St. Luke's Tells Scouts They Have To Go

St. Luke's Tells Scouts They Have To Go

There are 24 comments on the Patch.com story from Aug 31, 2012, titled St. Luke's Tells Scouts They Have To Go. In it, Patch.com reports that:

St. Luke's Episcopal Church told Cub Scout Pack 4 last week it can no longer use church facilities because of the Boy Scouts of America's reaffirmation earlier this summer of its exclusion of gay men and boys ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Patch.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#1 Aug 31, 2012
from Patch:

"'We came to a unanimous conclusion that the appropriate response was to say to the institution that we as a community of faith cannot allow them as an institution to operate here and have their meetings here given that they have as part of their institutional policy discrimination,' said Rector Tim Rich of St. Luke’s in an interview Thursday."

BSA "discriminates" against gay men raiding their scout packs.

As for Rector Rich, his last position was 10 years as assistant to Bishop Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in TEC, a role Rich admits has "shaped his thinking," such as it is.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#2 Aug 31, 2012
Joe DeCaro wrote:

'BSA "discriminates" against gay men raiding their scout packs.'

Man, your mental wires are crossed.

Also, your little snide quip at the end about "such as it is." Completely off base, bud.

There are no 'gay men' raiding their scout packs, you DUFUS!

But, they are scared as Hell that there will be, because they don't feel comfortable trying to educate the masses to understand the difference between a homosexual and a pedophile. And if a J. Sandusky-type were to get into a position of control at the troop level, leaving a trail of traumatized kids at the campground, there would be a legion of lawyers descending upon the well-intentioned scout leadership and the BSA bank accounts!

This is a bad deal. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. So, I personally, as a grown up Boy Scout of America am very sympathetic to their plight.

But, on the other hand, the BSA must come to grips with the fact that a certain number of their kids are going to be homosexuals because that is simply the fact of the matter. And these are perfectly good kids that need and deserve every right to be participants in the scouting experience.

Frankly, there ought to be a merit badge for demonstrating knowledge of these issues and for engaging in civil and lawful demonstration against segregation and discrimination.

The BSA will get through this because they are a good and honest organization. They will realize that they have to make a choice and that it will have to be the right choice, even if it seems difficult.

You do it for the children.

Rev. Ken

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#3 Aug 31, 2012
RevKen wrote:
But, on the other hand, the BSA must come to grips with the fact that a certain number of their kids are going to be homosexuals because that is simply the fact of the matter ...
But they don't have to be "helped" into that orientation by the advice of a Gay Scoutmaster with a vested interest in "outing" them.
Listen to the Word

Kingman, AZ

#4 Aug 31, 2012
BSA won their lawsuit, filed in California, about keeping gays out of BSA on the grounds that they are a religious organization, which, of course, they are. Lord Baden-Powell, the founder of scouting in England, when asked why he didn't put religion into scouting replies, "It is already in scouting."

It is interesting that BSA did not discriminate against TEC by refusing to use the facilities of a pro-gay group while St. Luke's of the TEC did discriminate against BSA by kicking them out for not admitting gays into their ranks. It is obvious the TEC does discriminate against any and all who do not agree with their liberal agenda. The liberals in TEC are the most exclusive group in any town. They are so biased against anyone who disagrees with them that they will kick them out and legally take their churches -- even refusing to sell them back to their once-brothers-and-sisters-in-t he-faith. TEC would rather let the churches sit empty than work with leaving congregations. So much for being inclusive in the TEC! TEC leaders are a bigger pack of hypocrites tham the Pharisess of the Bible ever were. Like them, they make up their own rules -- far removed from the scriptures and make them a burden on their fellow believers. Look for more TEC losses. It seems that losing members is what TEC does best. It is the essence of TEC's "growth by decline" strategy.

Lililth_Satans_B ore

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#6 Aug 31, 2012
Ha Ha Ha bigot scouts
Hoodathunkit

De Graff, OH

#7 Aug 31, 2012
Listen to the Word wrote:
BSA won their lawsuit, filed in California, about keeping gays out of BSA on the grounds that they are a religious organization, which, of course, they are. Lord Baden-Powell, the founder of scouting in England, when asked why he didn't put religion into scouting replies, "It is already in scouting."
It is interesting that BSA did not discriminate against TEC by refusing to use the facilities of a pro-gay group while St. Luke's of the TEC did discriminate against BSA by kicking them out for not admitting gays into their ranks. It is obvious the TEC does discriminate against any and all who do not agree with their liberal agenda. The liberals in TEC are the most exclusive group in any town. They are so biased against anyone who disagrees with them that they will kick them out and legally take their churches -- even refusing to sell them back to their once-brothers-and-sisters-in-t he-faith. TEC would rather let the churches sit empty than work with leaving congregations. So much for being inclusive in the TEC! TEC leaders are a bigger pack of hypocrites tham the Pharisess of the Bible ever were. Like them, they make up their own rules -- far removed from the scriptures and make them a burden on their fellow believers. Look for more TEC losses. It seems that losing members is what TEC does best. It is the essence of TEC's "growth by decline" strategy.
Why is it alright for the BSA to choose who can and cannot join their ranks but it's not alright for the TEC to choose who can and cannot meet in their religious facilities? Both are private organizations. Incidently, the TEC facility is not an accommodation facilty offered to the public.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#8 Sep 1, 2012
Hoodathunkit wrote:
... Incidently, the TEC facility is not an accommodation facilty offered to the public.
That would help explain why TEC has lost so many members of that public.
Hoodathunkit

De Graff, OH

#9 Sep 1, 2012
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
That would help explain why TEC has lost so many members of that public.
Because the parish hall is not for rent as an accomodation to the general public??? Are you nuts?

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#10 Sep 1, 2012
Hoodathunkit wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the parish hall is not for rent as an accomodation to the general public???...
No, because TEC leadership only accomodates a gay agenda at the expense of others.

FaFoxy

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#11 Sep 1, 2012
My church threw the Boy Scouts out of our meeting building for the same reason more than 20 years ago.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#12 Sep 2, 2012
I so hate seeing the little ones being slighted for the actions of their elders.

I think that the troop should liaison with the troop that defied the BSA ban.

If put to a vote, troop by troop, I wonder how many would decide each way.

If a schism is necessary, then there should be one.

Scouting International has no problem with gay participation.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#13 Sep 2, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
My church threw the Boy Scouts out of our meeting building for the same reason more than 20 years ago.
In order to accomodate possible pedophile predators, entire troops of young men are being excluded.
snyper wrote:
... Scouting International has no problem with gay participation.
That's what the RCC thought when it allowed gay men into its seminaries, but "problems" later emerged.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#14 Sep 2, 2012
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
In order to accomodate possible pedophile predators, entire troops of young men are being excluded.
.
That's a silly way to look at it. And, untrue, of course, since most of those predators they are trying to exclude are either straight males, or men who have always lives as straight males. You know, the predator that you can't see as they fly under the radar.

What the church actually objects to is supporting an organization that would ban some of their OWN parishioners from being members.

What church group would support something like that? Using parishioner dollars to do it?

It's almost as bad as taking tax dollars from gay couples to support and subsidize the marriages of straight couples, while denying the gay couple the right to marry.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#15 Sep 2, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a silly way to look at it. And, untrue, of course, since most of those predators they are trying to exclude are either straight males, or men who have always lives as straight males ...
"Straight" males don't abuse children of the same sex, but Gay pedophiles do, as they did in the RCC sex scandal as shown by the stats from the John Jay studies.

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#16 Sep 2, 2012
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
"Straight" males don't abuse children of the same sex, but Gay pedophiles do, as they did in the RCC sex scandal as shown by the stats from the John Jay studies.
Is Jerry Sandusky married?
Hoodathunkit

De Graff, OH

#17 Sep 2, 2012
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
"Straight" males don't abuse children of the same sex, but Gay pedophiles do, as they did in the RCC sex scandal as shown by the stats from the John Jay studies.
The stats of the John Jay study did nothing to reveal the sexual orientation of the Catholic priest pedophiles. What the stats revealed was that the majority of pedophile priests chose victims that they would have easy access to and could readily groom. They chose boys from homes where the father was missing and had mothers who trusted the priests to act as father-figures to their sons. The simple fact that mothers would be more easily persuaded to allow their sons to do unchaperoned "manly" activities with priests than persuaded to allow their daughters do anything unchaperoned with a priest seems to escape you. The other thing that the John Jay study showed was the Catholic church's disregard for the welfare of children by not reporting molestation cases to authorities and by moving perpetrators to other parishes and giving them a new feeding ground for more victims. What the John Jay study did not do was disprove all of the peer reviewed studies that the gender of the victim does not indicate the sexual orientation of the perpetrator but it did prove that easier access to one gender than the other does impact which gender will fall victim. One of the things that the Catholic church molestation debacle has in common with the Sandusky case is that heterosexuals stood by for years and did virtually nothing to stop the continued procession of victims by known pedophiles.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#18 Sep 2, 2012
Hoodathunkit wrote:
<quoted text>
The stats of the John Jay study did nothing to reveal the sexual orientation of the Catholic priest pedophiles. What the stats revealed was that the majority of pedophile priests chose victims that they would have easy access to and could readily groom ...
... as if there were no female altar servers after Vatican II?

According to Catholic News Service, a report by the bishops’ National Review Board on the causes of the sex scandal revealed that the majority of young victims abused by our clergy were males, signifying that the church crisis was indeed characterized by homosexual behavior.

The bishops' report was based on the stats of the John Jay study of the Catholic clerical abuse of minors. The study determined that 81 percent of those abused by priests were male: 22 percent under the age of 11; 51 percent from 11-14 years old, and the remaining 27 percent were ages 15-17.

Further, the National Review Board report found that large numbers of homosexual candidates actually discouraged heterosexuals from entering the priesthood, resulting in the formation of "gay subcultures" in some seminaries.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#19 Sep 2, 2012
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
"Straight" males don't abuse children of the same sex, but Gay pedophiles do, as they did in the RCC sex scandal as shown by the stats from the John Jay studies.
That is an incorrect analysis, even according to the Jay enquiry.(It wasn't a "study")

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#20 Sep 2, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
That is an incorrect analysis, even according to the Jay enquiry.(It wasn't a "study")
Semantics, but what would be the correct analysis?

Basically, John Jay just crunched numbers and left the (obvious) conclusions to the reader.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#21 Sep 2, 2012
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
Semantics, but what would be the correct analysis?
Basically, John Jay just crunched numbers and left the (obvious) conclusions to the reader.
The numbers were interesting, but hampered by some presuppositionals and the collection methodology. Far better than Regnerus, though.

This is waaay off-topic, and very apples and walnuts.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Episcopal Church Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The Disastrous Reign of Bishop Robert O'Neill (Sep '10) Aug 13 OneVoice 32
News Did you turn 50 recently? Become a grandparent?... Aug 11 True Christian w... 1
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) Jul 28 Belles Echoes 36,047
News Christine Wicker: Learning to Talk About God an... (Sep '10) Jun '16 True Christian w... 30
News What Charleston looks like, a year after the Dy... Jun '16 Adonay 1
News Female Deacons: Pope Francis Walks It Back, Wom... May '16 Julie Chance 6
News Pope's zero tolerance for pedophiles faces test... (Mar '15) May '16 Gods r Delusions ... 4
More from around the web