommodation becomes a demand for assimilation. If we remember that the BSA is a volunteer program, with no critical services provided that other organizations cannot reasonably provide, then why not let them have their own beliefs, outmoded or not? Having sons in scouts and having served as a leader for quite some time, one of the most frustrating parts of the BSA for me is that they seem to have no respect for our beliefs about the Sabbath. I don't live in Utah - I imagine it may be different there. Most (if not all) of the BSA camps here either start on Sunday (week long camps) or end on Sunday (weekend/long-weekend camps). It makes it very hard on our boys and the leaders. We either play catch-up on Monday morning or we miss the wrap-up stuff on Sunday. And yet, I've never heard of the Church threatening to leave the BSA on grounds that they don't respect the Sabbath.
jkwilliams Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 What is your understanding of the Churches teachings on homosexuality? My understanding is that the church has no position on the causes of homosexuality. From the church's Mormons and Gays web site: "No one fully knows the root causes of same-sex attraction. Each experience is different. Latter-day Saints recognize the enormous complexity of this matter. We simply don’t have all the answers. Attraction to those of the same sex, however, should not be viewed as a disease or illness. We must not judge anyone for the feelings they experience." 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Okay, but, you specifically mentioned "Soft Core Porn," so I guess I'm still trying to get where you were coming from. I understand you think "sex between men and people who try to have their sex altered surgically are still bizarre concepts," but that's entirely beside the point of my question. Has Boy's Life had content that rises to the level of your concern prior to this decision by the BSA? Has there ever been heterosexual "soft core porn" in Boy's Life? I'm trying to understand why you think that would change now.No, Boys' Life up to now has been perfectly safe. But it has not been until this past week that BSA has been compelled to admit practicing homosexuals as Scoutmasters. It's a whole new game plan.
KevinG Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Having sons in scouts and having served as a leader for quite some time, one of the most frustrating parts of the BSA for me is that they seem to have no respect for our beliefs about the Sabbath. I don't live in Utah - I imagine it may be different there. Most (if not all) of the BSA camps here either start on Sunday (week long camps) or end on Sunday (weekend/long-weekend camps). It makes it very hard on our boys and the leaders. We either play catch-up on Monday morning or we miss the wrap-up stuff on Sunday. And yet, I've never heard of the Church threatening to leave the BSA on grounds that they don't respect the Sabbath. Ironically the local Atlanta and North Georgia councils often accommodate us by allowing us to camp early or leave early in order to avoid travel on the Sabbath. However it is our responsibility to act in accordance with that belief. A couple of years ago our boys were wanting to cut up and run around when we had requested we be able to arrive Saturday night and have our own Sacrament meeting at camp on Sunday. I've never seen our normally calm Bishop (and previous Scoutmaster) get so angry. He reminded the boys that if we expect the Scout Council to take us seriously about keeping the Sabbath Holy, we better be great examples of keeping the Sabbath Holy. I have found the Scouts in Illinois, South Caroline, Tennessee, and Georgia very accommodating to religious preference if they know you have a need. I cannot speak for other states. 1
Saint Sinner Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Well, MM did forget to say "in theory". Having taught Boy Scouts for over a quarter century I'd argue that one primary benefit of Scouting is allowing boys to cut, tie up, and burn things in an environment that won't cause damage to home and church. Seriously, having a standard on sexuality that does not conform with popular culture is not necessarily bigoted or narrow minded. It could be that the BSA and LDS BSA troops in particular want to perpetuate what they feel is safe conduct for boys, and they want examples of people living that safe conduct to teach boys. You as an individual have the right to disagree with what safe conduct means, but you do not have the right to dictate your standards to that group. The problem is not that those who disagree petitioned for change, it is that when changes are made to accommodate differences, continued pressure is put on until accommodation becomes a demand for assimilation. If we remember that the BSA is a volunteer program, with no critical services provided that other organizations cannot reasonably provide, then why not let them have their own beliefs, outmoded or not?By the same reasoning it is not immoral to not conform to religious sexual ethics.
jkwilliams Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 No, Boys' Life up to now has been perfectly safe. But it has not been until this past week that BSA has been compelled to admit practicing homosexuals as Scoutmasters.It's a whole new game plan. Yes, because now that the gays are inside the door, the BSA is going to decide that minors should be exposed to pornography.
CV75 Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Regarding the idea (I can't locate the post) that organizations assign scout leadership roles to whomever they think will do a good job: it seems the Church does not want to support a change in policy that, in this context, highlights a departure from its own standard for marriage and chastity.
Thinking Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) If we remember that the BSA is a volunteer program, with no critical services provided that other organizations cannot reasonably provide, then why not let them have their own beliefs, outmoded or not? A volunteer organization that receives corporate funding. Also, why not let them update their beliefs? Edited July 29, 2015 by Thinking
jkwilliams Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Regarding the idea (I can't locate the post) that organizations assign scout leadership roles to whomever they think will do a good job: it seems the Church does not want to support a change in policy that, in this context, highlights a departure from its own standard for marriage and chastity. The BSA has never followed the church's standard for marriage and chastity, nor has the church expected them to do so. 1
KevinG Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 As an aside... When I'm trying to discuss and even advocate my position on the LDS (and other denominations) and Boy Scouts it really isn't helpful for someone to drop a bomb in the thread about how gays are likely to molest boys, or homosexuality is an abomination. I feel like someone trying to have a conversation in church with Fred Phelps and the West-borough Baptists screaming and holding placards outside. I'll stop net nannying now. Sigh. 4
KevinG Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 By the same reasoning it is not immoral to not conform to religious sexual ethics. Correct. But it is rather evil in my opinion to force one's sexual mores on another group who disagree with them. Agency is the key here. The bottom line is should any group be able to pressure or dictate others into conformity with their beliefs just because they are more popular?
CV75 Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) The BSA has never followed the church's standard for marriage and chastity, nor has the church expected them to do so. Of course not -- not at all, NEVER, in any way, shape, form or fashion...! LOL The Church has certainly and reasonably "expected" a policy not to admit openly* gay leaders, because according to the recent news item, it is inconsistent with its doctrine (e.g. on marriage and chastity) and the BSA tradition (to strive for good male role models). *blatantly, flagrantly, brazenly, boldly, overtly, in full view; shamelessly, immodestly, wantonly… As I said, "it seems the Church does not want to support a change in policy that, in this context, highlights a departure from its own standard for marriage and chastity." While it did not expect the BSA to teach its temple doctrine, it did have a reasonable expectation that it maintain a national policy and general environment supportive of her standards. The former BSA policy was sufficiently aligned with the Church's standard for marriage (man and woman) and chastity, and it no longer is. Edited July 29, 2015 by CV75
Saint Sinner Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Correct. But it is rather evil in my opinion to force one's sexual mores on another group who disagree with them. Agency is the key here. The bottom line is should any group be able to pressure or dictate others into conformity with their beliefs just because they are more popular?Of course not. The BSA is allowed to do what it wants. No one is being forced to participate or being forced out.
stemelbow Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 No, Boys' Life up to now has been perfectly safe. But it has not been until this past week that BSA has been compelled to admit practicing homosexuals as Scoutmasters. It's a whole new game plan. So what are you expecting? A man with his shirt off or something? I'm confused how this is going to lead to soft core porn in the magazine.
Gray Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) If by BSA you mean the temporary National officers who are concerned about PR and corporate donations, yes they chose. If by BSA you mean the chartered organizations, parents, and volunteers... No. They were not asked about this last change, and a plurality of them didn't support the last change. It was pressure from outside groups that enabled the change. The jury is still out if this is really a victory for religious freedom. Real lawsuits are being prepared by real lawyers calling the current compromise "unsustainable" and preparing to challenge it until they get full capitulation on the gay leader issue from Nationals. Do parents and volunteers have voting rights within the BSA? Are you trying to dictate how they run their organization? Anyone has the right to sue any party they like. Doesn't mean they will win. But if they BSA does decide to make another policy change, they have the right to do so. Would you pressure them to do something different? Edited July 29, 2015 by Gray
jkwilliams Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Of course not -- not at all, in any way, shape, form or fashion. Has the BSA had a policy on sexually active but unmarried heterosexuals? Does the church? Are they the same? 1
Gray Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 No, Boys' Life up to now has been perfectly safe. But it has not been until this past week that BSA has been compelled to admit practicing homosexuals as Scoutmasters.It's a whole new game plan. You mean the BSA voluntarily chose to allow its affiliated troops to choose whether or not to admit gay leaders. A victory for religious freedom.
Gray Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 So what are you expecting? A man with his shirt off or something? I'm confused how this is going to lead to soft core porn in the magazine. Ironically Baden-Powell probably would have appreciated that. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/opinion/scoutings-gay-founder.html?_r=0
KevinG Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Of course not. The BSA is allowed to do what it wants. No one is being forced to participate or being forced out. Again the BSA National office is a much different beast than the volunteer corps and chartered organizations they depend on. I am more upset with National for not listening to membership than I am with any single gay who wants to be a scout leader. I would not argue that the LDS Church should threaten to sue the BSA if they don't get their way. I would argue that walking away from the relationship if it is no longer mutually agreeable is the right thing to do. 4
Buckeye Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 So what are you expecting? A man with his shirt off or something? I'm confused how this is going to lead to soft core porn in the magazine. I think he expects that Boy's Life could show a picture of a webelos scout hiking with his two dads. You know ... soft core porn. 1
ttribe Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) No, Boys' Life up to now has been perfectly safe. But it has not been until this past week that BSA has been compelled to admit practicing homosexuals as Scoutmasters.It's a whole new game plan. I'm really not trying to be combative, but you seem to be avoiding the pornography issue now, even though it was you who brought it up. What is the link, in your mind, between the alleged increased likelihood of Boy's Life magazine including "soft core porn" in its pages, and the admission of "practicing homosexuals as Scoutmasters?" Why is it that you said this in the first place? Edited July 29, 2015 by ttribe 1
KevinG Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Do parents and volunteers have voting rights within the BSA? Are you trying to dictate how they run their organization? They vote with their volunteer hours and their feet. The BSA at least polled membership about the last policy change. This time Gates stood up and made a unilateral announcement that the agreed upon compromise wasn't sustainable, then changed policy at the National Level without input from volunteers. I've mentioned this before. I know the thread is long, but its kind of irritating hearing you argue points that were already answered several times. 1
CV75 Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 Has the BSA had a policy on sexually active but unmarried heterosexuals? Does the church? Are they the same? The subject is openly homosexual adult leaders.
jkwilliams Posted July 29, 2015 Posted July 29, 2015 The subject is openly homosexual adult leaders. Oh, so you meant church standards about homosexuality. Fair enough. What you seemed to be saying was that the BSA aligned completely with church standards in all areas until now. I guess it's up to the church to decide if allowing other Scout troops to have gay leaders is a deal-breaker. I hope not. 1
Recommended Posts