Local Boy Scout troops are out in force this week selling popcorn, as part of their annual fundraising campaign. A group of cubs along with older scouts and their mothers were assembled Saturday in full uniform selling a variety of snacks in front of Peet's Coffee on Park Street in Alameda.
I had a chance to talk to some of the mothers about why they kept their boys in scouting, in light of revelations of abuse within the organization and the ongoing position of the national Boy Scouts of America organization against the LGBT community.
Those with whom I spoke seem to believe the organization's positive aspects still outweigh its many controversies and that they hope to work from within scouting to change its policies against gays and lesbians.
One parent did, admit, however that the national scouting headquarter's stance on the LGBT community has cut into their popcorn sales this year and that the public perception of the Boy Scouts has shifted. She was quick to explain that the money raised from the popcorn sales (unlike scout dues) stays here in the local community and is not passed through to the national organization headquartered in Texas.
When I shared my concerns with the parents about the Boy Scouts' stance on gays and lesbians I was offered a chance to sign a petition they had at their table and register my disapproval. My husband and I happily signed it and stated our reasons for not supporting Boy Scouting. Sadly, we were the only names on the petition (although it was early). It was only after I told them my feelings about the organization that they pulled it out and said I could sign it. They were not actively soliciting signatures from everyone who passed by.
Our sons are now 19 and 22. When they were much younger we enrolled them in Boy Scouts. My husband had participated in scouting as a child and it seemed a natural thing to do.
At some point early on we learned of the homophobic stance taken by the national scouting organization and we made a family decision to withdraw them from scouting altogether because of it.
We have many people in our circle of friends who love our children who just happen to be gay or lesbian. How could we, in good conscience, have our children wear the uniform of and participate in an organization that so openly discriminated against the people we cared about?
At the time I wrote a letter to local newspapers about our decision to withdraw our sons from Boy Scouts. There was some backlash. A couple families never spoke to us again. But, overall we felt supported in our decision. (Our sons grew up just fine, by the way, and participated in many other non-discriminatory youth programs in the community.)
Probably most importantly, some years later one of my sons' close friends came out as gay. His mother has since specifically thanked me for our personal boycott of Boy Scouting.
Those mothers out selling popcorn with their scout sons may be making the right decision for their boys today. It is conceivable that working from within scouting to push for a change in its policies may be a better tactic than pulling your child out of the organization altogether.
In either case, I think it is important to tell your sons (in an age appropriate way) that you are taking a stand against the national Boy Scouts' policies of discrimination against others. It could be the most important thing they get out of their scouting experience.
or is it just your fevered imagination?
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/CSU-foundations-mixing-public-private-funds-3255024.php As for jobs, you're kidding me right? http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_71.htm 225,000 Californians moved to Texas over the past decade. Indeed, Texas received the largest net share of young families (i.e. not retirees) of the states with a net in-migration of former Californians. Young families move for economic reasons-jobs. Marga, as recently decided, private clubs that are religious can have equal access to the public schools as any other club. Separation of church and state is actually *not* in the first amendment, the prohibition against establishing a state religion is. To refresh your apparently stale memory: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And "as for your apparent feeling...", that's called Begging the Question, you are stating that I hold a particular point of view. I re-read what I said and no, I never said that. Why do you believe I would? Is that the sort of simplistic argument people usually use? I wouldn't like to try to defend the argument that religion is a maturity issue. I don't care what people's religious beliefs are so I don't care to support any argument about why people are or are not religious.
My family has been to England a number of times and we are members of the Episcopal diocese in Northern California. I fully advocate the separation of church and state, but I think it is the case that religion and belief do shape politics in many ways in Britain. Two primary examples that come to mind: --The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England with the Archbishops of Cantebury and York Below her. (continued)
"More recently, disagreements over homosexuality have strained the unity of the Communion as well as its relationships with other Christian denominations, leading to another round of withdrawals from the Anglican Communion. Some churches founded outside the Anglican Communion in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, largely in opposition to the ordination of openly homosexual bishops and other clergy are usually referred to as belonging to the Anglican realignment movement, or else as "orthodox" Anglicans. In some ways they represent a stronger opposition because they have the backing of many member provinces of the Anglican Communion and, in some cases, are or have been missionary jurisdictions of such provinces of the Communion as the Churches of Nigeria, Kenya, Rwanda, and the Southern Cone of America. Simultaneous with debates about social theology and ethics, the Anglican Communion has debated prayer book revision and the acceptable grounds for achieving full communion with non-Anglican churches. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_church#Controversies
The choice then is do you support them by letting your children participate and do you support them by donating time, money, facilities, equipment, etc. If no one supported BSA they would change or go out of business. Anyone who does support them and still thinks that they are not aligning themselves with the discriminatory practices of the organization is choosing to look the other way. There is no indication that there will be any "change from within." If you support them then you are personally discriminating against anyone that BSA discriminates against. It's pretty simple and straight forward. To think anything else is just self delusion.
But anyway, where is the evidence that establishing a religion makes a country less religious?
Don't listen to all the haters.
Gender and sexuality In 1976, the Convention declared that homosexuals are "children of God" and "entitled to full civil rights". In 1979, the Convention endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment and urged legislatures to ratify it. In 1988, the Convention reaffirmed the expectation of chastity and fidelity in relationships. In 1991, the Convention restated that "physical sexual expression" is only appropriate within a monogamous "union of husband and wife". The Convention also called on the church to "continue to reconcile the discontinuity between this teaching and the experience of members", referring both to dioceses that have chosen to bless monogamous same-sex unions and to general tolerance of premarital relations. In 2000, the Convention affirmed "the variety of human relationships in and outside of marriage" and acknowledged "disagreement over the Church's traditional teaching on human sexuality." In 2006, the Convention affirmed "support of gay and lesbian persons as children of God"; calls on legislatures to provide protections such as bereavement and family leave policies; and opposes any state or federal constitutional amendment that prohibits same-sex civil marriages or civil unions." (continued)
In 2012, the Convention approved the use of an official liturgy to bless same-sex couples and their marriages, called "The Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_Church_(United_States)#Gender_and_sexuality
Those organizations don't discriminate against individuals based on sex, gender, race or orientation. However, BSA does discriminate against orientation. "As for jobs, you're kidding me right?" Nope. A lot of us young folk are moving to California for jobs in the Bay and LA right out of college. Found a tech job in the Bay and took it since there were scant in other states. My classmates are ending up moving to California for a variety of other positions because the need is here.
Most other Christian countries have had a "state" church - initially the Catholic Church in Western Europe, one of the Orthodox churches in eastern Europe, and later one of the flavors of Protestant churches in central/northern Europe. State religions can become fanatical from time to time, but they can't afford to stay like that for long: fanatical ideologies, by definition, cannot allow the flexibility needed to deal with changing circumstances. So over time, they liberalize and become more tolerant. Evangelical churches don't have those pressures.
Many believe, for example, that the flare up of hostility (including a proposed death penalty) towards some gay people in Africa has been fueled by visits and teaching of Evangelical priests from the US. There is also an attempt this election year to divide members of the African American community in the US along religious lines underpinned by deep conservative/political ties. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/12/coalition-of-african-american-pastors_n_1766777.html
Just curious. Really, it just comes down to whether or not you even want your kids (gay or straight) to be around such backwards KKK like people.
Since The Vatican is a state I think your argument that an established religion can not remain extreme does not hold true. Islam is the religion of countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and there's no sign of them becoming reasonable.
Strive high and be proud!
The Vatican is not a country, it's a building. I remember walking around half of it when I got off at the wrong bus stop and couldn't find an open door. Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship that only exists because of its temporary oil wealth. And leaving aside the fact that the official version of Pakistani Islam is not particularly extremist, I can't imagine anyone that would call it a politically stable country.
http://www.vaticanstate.va/EN/homepage.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City
No state church allows for various religions to "compete" for believers. State-run churches don't compete, and atrophy. Hmm. Kind of like public vs. private schools. Or private vs. state-run industry. Weird. I know you can't take a lesson from that, but I continue to try. You may have a deathbed conversion after all.
I think you might have inadvertently reinforced the sentiments of the writer of this article. The public should not provide free spaces to those who would descriminate or persecute citizens for who they really are. A lot of gay people have helped my family out in numerous and unexpected ways. I feel sorry for those who close themselves off via bigotry. The boy scouts are making a big mistake.