J-Donk
Hall-of-Famer
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2005
- Messages
- 3,796
- Reaction score
- 4,484
Offline
Actually, it's not. Slavery was not a religious issue; homosexuality is, for many faith based groups. What about tolerance and respect for the religious beliefs of those troops affiliated with religious organizations? By allowing the individual troops to decide, this allows gay children the freedom to join, and the freedom of religious based troops to follow the beliefs of their charter organization. Why does tolerance and respect have to go one way only? Why is forcing a troop to violate their spiritual beliefs any less tolerant than preventing a gay boy from joining a troop?
I think allowing the troops to decide for themselves is win-win for both sides of the coin, and would allow those troops who might be extremely opposed the opportunity to mingle at council events with troops who do allow gay members, and would increase the acceptance of these boys throughout BSA over time. But by forcing the policy on everyone from the start, you create even more animosity between the two sides. How is it less "tolerant" to put the "bigot" label on troops that choose to follow the former policy? Tolerance doesn't mean we must agree with a point of view, and many forget that. It means we respect that point of view even though we don't agree with it. By showing tolerance to BOTH sides of the issue, it allows each side to see, learn and respect what the other side is about. Respect for religious beliefs; respect for sexual orientation. Both are important, IMO.
I don't tolerate bigotry. I think that's going to be a new theme in our society going forward. I don't have to respect your belief if it's full of hate.
From what I know of the issue this isn't something the scouts wanted to do. There was a gay scouts lobby that got most of their funding cut. Sponsors have been dropping the scouts faster then Rush Limbaugh.