How The Juggernaut Could Sue The Church -- And Win -- On Bsa Issue

[Russell C McGregor]

I am confused. Do you think that if the church thinks it is in their best interest to leave BSA, they should still stay?????

 

Given the current direction of the BSA, it may well be in the best interests of the Church, and its youth, to withdraw.

 

That doesn't mean that it's a good thing that the BSA will turn into a 21st century Wandervögel, though.

[Stone holm]

the scouting program is too expensive. We are putting millions of dollars to pay salaries of people who do nothing to benefit our youth. We have plenty of volunteer who do a fantastic job for free. Uniforms and badges are a drain on our budgets. And don't get me started on the Canadian scouting program. We have 5  sections. Beavers for ages 5-7, cubs for ages 8-10, scouts for ages 11-13, ventures for 14-16, and rovers for 17-20. The scout section has become a monstrosity of complex requirements and it is impossible to find a leader who can navigate through it.

 

Just let us go out camping and develop our talents. Leave all the environmental and government research to the school system. It is completely redundant to have boys prepare projects on conservation that takes hours of planning when they are doing the very same thing at the local high school already. Give the leader 6 areas of focus to make it simple, and get the outside going hiking, building model airplanes, touring factories, repairing cars, painting houses and a host of other practical skills that they love. Take all the 20 requirements that must satisfied to earn the cooking badge and let the boys make a meal and be done with it.

 

I will not take the calling of a scout leader because of its complexity. I loved ventures because we focused on career planning, service projects, and amazing camping trips that cost very little. But with the scouting program we were bogged down with paperwork, having to get all the forms signed and into the scout house before we could get on the road. Inevitably someone would have lost their form J, or form 383 or what ever they are called and we were suddenly stuck.

 Actually, the last three of those Scouting Sections were probably designed at the request of the Church.  BSA has constantly redesigned Boy Scouts and to a lesser degree Cub Scouts to accommodate the Church, namely pre-Priesthood Scouts=Blazers, Deacons=Scouts, Teachers= Varsity Scouts, Priest=Explorers.  And we do not have Tiger Cubs which would involve pre-Baptism Cubs, even though the Tiger Cubs manual is basically a family home evening manual.  If the Church leaves BSA, which I hope they don't, it will actually help simplify Scouts since they will no longer have to contend with matching programs to age levels and public education class levels, etc. or put up with the restrictions on Blazer Scouts.

[Stone holm]

Blogger Nate Oman applies his legal background in presenting a plausible scenario of how the gay advocacy groups, now that BSA has caved in, could sue and win to make chartering organizations such as the Church appoint sexually active homosexuals as Scoutmasters, and why it would be prudent for the Church to step away now.

 

It is true that the BSA is attempting to step out of the firing zone between the social moderates and the social conservatives, and to let the chartering organizations be accountable for whatever social taboos they may cling to, but it is also true that the Churches have a much stronger legal shield with regards to their selection of leaders.  What does weaken the Church's position is the fact that it has often allowed non-member Scoutmasters in the past, so it may be harder to claim they are ecclesiastical positions -- still it would be a very difficult legal case to get past the religious shield.  I would have to agree with Daniel, that to withdraw right now would be to truly isolate ourselves as a right wing group and marginalize ourselves in society, however, the Church I am sure would spin that as avoiding the "spacious building" -- which I am beginning to wonder who is really in that building, as it seems to me that an awful lot of Confederate flag wavers may actually be in that building.  But nevertheless, the Church leadership will do what they believe is appropriate and we should not verbalize any objection to it, or we would rightly be accused of "steadying the ark" or "not sustaining the brethren" or "apostasy."

[jkwilliams]

Well obviously you or the church does not have control over the choices BSA makes. The only control the church has is whether to continue the relationship or sever ties. BSA is a separate entity that the church participates with, and as such it is BSA's decision on how the organization is run. They obviously felt it was time to end their discrimination policy.

You can use inflammatory language such as hijack and juggaunaut but it is just you resenting the decisions made by BSA. I get it. You don't like the choices they made. But it was their choice not yours or the churches.

 

Speaking of inflammatory language, yesterday my father was talking about a relative who had been having some health problems. He said, "Then she went to one of those homoeophobic healers." 

 

I'll just say that I find the fears expressed about the "gay agenda" to be well beyond overblown. I don't get all the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. 

[Gray]

I have not said anything about them being a boogeyman. However I do acknowledge that they have a very powerful lobby.

 

Actually, I don't think their lobby is that powerful. What is powerful is the tide of public opinion, which has changed dramatically. Big corporations don't want anything to do with groups that discriminate against gay people. The general public is pro-gay marriage. That's the real juggernaut. 

Edited August 3, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

Suppose some guy is having sex with other men during the time he is serving as a ward Scoutmaster, gets found out and is subsequently released from his calling pursuant to standard Church disciplinary procedure. He then runs to the HRC, plays the role of the poor, oppressed gay and gets them to fund a lawsuit against the Church for allegedly violating his civil rights, citing the newly changed BSA policy.

 

Does this seem more plausible to you?

 

No. The newly changed policy doesn't give gay people the right to be scoutmasters, and the scenario you describe sounds pretty unlikely, considering the small percentage of gay people in the general public, and in my experience the very small percentage of gay people who are active in the church (those who are tend to be celibate). 

[jkwilliams]

Actually, I don't think their lobby is that powerful. What is powerful is the tide of public opinion, which has changed dramatically. Big corporations don't want anything to do with groups that discriminate against gay people. The general public is pro-gay marriage. That's the real juggernaut. 

 

Yep, that's exactly right. I'm convinced that it hasn't been some massive PR or legal campaign that has changed public opinion, but rather that it's become OK to come out, so most people know others who are gay and realize that they're not pedophiles/deviants/monsters. In short, people aren't afraid of gays, so they don't see any reason to deprive them of the opportunity to live openly and equally in our society. And it's become OK to come out because brave people in years past came out despite the tremendous social costs of doing so. 

Edited August 3, 2015 by jkwilliams

[Stone holm]

 

Yep, that's exactly right. I'm convinced that it hasn't been some massive PR or legal campaign that has changed public opinion, but rather that it's become OK to come out, so most people know others who are gay and realize that they're not pedophiles/deviants/monsters. In short, people aren't afraid of gays, so they don't see any reason to deprive them of the opportunity to live openly and equally in our society. And it's become OK to come out because brave people in years past came out despite the tremendous social costs of doing so. 

 

What is happening is that all the wailing and gnashing of teeth is simply accelerating the general public's distaste for organized religion. We could have avoided a lot of this contention by simply going along with this proposal when it was first proposed instead of letting the Greater Salt Lake Council throw and monkey-wrench in it. Now we have allowed ourselves to become the target for a backlash instead of being the moderate voice of reason. I guess that is fine if you want to develop the prestige of being a prosperous successful far right social conservative politically active organization. It appears we wanted to do that in order to make a social statement, rather than just quietly going about working with our boys. My great fear here, is that the boys program will be degraded to the same level as the girls program, rather than raising the girl's program up to the level of the boys.

[Sleeper Cell]

 Actually, the last three of those Scouting Sections were probably designed at the request of the Church.  BSA has constantly redesigned Boy Scouts and to a lesser degree Cub Scouts to accommodate the Church ... , 

 

And now BSA refuses to extend to one of its oldest and strongest supporters the simple courtesy of granting a few weeks delay in making its final decision. 

 

If the Church leaves BSA, which I hope they don't, it will actually help simplify Scouts since they will no longer have to contend with matching programs to age levels and public education class levels, etc. or put up with the restrictions on Blazer Scouts. 

Or contend with an outdated scout oath whose morality clause isn't reinterpreted to keep up with changing society norms.  

[Gray]

 

And now BSA refuses to extend to one of its oldest and strongest supporters the simple courtesy of granting a few weeks delay in making its final decision. 

 

 

Or contend with an outdated scout oath whose morality clause isn't reinterpreted to keep up with changing society norms.  

 

 

My understanding is that the LDS members of the BSA board were present and did cast their votes 

[jkwilliams]

What is happening is that all the wailing and gnashing of teeth is simply accelerating the general public's distaste for organized religion. We could have avoided a lot of this contention by simply going along with this proposal when it was first proposed instead of letting the Greater Salt Lake Council throw and monkey-wrench in it. Now we have allowed ourselves to become the target for a backlash instead of being the moderate voice of reason. I guess that is fine if you want to develop the prestige of being a prosperous successful far right social conservative politically active organization. It appears we wanted to do that in order to make a social statement, rather than just quietly going about working with our boys. My great fear here, is that the boys program will be degraded to the same level as the girls program, rather than raising the girl's program up to the level of the boys.

 

It would make more sense if the church were standing up in defense of its right to set its own standards, but it's standing up to oppose the right of other organizations to set their own standards. My boys are older than Scout age, so they didn't miss anything, though I think cutting ties would be a shame for both the BSA and the church. 

[Sleeper Cell]

We could have avoided a lot of this contention by simply going along ...  

Yep.  To get along, you must go along.

[Stone holm]

 

My understanding is that the LDS members of the BSA board were present and did cast their votes 

 

I think what the Church was saying was that they weren't given the chance to let the Greater Salt Lake Council the opportunity to try and derail the change, like happened last time. Previously, I had thought that the Greater Salt Lake Council had jumped the gun and acted before the Church could respond on the original compromise, and that explained why the Church was so quick to approve the second non-sustainable compromise. But, it appears that was a wrong analysis, instead the Church wanted the Council to object in order to pave the way for the second compromise. The delay argument was pretty feeble given the Church's National Council Boardmembers were present and voted against the change. It was simply they got out voted before they could raise a full hue and cry. The National Council probably did the Church a PR favor by acting before the Mormon dominated Greater Salt Lake Council could make a big public stink.

[Sleeper Cell]

My understanding is that the LDS members of the BSA board were present and did cast their votes 

 

That is also my understanding.  However. BSA did refuse the simple courtesy of a few weeks delay. to give the governing councils of its largest (and one of its oldest) sponsors time to meet before the vote.     

 

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is deeply troubled by today’s vote by the Boy Scouts of America National Executive Board. In spite of a request to delay the vote, it was scheduled at a time in July when members of the Church’s governing councils are out of their offices and do not meet. 

 

What would have been the harm of granting a few weeks delay, if, for nothing else, as a gesture to one of your longest and strongest supporters -- especially since the ostensible purpose of the change was to achieve a compromise on a divisive issue?

[Scott Lloyd]

Well obviously you or the church does not have control over the choices BSA makes. The only control the church has is whether to continue the relationship or sever ties. BSA is a separate entity that the church participates with, and as such it is BSA's decision on how the organization is run.

 

So now is a good time to sever ties and thus place the Church of Jesus Christ beyond range of coercion from the juggernaut.

 

 

They obviously felt it was time to end their discrimination policy.

 

Driven by lawfare and other forms of coercion, this non-governmental organization decided to abandon its long-held values.

 

You can use inflammatory language such as hijack and juggaunaut but it is just you resenting the decisions made by BSA. I get it. You don't like the choices they made. But it was their choice not yours or the churches.

 

I stand by my use of those terms, as they convey the reality of the coercion that has in fact occurred. The statements made by Gates, the BSA boss, refer to "staggering" costs of potential litigation, the deliberate defiance and violation of policy by some chartering organizations, the threat of the demise of the movement. There is no reference that I can see to the previous policy having been wrong.

 

This does not appear to be an action taken free of compulsion. Don't insult our intelligence by pretending that it was.

[Scott Lloyd]

As I've noted in the past, the entrance by california boy into a thread often leads to eventual thread closure.

 

Moreover, this one is drifting afield from the specific thread topic.

 

In accordance with my recent pledge to moderate my own threads, I am closing this one for the time being in an effort to preclude premature and permanent closure by moderators.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Sleeper Cell]

It would make more sense if the church were standing up in defense of its right to set its own standards, but it's standing up to oppose the right of other organizations to set their own standards. My boys are older than Scout age, so they didn't miss anything, though I think cutting ties would be a shame for both the BSA and the church. 

 

BSA no longer requires its member organizations to comply with any of its standards?  

 

The LDS church, like many other organizations supported BSA because, among other reasons, their standards were compatible.  Other member organizations changed their standards and wanted BSA to change its standards to accommodate them.  It is not fair to describe this as an attempt to oppose the rights of other member  organizations, as the LDS church had as least as much right to support the status quo as other members had to try to change it.  

 

BSA has changed its standards to such an extent that the LDS church has announced that it is reconsidering whether its standards and BSA standards are still sufficiently compatible to remain.  Sounds to me like standing up in defense of its rights to set its own standards.