B.s.a. Allows Gay Leaders, Church Responds

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is the thing that's being ignored by rockpond, John Williams and others on this thread who claim to be "mystified" by the stance the Church is taking.

Glad I am not the lone man that noticed this.

[sunstoned]

That's how I see it. The outrage and panic seem drastically misplaced.

I am sure this will all settle down in a few weeks once the religious zealots realize they are not being targeted for percussion.

[ERayR]

So, I'm confused, is this a victory for religious freedom or a sad day for religious freedom?

 

 

 

Rationally-speaking, you are of course correct. This shouldn't be any different than other moral issues for which BSA national allows differing viewpoints. Camp counselors can smoke and drink despite LDS prohibitions. Some BSA units are affiliated with organizations that tolerate living together, even though LDS doctrine says no. And of course most BSA troops camp over Sundays. We've found ways to work with (and around) these issues for years. For instance, my LDS-affiliated troop will do swim checks a week before camp so we can arrive on Monday morning rather than Sunday afternoon for our camp. And while my boys see their counselors and camp staff drink coffee, none of them have questioned church doctrine because of it.

 

What's different with this issue is the overall environment and sense by church leaders that they are losing control. There is a snow-ball of acceptance of same-sex families is growing. SCOTUS rules, BSA changes policy, the media (even fox) largely supports same-sex families. A divide is growing between youth of the church (and especially young adults) and older generations. The leadership is unsure of how to keep the unity and is lashing out against BSA because it is the closest target.

 

I am sorry I don't see drinking coffee as an issue equivalent with sexual orientation.

[jkwilliams]

I know but in between doing real work, I'm trying to respond and my clipboard is full of spreadsheet numbers, which leaves no space for quoting Smac.

 

 

I have no dog in this fight, and the church will do what it will do. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You don't think the gay advocacy juggernaut is feeling its oats this week?

 

And if BSA caved in so readily this time, what would keep it from doing so in the future, citing "staggering legal costs" as the justification?

They are called blinders Scott. "If you can't explain it differently than how you just did then you really don't have a case".

[KevinG]

I have no dog in this fight, and the church will do what it will do. 

 

I just need to know if I should buy more white shirts instead of scout uniforms.  This has a real economic impact on my future!!!

 

(Truth in labeling as a service for the sarcastically impaired, the above statement was a joke.)

Edited July 28, 2015 by KevinG

[jkwilliams]

Glad I am not the lone man that noticed this.

 

I noticed it, but there's a difference between acknowledging that some HRC zealots aren't satisfied and going into full-blown panic. It's telling that people use the word "claim" when discussing the reactions of others, at least it is to me.

[jkwilliams]

They are called blinders Scott. "If you can't explain it differently than how you just did then you really don't have a case".

 

One can disagree without having blinders on, you know.

[KevinG]

I noticed it, but there's a difference between acknowledging that some HRC zealots aren't satisfied and going into full-blown panic. It's telling that people use the word "claim" when discussing the reactions of others, at least it is to me.

 

Considering we're discussing the church official response among ourselves is the degree of reaction among Facebook and other blog posters really germane?

 

Imagine if I went to "that other board that will not be spoken of" and brought all of their reactions into a discussion about the LDS church.  That would derail almost any discussion into ridiculousness.   Of course that's based on my experience of 5 years ago, the last time I checked there.  Perhaps they are more reasoned and less likely to freak out at all things TBM these days?

 

My Facebook page is a non-political zone and I'm not even touching this there.  A small 140 character window (minus scrolling) is a terrible place to discuss anything remotely nuanced.

Edited July 28, 2015 by KevinG

[canard78]

I must confess that I'm guilty here of being divisive because I wear my heterosexuality not just on my shoulder, but right in the middle of my forehead. I talk about my wife and our four sons in front of groups of hundreds (sometimes thousands). While I never get into the specifics, I think it's reasonable to assume that I have some biological connection with my boys because I constantly talk about how handsome they are (just like their daddy).

I don't know why I feel this need to proclaim my heterosexuality so widely. I probably should be more circumspect and simply say that "my mate and I raise four children of indeterminate biological origin." No one needs to know that Mrs. Newb is a "she" and that I'm attracted to women. Why do I keep bombarding people with my heterosexuality? Just to be divisive, I'd guess.

Well said sir!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Again, if someone tries to infringe on churches' First Amendment rights, they will face very long odds. If and when the day comes that a court even accepts such a case, that's when the church would be well-advised to walk away. But I don't understand the panic and fear based on possibilities. 

Yup John says that we don't need to fear anything. Nothing to see everything is fine and dandy.

 

 

While we bring up 1st amendment rights, I wonder how long it will be 'til there is a law suit, even with a church run program, that we didn't allow a gay leader. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

Read the quotes from advocates that say they will challenge the religious units right to choose their own leadership.  Smac has provided them several times

 

It is not a problem until it happens, I don't care about what the advocates say, National has spoken.

So where is the problem? There are many moral problems that you guys never talk about.

 

 

As often as these uncomprehending questions keep getting repeated here, we should probably save Smac's quotations as boilerplate.

 

I think a fair point (which you have also ignored) has been made that there is a cost to defend against these unconstitutional lawsuits

 

but why do you ignore everyting I am saying and asking?

 

 

Do Boy Scouts allow unmarried leaders that are living with a woman? Did the Church say something about that?

Do Boy Scouts allow leaders that drink alcohol?

 

I think the church is more concerned with questions of morality than legality or psychology.

 

The Church allowed unmarried couples to live together in Chile about 15 years ago, because there were no divorce laws. The church allowed them to have a temple recommend, sacrament, priesthood, and you are mad that Boy Scouts allows gay leaders?

 

I don't know why the Church is very concerned about the US government's definition of marriage, the church didn't care about Chile's definition of marriage 15 years ago.

Edited July 28, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[KevinG]

It is not a problem until it happens...

 

I recommend paying attention to bridge out signs.

[jkwilliams]

Yup John says that we don't need to fear anything. Nothing to see everything is fine and dandy.

 

 

While we bring up 1st amendment rights, I wonder how long it will be 'til there is a law suit, even with a church run program, that we didn't allow a gay leader. 

 

No need to get snotty. I don't see such legal challenges getting anywhere because of the First Amendment. Clearly, you disagree, and if Scott and KevinG are correct, the church disagrees with me. Fine with me. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

I recommend paying attention to bridge out signs.

 

Okay, forget it, it is a problem, can you please respond to the others things I said?

Can you please answer my questions? PLEASE

[Scott Lloyd]

I noticed it, but there's a difference between acknowledging that some HRC zealots aren't satisfied and going into full-blown panic. It's telling that people use the word "claim" when discussing the reactions of others, at least it is to me.

Seems like the zealots are pretty much having their way unhindered these days. What's to stop that from continuing?

[jkwilliams]

Seems like the zealots are pretty much having their way unhindered these days. What's to stop that from continuing?

 

IMO, the First Amendment. 

[Scott Lloyd]

One can disagree without having blinders on, you know.

There's a difference between merely disagreeing and repeatedly posing questions while refusing to take cognizance of answers that have been given.

[KevinG]

Okay, forget it, it is a problem, can you please respond to the others things I said?

Can you please answer my questions? PLEASE

 

Not to be smart or difficult, but perhaps I missed something you asked and was not answered.  This is a fast moving discussion and half my brain is tied behind my back working on some numbers in the office.

 

Can you repeat the question for me here instead of me searching to divine what was left unanswered?  Thanks in advance.

Edited July 28, 2015 by KevinG

[sunstoned]

If you don't mind, I think I'll go with the assessment of the Church leadership, who up to now have been more than accommodating to BSA.

There were a lot of members who thought the same for prop 8. They followed the church and ended up donating a lot of time and money to a lost cause. I wonder how much personal money the GAs donated.

[Gray]

Yup John says that we don't need to fear anything. Nothing to see everything is fine and dandy.

 

 

While we bring up 1st amendment rights, I wonder how long it will be 'til there is a law suit, even with a church run program, that we didn't allow a gay leader. 

 

What first amendment rights do you think have been violated?

[Brian 2.0]

Seems like the zealots are pretty much having their way unhindered these days. What's to stop that from continuing?

 

I think zealots from both sides are feeling pretty entitled these days.

 

"I'm gay and I can do whatever I want!"

"I'm religious and I can do whatever I want!" 

[Scott Lloyd]

Yup John says that we don't need to fear anything. Nothing to see everything is fine and dandy.

 

 

While we bring up 1st amendment rights, I wonder how long it will be 'til there is a law suit, even with a church run program, that we didn't allow a gay leader. 

Why does anyone think the gay advocacy juggernaut even cares about First Amendment rights anyway, except as those rights further its agenda?

[toon]

I think this will be the fourth time I've quoted this statement by BSA President Robert Gates (made yesterday in conjunction with the vote):

 

"Due to the social political and legal changes taking place in our country and in our movement, I did not believe our adult leadership policy could be sustained," Gates said in a video announcement Monday. "Any effort to do so was inevitably going to result in simultaneous legal battles in multiple jurisdictions and at staggering cost."

 

So yes, really.  Yesterday's vote was a capitulation to lawfare against the BSA.  

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

 

It should be noted that Gates, in his speech did not solely cite to pending social, political, and legal challenges.

 

He gave equal weight to the fact that there were also internal challenges, that a number of member councils had on their own adopted policies contrary to and inconsistent with the national organization's position.  (Presumably, because the councils rather than simply capitulating, thought it was the right thing to do.)  He mentioned that the national organization could technically revoke their charters, but that he didn't think the right way to go.

 

Gates also spoke about the old policy as one that "more than a few of our church sponsors reject."  While the LDS, Southern Baptists, and Catholic churces may have accounted for a larger number of member organizations, there were still other church sponsors that supported a policy of allowing gay leaders.

 

So maybe it was a capitulation, but that's not always bad. 

[Scott Lloyd]

There were a lot of members who thought the same for prop 8. They followed the church and ended up donating a lot of time and money to a lost cause. I wonder how much personal money the GAs donated.

I don't think the Church regrets for a moment that stance it took on Prop 8. I know I don't.