<p>Definitely in the same category – I should have expanded it to “Scouting” in general.</p>
<p>
I agree. But what does it say to a child if the parent condones an organization whose beliefs about homosexuality are so public? </p>
<p>I’ve never had to deal with this since only one son ever signed up and dropped it after a year, but had one of mine decided to pursue BSA, I would have had to let my feeligs known about the organization and then let him decide.</p>
<p>“I agree. But what does it say to a child if the parent condones an organization whose beliefs about homosexuality are so public?”</p>
<p>It says they have the same values.</p>
<p>^Exactly. I don’t see the big issue here.</p>
<p>^So you are saying that it would make sense for an interviewer to assume that an Eagle Scout and his family are homophobes? And that therefore an interviewer to whom homophobia was as abhorrent as racism SHOULD hold Eagle Scout status against a kid?</p>
<p>Somehow I don’t think that that is what most want to convey here.</p>
<p>"So you are saying that it would make sense for an interviewer to assume that an Eagle Scout and his family are homophobes? And that therefore an interviewer to whom homophobia was as abhorrent as racism SHOULD hold Eagle Scout status against a kid?</p>
<p>Somehow I don’t think that that is what most want to convey here."</p>
<p>People will assume whatever they want. That doesn’t make it true or factual. If that’s the way the interviewer sees it, then you would be getting a very slanted report. Knowing that, the readers should take that into account when reading a report from such a slanted interviewer. And I would also say the interviewer has an agenda.</p>
<p>Wait - Balcony Boy - you just said in the prior post that people should assume they have the same values. Now you seem to be saying something else.</p>
<p>To me it says they have the same values as BSA, or that they have different values but don’t care enough to take a moral stand against an organization that discriminates. Interviewers may feel differently.</p>
<p>Precisely, 3bm103.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He is not. He is in fact questioning the claim that the BSA is homophobic.</p>
<p>You’re right, it’s not.</p>
<p>I would expect the interviewer not to conflate the policy with homophobia.</p>
<p>However, let me put it this way – saying that all members of Boy Scouts should be judged based on voluntary participation in a completely decentralized (BY CONSTRUCTION) organization with whose policies people disagree is like saying that if I have a problem with gay marriage being illegal, abortion being legal, etc. I should judge ALL Americans who are voluntarily citizens.</p>
<p>That is obviously absurd.</p>
<p>It’s a matter of enormous good outweighing the “institutional” bad, IF one believes that that “bad” exists at all (which I pretty much do not). </p>
<p>Furthermore, not doing anything =/= not caring. Do you donate to EVERY single country that has problems ever? If you do, congratulations. If you do not, that’s still not a problem – because we can’t deal with every single issue at the same time.</p>
<p>The BSA policy is a joke. The troops who would have a self-imposed rule follow it, those who wouldn’t don’t. That’s the beauty of Scouts – the standards are the same, but the functioning of each troop is determined by that troop, which knows what works best for it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you think every Catholic has the same opinion as the Vatican on every issue?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL. I’ll take this one.</p>
<p>Catholics are called to obedience of mind and spirit to follow the guidelines of the Vatican. In other words, they need to act out and embrace mentally and spiritually those issues definitively ruled upon by the Vatican.</p>
<p>So “good” Catholics do, while “bad” Catholics do not. Unless “Catholic” means orthodox, it is too broad a term to be useful in any way whatsoever.</p>
<p>In other words, the situation is totally incomparable because we are dealing with theological and spiritual matters rather than legal or policy matters. Furthermore, one need not believe the BSA policy or US laws to be correct in order to be in compliance with them. Not so with Catholic doctrine.</p>
<p>So someone would be a bad Catholic if they don’t support the Church’s apparent stance of covering up all of the pedophilia issues going on?</p>
<p>Also, I imagine many in the boy scouts upper echelons consider their stance on homosexuality more than just a legal or policy matter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not a stance in the same way that faith and morals are. Protection of paedophilia-prone priests is first and foremost an example of alliteration, secondly, largely exaggerated in comparison to other organizations, and thirdly, not institutional at the international level in any way. Your statement is not a “stance,” it’s vitriol that you are slinging around in an attempt to make something stick, with the assumption of an incredibly uninformed audience.</p>
<p>In other words, what may have been able to be argued as a point was destroyed by you yourself, as the call for religious submission of will applies only to faith and morals.</p>
<p>And a requirement to believe in the BSA’s policies on an intellectual or religious is nowhere institutionalized, driving a larger wedge between the two examples.</p>
<p>Try again.</p>
<p>
I think my same answer applies. Some people believe all of it, others only some but not enough disagreement to leave the church. Others feel it necessary to seek another religion that is more in line with what they believe.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To disagree with ANY of the Church’s teachings is to renounce the Church almost completely – definitive teachings require obedience, and so not to obey is to deny the very principle on which the Church was founded. That’s the problem. You can’t disagree with a single teaching without also believing that the Church has a flawed role, because its position as a definitive teacher is thereby undermined.</p>
<p>What vitriol do I have? I guess you just have an extremely strict definition of what Catholicism is/should be compared to all the Catholics I knew growing up.</p>
<p>Anyway, my point was that often we are involved in groups in which we don’t necessarily agree with everything going on. How many of us have bought something made in China? How many of us have an “American” made car that’s assembled in Mexico to take advantage of weaker environmental protection laws?</p>
<p>Or, in a different example, if you believe scouts should be more accepting of homosexuals, why not become part of the organization and spread acceptance that way? Boycotting isn’t the only way to try and solve a problem.</p>
<p>I agree with you! We are arguing on the same side. But your example was deeply flawed. And your paedophilia outburst was certainly out of left field and venomous, unless you are willing to admit your ignorance about the entire scandal (which taking your statement as something thought-out would necessitate).</p>
<p>Many churches have policies limiting ordination or other participation by gays; but I’ve never heard of anybody being accused of being a homophobe because they were a United Methodist, for example. This issues has been publicized about the Boy Scouts, of course, and it remains controversial inside and outside the organization. I can understand that some people don’t want to associate with BSA for this or other reasons. But the role this issue plays in the actual functioning of individual scout troops is about nil.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That would be news to my 80+ yr old mother, a practicing Catholic who has ALWAYS disagreed with various teachings. </p>
<p>The rigidity of your stance simply is not shared by the vast majority of Catholics, who do not, frankly, need a kid to tell them that they are “bad” Catholics.</p>
<p>By the way, your version of the pedophilia scandal flies in the face of the facts, which clearly show a widespread Church policy of protecting pedophiles. I am not saying that the Vatican <em>approved</em> of child molestation, or of ephebophilia, or of priests breaking their vows…but when push came to shove all too many in the organizational hierarchy in numerous countries were unwilling even to remove such individuals to roles in which they would not routinely come in contact with children and teens, much less defrock them.</p>