MorningStar Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I think the BSA has shown itself to be weak-willed, and the sooner we cut ties, the better.In general, the BSA has made not getting sued a very high priority. In order to get a certificate for Youth Protection Training, you watch a video followed by a multiple choice quiz. It's not even a pass or fail thing. If you get a question wrong, you can keep answering until you get it right. I just watched my son take it and I thought it was ridiculous. Oh yeah, that'll protect the youth. It's just about covering their bums. If someone is sexually abused in Boy Scouts, then the BSA can say, "Well the leader did take the youth protection training." 2
jkwilliams Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 There's a difference between merely disagreeing and repeatedly posing questions while refusing to take cognizance of answers that have been given. Who isn't cognizant of the answers given? You guys seem to think this "capitulation" opens the door for lawsuits against the church. Even the HRC people you quoted acknowledge that the BSA's decision doesn't change the equation, so my question remains unanswered: why is it suddenly more likely that the church is going to be forced to accept gay leaders than it was last week? What do you think would be materially different if the BSA hadn't made this decision?
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 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!" On your second claim, I don't see it happening.
jkwilliams Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Why does anyone think the gay advocacy juggernaut even cares about First Amendment rights anyway, except as those rights further its agenda? No one is saying they care. The courts and the law care, however.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 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. And most seem to agree with, but you are ignoring the very valid point:Why waste the money fighting those frivolous lawsuits, when the money could be better spent on programs that are in accordance with the moral standards of the church?
Bobbieaware Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 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.In case you don't remember, Proposition 8 passed. There was a far different environment in 2008 than exists today. Seven years ago It made sense to take a public stand in defense of the sanctity of traditional marriage.
KevinG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 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!" I don't have a problem with that as much as "I'm ______ and I can force you to do what I want and if you don't it will cost you a lot of $$$$ in laywers."
Brian 2.0 Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 On your second claim, I don't see it happening. Indiana's religious freedom law before the amendment was added had plenty of that going on in the discussion. 1
jkwilliams Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 In case you don't remember, Proposition 8 passed. There was a far different environment in 2008 than exists today. Seven years ago It made sense to take a public stand in defense of the sanctity of traditional marriage. What I remember is that a lot of church members were shocked at the backlash. People who were proudly touting their support for Prop 8 suddenly began saying "we had a relatively minor role" once the backlash started. In many ways, Prop 8 was a turning point in acceptance of same-sex relationships in the United States, and in large part, we have the church to thank for that. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 No one is saying they care. The courts and the law care, however.In view of recent events, I just don't have a lot of confidence in the wisdom of the federal judiciary these days. But even an unconstitutional lawsuit takes money to defend against it. 1
sunstoned Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) I think the BSA has shown itself to be weak-willed, and the sooner we cut ties, the better.They are supporting the SCOTUS decision that prohibits discrimination based on sexual preference. This is just a long overdo extension of the 1964 civil rights act. Which BTW was opposed by many of the Q12. Edited July 28, 2015 by sunstoned
jkwilliams Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 And most seem to agree with, but you are ignoring the very valid point:Why waste the money fighting those frivolous lawsuits, when the money could be better spent on programs that are in accordance with the moral standards of the church? I'd say the time to walk away is when the frivolous lawsuits start. If the mere possibility of a lawsuit is enough to scare the church out of Scouting, maybe it's just as well.
DJBrown Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 The conniption is what I see here and on Facebook and other places, where people are talking like it's the end of the world. The BSA's announcement says nothing about same-sex marriage, and the BSA has never excluded leaders based on sexual immorality. The difference is the BSA now accepts immoral behavior by policy. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I'd say the time to walk away is when the frivolous lawsuits start. If the mere possibility of a lawsuit is enough to scare the church out of Scouting, maybe it's just as well.It wasn't enough until BSA itself started knuckling under.
Bobbieaware Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 What I remember is that a lot of church members were shocked at the backlash. People who were proudly touting their support for Prop 8 suddenly began saying "we had a relatively minor role" once the backlash started. In many ways, Prop 8 was a turning point in acceptance of same-sex relationships in the United States, and in large part, we have the church to thank for that.Baloney.
Gray Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 The difference is the BSA now accepts immoral behavior by policy. Everyone has their right to their opinion as to what constitutes immoral behavior. But I disagree with your assessment on this issue.
jkwilliams Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 In view of recent events, I just don't have a lot of confidence in the wisdom of the federal judiciary these days. But even an unconstitutional lawsuit takes money to defend against it. I would be gobsmacked if a lawsuit challenging a church's right to have its own rules of membership were accepted in any court. I know, blinders and all that. It's too bad, as I've always enjoyed Scouting and thought it provided some things that young men don't get in church alone. But it's the church's decision what to do. I think all this panic is overblown, but it's not my fight.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I'd say the time to walk away is when the frivolous lawsuits start. If the mere possibility of a lawsuit is enough to scare the church out of Scouting, maybe it's just as well.If driving towards a brick wall at 100 mph why brake when you first notice it, instead of braking when you are 5 ft away?
jkwilliams Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 The difference is the BSA now accepts immoral behavior by policy. It does? Does the new statement say anything about sexual activity? Did the Scouts previously say anything about their leaders' sexual activity? I'm not seeing it, but if I'm wrong, I'm happy to be shown how.
smac97 Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I'd say the time to walk away is when the frivolous lawsuits start. If the mere possibility of a lawsuit is enough to scare the church out of Scouting, maybe it's just as well. Why wait until after the lawsuits (and their attendant costs) start? We already know further lawsuits are coming, right? It's only a matter of "when," not "if," right? Thanks, -Smac 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) I would be gobsmacked if a lawsuit challenging a church's right to have its own rules of membership were accepted in any court. I know, blinders and all that. It's too bad, as I've always enjoyed Scouting and thought it provided some things that young men don't get in church alone. But it's the church's decision what to do. I think all this panic is overblown, but it's not my fight.The Church can fairly quickly replace it with something that provides what Scouting did provide, if it comes to that. BSA needs the Church more than the Church needs BSA. Edited July 28, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
toon Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 And most seem to agree with, but you are ignoring the very valid point:Why waste the money fighting those frivolous lawsuits, when the money could be better spent on programs that are in accordance with the moral standards of the church? That is a fair point. But I suspect at the end of the day, the costs of developing, implementing, and running a new program likely outweigh the hypothetical costs of defending against an arguably frivolous and certainly meritless lawsuit. But then, if the goal is to eventually substitute boy scouts with a new program, for reasons largely independent of any change in BSA policy, then the Church is going to incur those costs regardless. Of course, if I were to don the "doom and gloom" cap that some here seem to wear, you'd think we're going to get sued regardless. Because isn't the end game of the so-called gay lobby to destroy all that is good in the world. 1
KevinG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) The difference is the BSA now accepts immoral behavior by policy. I guess we are about to find out the Apostolic answer to the age old Institute question. Would you eat a brownie with just a bit of poop in it? (For those of you who missed the illustration. There is an old worn out lesson that became popular in youth classes a few years/decades back where the teacher would bake some brownies, ask the class if they wanted any, then tell them there was poop in the recipe. This was used to illustrate the principle that we should not accept the least bit of sin in an activity or action, for example seeing a good movie with a dirty scene, because we would of course not eat brownies with even a tiny bit of poop in them. I was an adult convert thank goodness because I would have gladly eaten the brownie with a minuscule amount of poop and blown the lesson wide open. Anyway that is the origin of the comment on poop, not making eating poop and homosexual behavior an equivalency.) Edited July 28, 2015 by KevinG
jkwilliams Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I guess we are about to find out the Apostolic answer to the age old Institute question. Would you eat a brownie with just a bit of poop in it? So, being in the same organization with others who accept gay leaders is the same as eating poop? Wow.
KevinG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 The Church can fairly quickly replace it with something that provides what Scouting did provide, if it comes to that. BSA needs the Church more than the Church needs BSA. The infrastructure has been there for a decade. https://www.lds.org/manual/faith-in-god-for-boys?lang=eng The biggest reason it isn't more widely used in North America is that the Scouting program takes a lot of time for those youth who are participating fully.
Recommended Posts