Catholic Leaders Urge Support for Boy Scouts Under New Policy on Gays

[ebia]

No. Our country has guaranteed religious freedom under the First Amendment of our Constitution.
B
In addition, to answer all your objections, may I suggest the site concerning Catholic statements concerning religious freedom concerning this very topic.

It is Religious Liberty FAQ | Marriage Unique for a Reason

The answer to the first question about religious freedom is"

CA = The Encyclical Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II
CCC = The Catechism of the Caholic Church, 2nd edition, Pope John Paul II
DH = Declaration of the Ecumenical Council, the Second Vatican Council
Dignitatis Humanae


In the U.S. there must be really, really life concerning for the government to interfere with religion (for example a judge has to take temporary custody of a child to order a blood transfusion for a Jehovah Witness who does not believe in blood transfusions, and it must be shown that there is no other way to save life except to do this.) So claiming that human sacrifice alone shows that the government can willy-nilly interfere with freedom of religion is an incorrect example. It is not the norm and the government is acting only to save life.

It makes the point that there are limits to religious freedom; it can never be absolute. Deciding where the boundaries should be, then, is never clear cut.

 

[ebia]

Well it is not a religious freedom issue because it has nothing to do with the government. A private organization can do what they want to an extent. Like a Catholic college can enforce rules based on lifestyle...and it is legal. But that is not discrimination. But the government can not do that.

Same here, it has nothing to do with religious liberty because it is not the government.

A judge did not do this. Judges said that the Boy Scouts did not have to admit anyone who did not meet their rules. But they chose, as an organization to do differently and keep only part of their restriction.

So it is not a freedom issue. A private group can do as they please membership wise.

Of course it would be in most other countries.

 

[Tallguy88]

It makes the point that there are limits to religious freedom; it can never be absolute. Deciding where the boundaries should be, then, is never clear cut.

Exactly. It's legal to sacrifice chickens, but not people. Why? Because your right to religious freedom doesn't trump someone else's right to life. The chicken's right, however...

 

[Chrystal-J]

Chrystal-J, an executive order is only good for the particular president (and as we have seen, Obama even ignores laws at will.) The Bishops were not impressed by the executive order that Obama gave. They knew that it was meaningless particularly after wording actually forbidding taxpayer abortion was rejected several times in the bill itself! And after Obama stabbed Cardinal Dolan in the back by insisting that Catholics and others whose religious tenets forbid abortion pay for others abortifacients, sterilizations, and birth control we found out that the executive order was meaningless. (The Bishops were right not to trust it afterall.) Stupak (who originally held out for that executive order) said that he now realizes that he had been "had".

Sad. Now we have all those HHS lawsuits.

I agree. Like they say...how can you tell a politician is lying? Their lips are moving.
I have to wonder who's really benefiting from this bill. I'm below poverty level, yet I don't qualify for any kind of health care assistance. If I'm out of the loop, who is getting helped by this? I'm assuming the pharmaceutical companies and other health care related businesses. It feels like "1984" to me. Just one more way for the government to control people. :/

 

[KatherineS]

From the link: 8. Under the IOM guidelines, the Mandate requires all insurance insurers to provide not only contraception, but also abortion,

That would be a lie because as you can plainly read in the E.O., abortion is excluded.

 

[KatherineS]

I have to wonder who's really benefiting from this bill. I'm below poverty level, yet I don't qualify for any kind of health care assistance.

You will be next year.

 

[Davidnic]

That would be a lie because as you can plainly read in the E.O., abortion is excluded.

But it is toothless and the Bishops agree it is not enough.

This was on behalf of the Bishops concerning the Executive Order:

“One proposal to address the serious problem in the Senate health care bill on abortion funding, specifically the direct appropriating of new funds that bypass the Hyde amendment, is to have the President issue an executive order against using these funds for abortion. Unfortunately, this proposal does not begin to address the problem, which arises from decades of federal appellate rulings that apply the principles of Roe v. Wade to federal health legislation. According to these rulings, such health legislation creates a statutory requirement for abortion funding, unless Congress clearly forbids such funding. That is why the Hyde amendment was needed in 1976, to stop Medicaid from funding 300,000 abortions a year. The statutory mandate construed by the courts would override any executive order or regulation. This is the unanimous view of our legal advisors and of the experts we have consulted on abortion jurisprudence. Only a change in the law enacted by Congress, not an executive order, can begin to address this very serious problem in the legislation.”

So touting the executive order as having fixed it is not right as far as the Bishops are concerned.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Sex not an issue anymore. Under rung. Happened quietly. Now more open. That's life. Today anyway.

Such is the after effect of liberalism.
Be open - sin is a right - force ppl of the Christian faith to give rights where they didnt belong.

I dont mind gays - because they are humans and i treat them with human respect - concerned mostly with their souls.

This openness is a force of a big government to accept a life style - not just the person. Chipping away at morals - piece by piece.

There is no other reason to have boys be open - than to force their choices to be accepted.

It isnt about human dignity - because they could already join - but boys werent thinking about someone's sexuality - now - it might become real ugly.

 

[benedictaoo]

Oooo... another gay thread...

 

[benedictaoo]

Such is the after effect of liberalism.
Be open - sin is a right - force ppl of the Christian faith to give rights where they didnt belong.

I dont mind gays - because they are humans and i treat them with human respect - concerned mostly with their souls.

This openness is a force of a big government to accept a life style - not just the person. Chipping away at morals - piece by piece.

There is no other reason to have boys be open - than to force their choices to be accepted.

It isnt about human dignity - because they could already join - but boys werent thinking about someone's sexuality - now - it might become real ugly.

What about ho's? You feel the same way about a ho? Why are we so fixated on gays and not hos? They need savin to you know.

 

[KatherineS]

But it is toothless and the Bishops agree it is not enough.

This was on behalf of the Bishops concerning the Executive Order:

“One proposal to address the serious problem in the Senate health care bill on abortion funding, specifically the direct appropriating of new funds that bypass the Hyde amendment, is to have the President issue an executive order against using these funds for abortion. Unfortunately, this proposal does not begin to address the problem, which arises from decades of federal appellate rulings that apply the principles of Roe v. Wade to federal health legislation. According to these rulings, such health legislation creates a statutory requirement for abortion funding, ....

The bishops advanced this legal theory based on the advice they received, as stated above "specifically the direct appropriating of new funds that bypass the Hyde Amendment..."

At the time of the bishops statement they asserted the new directly appropriated funds for the Community Health Centers would not be subject to the Hyde Amendment. Others disputed this legal analysis.

Those new funds have now been appropriated and spent without a single abortion being paid for. The Bishops argued there would be lawsuits; none have been filed and since none of these funds are remaining, the matter is moot and the advice the bishops received from their lawyers has been proven wrong.

 

[Gwendolyn]

So, who here wanted to have sex at age 6 or 7?

Who here was having sexual fantasies at that age?

Are you seriously afraid of little kids wanting to have sex with each other?

Sure, when adolescence comes, the risk of sexual activity goes up, but aren't the boys CHAPERONED? You really think allowing young boys to camp together is going to turn into an orgy?

I know tons of people who send their kids on mixed church getaways and they are chaperoned. No one whines about how dirty and degenerate it is because teenagers might feel some vague sense of sexual attraction to each other. They don't even think twice about sending their kids away to a ~church camp~ or event.

Why is this different? Gay people are not automatically more sex-crazed than straight people.

 

[AMDG]

So, who here wanted to have sex at age 6 or 7?

Who here was having sexual fantasies at that age?

Are you seriously afraid of little kids wanting to have sex with each other?

Sure, when adolescence comes, the risk of sexual activity goes up, but aren't the boys CHAPERONED? You really think allowing young boys to camp together is going to turn into an orgy?

That's what's being said, IMO, the BSA were not an explicitly sexual program before--why now? Little boys weren't interested in sex and since they weren't, sexual preferences meant nothing. It was pinewood derby and blue and gold dinners. In my day, the cub scouts were even considered to be too young to go on the overnights.

And, btw, when the child reaches the age of camping, the scout master (and assistant scoutmaster who is from the boys) do the chaperoning, but they can't be everywhere all the time. Especially true for "Bushwhacker's Camp for patrol leaders and the Order of the Arrow Camps and those survivalist camps. "Getting in on" in these camps should be the furthest thing from any boy's mind. They should be concerned with how to survive. (Heck, when my son went on the fifty mile bike trip (from the U.S. to Canada) that lasted for over a week--since there were service projects along the way--had to give the Scoutmaster Power of Attorney just in case the worst happened, but in reality knew the one Scoutmaster could not be "up-close and personal" to over 20 boys 24/7 the whole time. It's just not possible. So why the heck is sex of any orientation even being inserted into this organization? Why is this organization being destroyed?

 

[Tallguy88]

That's what's being said, IMO, the BSA were not an explicitly sexual program before--why now?

They're not an explicitly sexual program now. Why do you keep saying this nonsense?

Little boys weren't interested in sex and since they weren't, sexual preferences meant nothing.

That how it still is. The likelihood of gay sex occurring in the scouts is not going to go up now that there can be openly gay boys in the program. You do realize that anyone caught having sex, gay or hetro, during a scouting trip will be summarily kicked out, right?

You people frighten me sometimes with how much you think everything is about sex. Gay sex especially.

 

[ebia]

Oooo... another gay thread...

It's kind of interesting "another gay thread" has become yet another abortion thread.

 

[ebia]

That's what's being said, IMO, the BSA were not an explicitly sexual program before--why now? Little boys weren't interested in sex and since they weren't, sexual preferences meant nothing. It was pinewood derby and blue and gold dinners. In my day, the cub scouts were even considered to be too young to go on the overnights.

And, btw, when the child reaches the age of camping, the scout master (and assistant scoutmaster who is from the boys) do the chaperoning, but they can't be everywhere all the time. Especially true for "Bushwhacker's Camp for patrol leaders and the Order of the Arrow Camps and those survivalist camps. "Getting in on" in these camps should be the furthest thing from any boy's mind. They should be concerned with how to survive. (Heck, when my son went on the fifty mile bike trip (from the U.S. to Canada) that lasted for over a week--since there were service projects along the way--had to give the Scoutmaster Power of Attorney just in case the worst happened, but in reality knew the one Scoutmaster could not be "up-close and personal" to over 20 boys 24/7 the whole time. It's just not possible. So why the heck is sex of any orientation even being inserted into this organization? Why is this organization being destroyed?

How does letting everyone join turn it into "an explicitly sexual program".?

 

[Chrystal-J]

You will be next year.

I don't...I already checked. (Michigan chose to "opt out" of including more people for Medicaid through the Obama's new federal plan.) I could pay for a plan, but how is that helping me? I got enough bills on my low income already. And the abortion pills are going to be included under "contraceptives" i.e. the Plan B and other abortion inducing drugs.

 

[ZaidaBoBaida]

I'm kind of thinking that this only really affects older scouts such as the Eagle Scouts. Little kids don't usually go around announcing that they're gay. This, however, could be a bit more of a problem with a teenager.

 

[AMDG]

They're not an explicitly sexual program now. Why do you keep saying this nonsense?

If you claim that it has nothing to do with sex (and I'm sure you do) then perhaps you can explain why this is even a new regulation for the BSA? The little boys sure don't go around saying "I want to grow up having a sexual preference for guys". It simply doesn't come up--unless someone older has an agenda.

The BSA is about boys. It is not about sexual orientation and it just shouldn't be made to be so. BTW little boys, are just little boys--there is no sexual orientation. The boys are boys are boys. There is "no such animal" as a little homosexual boy (or homosexual girl for that matter.) IMO, the homosexual lobby should leave them alone and stop projecting their sexual desires onto children. IMO, when the children grow up and chose their orientation is time enough and by that time, they won't be spending time doing childish things like being in youth organizations.

Wonder what the homosexual lobby will do next--have some decide they want their little girl to be a Boy Scout? Let's see before they raise a big stink they will first have to tell the little girl that her sexual orientation is... I can imagine what the little girl will say (probably what the little boy will say)--"what's a sexual orientation?"

 

[Sarcalogos Deus]

Decency requires a person or organization to actually do something objectionable before action is taken against them, not gossiping hens speculating things will happen.

The National Committee on Scouting and my Archbishop have both stood with the Boys Scouts under this new policy. God bless them.

Only a small minority has even indicated they would leave the BSA and my view is good riddence to those who go.

As for priests like the one in Washington State, who could tolerate the Boys Scouts even though they do not have a policy on abortion but can't live with them now that they no longer have a policy against gay scouts, I would suggest that he stands gulity of dissent from the Church's teaching on abortion.

I doubt many troops will leave. Most of them that have issues with it will probably just ignore the new policy entirely.