AZMike

One of the arguments that is commonly advanced by the LGBT advocates is "well, the boys are okay with including gays, so we should do what they want." Leaving aside the argument that "all boys" or even a majority favor that, I'd be curious to know what the boys in scouting want, as opposed to their moms and dads who want to include their daughters, or hold an ideal of female inclusion in all activities. Some (possibly older) boys might favor it, but maybe not. Even if you are at the age where all you can think about is girls, there's a lot to be said for carving out a place in your life where you can just be with your (male) buddies and be yourself. (I could see that it could create some tensions for a Scout with a girlfriend who is not in scouting, but doesn't want her BF going on a campout with other girls.) A lot of the younger scouts may also not be keen on the idea. If the boys would not favor it, why should it be pushed upon them? There are certainly plenty of other co-ed youth organizations available to them. Certainly, older scouts can join a co-ed Venturing Crew if that is what they want, instead of the adult leaders remaking Scouting to conform with their own ideas. It would also probably create a lot of antagonism with the GSA, who would be (rightfully) concerned that we are poaching members from them. I think if you were to conduct an informal poll of your troops, you would find this a pretty unpopular idea.

What is the 3rd G? The Godless?

Wait...if the the future is here now, then wouldn't today be tomorrow? And if have to get on board tomorrow to be on time, if I get left behind then it will still be tomorrow and I will have a chance to get another ticket the day after.

I don't think an agency funded by billions in cookie sales will give up the fight so easily, my friend. Do not underestimate their power.

Oh, yeah. As part of the male tribal inculcation into the next generation of the Primary Male Values (Competency, Commitment, Compassion, and Composure), we are more likely to encourage a heavy dose of Male Stoicism as part of the latter value. We honor and respect those men who dealt with a severed thumb from a band saw by re-attaching the lost digit with black electrician's tape and carrying on as if nothing in particular just happened. It's all of a piece with the Medal of Honor winner who was buried down the block from me as a kid and who crawled 20 miles - TWENTY MILES! - after being shot in the legs to seek help for his friends. We honor that, but we honor the fact that he refused medical treatment until his friends got treated, even more. We honor and share and re-share their experiences with the young as part of the collective tribal wisdom. We know the correct way to deal with pain and sorrow is just to shove it all deeper into a big mental shoebox, wrap another layer of mental duct-tape around it to keep all the nightmares from getting out, and shoving it deeper back in our brain until we have time to deal with it, like in 20 years or so. (Hey, it's always worked for me.) While women encourage us to share and cry and express ourselves by methods other than grunting, remaining silent, or belching out popular tunes while slapping our bare bellies to keep time, we know that all that okey-doke about sharing and expressing feelings is just feminine shuck-and-jive. Act like Sensitive Ponytail Man and expect to be treated with revulsion by any right-thinking woman. We encourage those of who are XY-chromosomal Americans to get used with dealing with a little pain and discomfort now, stoically, so they'll be able to deal with the inevitable heartache that's coming down the pike later. So, that's another way we encourage behavior that women officially discourage. Off the top of my head.

Really? How about some examples? Advantages of Male Teachers A 2006 study in Education Next, by the Hoover Institute, and conducted by Thomas Dee, an economics professor at Swarthmore College, found that boys learn better from male teachers. The study states that having a teacher of the opposite sex hinders a boy's academic progress. Boys were less likely to be seen as disruptive in a class with a male teacher. Male teachers are more likely to include games and competition in their teaching methods. Advantages of Female Teachers The same 2006 study conducted by Thomas Dee found that girls learn best from female teachers. Women often teach in ways that may fit girls better, such as sitting at desks and using worksheets for learning. More female teachers than male expect a quiet and orderly classroom, which girls appreciate. Read more: Male versus Female Teachers | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5623553_male-versus-female-teachers.html#ixzz2S6I0u3CJ Depends on the mom and depends on the dad, but the complementary nature of men and women ideally balances out for kids. If I got hurt, I would probably go to my mom. If I screwed up, I would probably go to my dad. Men tend to be more understanding of the craziness that boys do when playing and tolerate a higher level of perceived chaos (within limits) and a higher level of aggressive verbal and physical play, as they see both as an essential part of operating within a team later. Boys tend to settle naturally into hierarchical relationships based on the skills needed into particular situations, women are more likely to encourage plans for shared leadership so everyone gets a chance. Men understand the basic male need for things with sharp edges, things that start fires, and things that go BOOM real loud-like. Your average woman, not so much. Men are more accepting of field-standards of grooming and hygiene when the situation calls for it. Nothing wrong with female patterns, there are times when their way of doin' things is right. Men developed civilization to impress women, if they weren't around we would just spend all our time fishin' and scratchin' ourselves and a-huntin' each other for sport for one generation, then we would all die.* (*An hommage to Beavah.)

Some analysis from the anti-Resolution folks on why, from their POV, this is bad policy: AN OPEN LETTER TO BSA DELEGATES: TEN REASONS TO “VOTE NO†A Legal and Ethical Analysis of the Proposed BSA Resolution to Allow Open Homosexuality in the Boy Scouts 1) The proposed BSA resolution is logically incoherent and morally and ethically inconsistent. Under the proposed change in policy, open homosexuality would be officially consistent with the Scouting code throughout a Boy Scout’s life until the moment he turns 18, when it suddenly becomes a problem. Under the policy when a 16- or 17-year-old “open and avowed†homosexual becomes an Eagle before his 18th birthday, right after he turns 18 he is removed from Scouting. No troop leader would want to put himself in the position of enforcing such an irrational rule. A de facto change in the rule against openly homosexual adult leaders would also occur almost immediately. This inconsistency between the membership policy of youth and adults will surely draw an equal protection lawsuit by gay-rights activists groups against the BSA in which the association rights established by the Supreme Court will no longer be available. (See #7 infra.) 2) Opening the Boy Scouts to boys who openly proclaim being sexually attracted to other boys and/or openly identify themselves as "gay" will inevitably create an increase of boy-on-boy sexual contact which will result in further public scandal to the BSA, not to mention the tragedy of countless boys who will experience sexual, physical and psychological abuse. BSA’s own Youth Protection videos indicate that “70% of abuse to boys is by teenagersâ€Â. Two-deep leadership will have to be at least three-deep for units with homosexual youth. The complexity of sleeping arrangements will create a myriad of social and liability challenges. Sexual awareness and harassment training will be required in all Scouting units. The leaders setting forth the proposed policy clearly did not have the safety and security of the boys in the BSA as their paramount concern. 3) The proposal forces and requires every chartered Scouting unit, regardless of religious convictions, to facilitate open homosexuality among boys in their program. The proposed resolution is much worse than the original idea for a local option where each troop would decide whether to allow open homosexuality in its unit. It fails to respect or reverence the religious beliefs, values and theology of the vast majority of Christian churches which charter well over 70% of all Scouting units. 4) If the proposal is enacted, it will gut a major percentage of human capital in the BSA and utterly devastate the program financially, socially and legally. Of the faith based Scouting units, the vast majority of them are Latter-day Saints, Methodists, Catholics or Southern Baptists. Despite what denominations may decide for political reasons, the majority of local churches that charter Scout units will not be able to embrace this policy without violating their religious convictions. The BSA’s own “Voice of the Scout†surveys provide solid evidence that tens- and possibly hundreds of thousands of parents and Scouts will leave the program if the proposal is adopted. The financial impact from such a significant membership loss would be enormous. Camps will close, executives will be let go and properties will be sold off as a result of the vast loss of finances from major donors, private foundations and declining membership. 5) The Resolution robs parents of the sole authority to raise issues of sex and sexuality with their kids. Parents should have the exclusive right to raise issues about sex and sexuality with their children in their own time and in their own way, in the privacy of their homes; not brought up by other older boys around a campfire. Allowing open homosexuality would inject a sensitive and highly-charged political issue into the heart of the BSA, against the wishes of the vast majority of parents. Under the longstanding current policy, boys who have a same-sex attraction are not banned or removed from the program unless they act out in a manner that distracts from the mission of the BSA. Under the new policy all Scouting units would be required to accept a 17-year-old gay activist openly flaunting his sexuality and promoting a leftist political agenda. 6) The proposed policy directly contradicts the BSA’s comprehensive 2010-2012 study which unanimously concluded last summer that prohibiting “open and avowed homosexuality†was “the absolute best policy†for the Boy Scouts. Only months after the BSA affirmed the policy that was clearly in the best interest of its boys, a handful of top BSA officials caved from the pressure and criticism they received from their own adult peers. What kind of message are we sending to young people when the adults trying to teach them to be “brave†cannot muster up the courage to stand up for the values that are clearly best for the BSA? Sadly, instead of looking out for what is best for the safety and security of the boys in the program, BSA’s top leadership is more concerned about what is popular in the polls taken outside the Scouting family. To try to undermine the results of the unanimous 2012 study, the 2013 Voice of the Scout national survey was a carefully crafted tool to persuade and “condition†those surveyed to the idea of openly gay BSA members. The full survey results were not even reported publicly or to the wider Scouting family. 7) The proposed resolution leaves Scouting units with no options or legal protection if they refuse to allow open homosexuality among the boys of their units. This proposed policy completely retreats from the principles hard-fought in the U.S. Supreme Court case BSA vs. Dale in 2000. The legal protection under Dale will be completely removed for both adults and youth members. Any Scout unit which refuses to accept or abide by the new policy will either have their charter revoked by national BSA leadership or become fully exposed to legal attacks for alleged violations of nondiscrimination ordinances. Many units and chartering organizations will be forced to fold, unable to withstand the enormous time and cost associated with the legal attacks. 8) The effect of the phrase “sexual preference†in the BSA resolution could be used by LGBT activists to push for transgendered girls in the BSA. If a biological girl “prefers†acting out as a transgendered boy, she must also be allowed into any Boy Scout troop. In October of 2011 the Girl Scouts admitted a 7- year-old boy named Bobby Montoya into their program who preferred to be treated as a girl. Because the vague and undefined phrase “sexual preference†is used in the resolution, it opens the door and requires Scout units to accept any sexual preference expressed. 9) The “whereas†clauses in the resolution are symbolic and not part of the actual proposed policy. While the Resolution includes some positive “Whereas†clauses designed to take the edge off of the new membership policy language by advocating for some type of moral purity, “Whereas†clauses have never been binding in contract law or in the legal construction of a resolution. The only words that will become part of the official membership policy are the 141 words after “NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT...†10) Top BSA leaders completely ignored the collective wisdom of rank-and-file Scouting family members when they proposed this resolution. Nationwide the BSA’s official “Voice of the Scout†survey shows respondents support the current policy by a supermajority of 61% to 34%. This survey also showed: • 3 of the 4 major BSA Regions around the country collectively voted that they did not want to see a change in the policy. • 72 percent of chartered organizations oppose this change and support the current policy. • 64 percent of council and district volunteers oppose this change and support the current policy. • 62 percent of unit leaders oppose this change and support the current policy. • 61 percent of Boy Scout parents oppose this change and support the current policy. • 50 percent of Cub Scout parents oppose this change and support the current policy. John Stemberger is an Eagle Scout, a Vigil Honor member of the Order of the Arrow, a former Scoutmaster, a Lifetime N.E.S.A. member and a father with two sons in Scouting. He is an AV-rated Orlando lawyer who practices in civil and constitutional litigation. For more information visit http://www.OnMyHonor.Net 4853 South Orange Avenue, Orlando, FL 32806 | (406) 646-6599

Yeah, the study addresses bisexuals. Both bisexuality and homosexuality as self-descriptions in adolescents are remarkably unstable compared to a heterosexual self-description. On your second point, it makes sense that gay people (that is, those with a strong identification as homosexual) have "always" known they were gay, just as those with a strong heterosexual self-identification do. It also makes sense that people who experimented or were unsure when young what their orientation was, but eventually realized they were heterosexual would be much less likely to share that information openly out of embarrassment, right? Many of the people you know who experimented with homosexual acts might not feel comfortable sharing that info, so there is likely to be a lot of inaccurate self-reporting in this area.

I think that's pretty much all anyone writes about now in academia, Merlyn - whether someone is or isn't gay. Usually, you can make an academic career by claiming someone - anyone - is. Claiming they aren't really won't earn you any points. The sliding scale for gayness is pretty easily met nowadays. Some biographers have claimed Hughes was gay, others (like Arnold Rampersand) have written that he wasn't. No gay lovers ever came forward. He could have been asexual, and lacked a strong sex drive, or felt largely romantic but non-sexual feelings. Some people are that way. He could have had a same-sex attraction or a bisexual attraction, but remained celibate, which seems likely. That's not unknown. Not everyone feels a need to play out their sexual fantasies, and some people with a SSA may realized that they will not ultimately be happy if they become a practicing homosexual. A man who has an overwhelming attraction for a woman (who happens to be married to another man) may never pursue her, out of a realization that such an act would be immoral (as fornication or adultery), or likely to lead to greater unhappiness than he feels now. Ultimately, who cares? We'll probably never know. What's your field, Packsaddle? If you're in a department that never uses the terms "deconstruction" or "Queer Studies," you probably don't have to worry.

So this study more or less supports your position. Why do you have a problem with it, Moosetracker? If the BSA is used by LDS troops to support their teachings (again, they have a unique relationship with the BSA), how is that the business of the BSA any more than if they modify summer camp schedules, camping times, prayers, etc. to fit their beliefs? Presumably, they wouldn't do it with anyone outside LDS. People go into the LDS knowing what their stance on homosexual behavior is. I'd also like to see some cites for the "millions" of studies you claim show that a SSA in adolescence is fixed and immutable over time. Not all studies are equal, obviously, but this comes from an unbiased source, is frequently cited in other studies, and used a very large sample population. If we want to base our decision on facts rather than feelings, we have to evaluate the facts we can. If heterosexuality is the baseline (and if it wasn't t, we would not have survived as a species), questions about whether an adult with a fully formed sexual orientation could be nudged from heterosexuality to homosexuality are irrelevant. Adolescent behavior (which is what we are discussing) is far more mutable.

Okay, RememberSchiff's comment has been sitting here all solitary and lonely-like for a while, so I'll comment. LDS's somewhat lukewarm support for the policy proposal may not ultimately be applauded by gay activists, for reasons that go beyond what many feel about the asymmetrical nature of the arrangement. I spoke to a friend who is an LDS Scouter last weekend who had an interesting perspective on the LDS's announcement, which he said has to be understood in the context of the unique relationship of the BSA and the LDS. As the BSA is the official youth activity of the LDS, it is used primarily for religious purposes, and to promote personal growth, religious education and the advancement of their young men in their priesthood. Homosexuality is still seen as disordered by the LDS religion, although they have moved towards an acceptance of a same-sex attraction in Mormons as a way to treat them with compassion and help them move towards a lifestyle in accordance with LDS teachings. (If I have misunderstood LDS teaching, I apologize and welcome any comments in correction). As LDS troops tend to be largely or solely LDS, the religious component will likely be used to mentor youths with a SSA attraction (using what he described as counseling and gentle peer support, without harassment or bullying), to guide them back into a lifestyle more in accordance with LDS teachings. LDS parents will be likely support this process. I don't think this is an official policy or plan, but as my friend said, it will be the likely end-result of any change in the process. This would be possible in an LDS troop, due to their official involvement with scouting, in a way that most other non-LDS troops (even religious chartered ones) would not find possible. I understand that most gay activists (and non-gays who support gay activism) find the idea that a gay youth could be "changed" in his or her sexual orientation to be anathema. So this might not be exactly the end-result of LDS gay inclusion they envisioned. The LDS church will not use any new policy to change their teachings or affirm homosexuality. There is some good evidence (Savin-Williams, R.C. and Ream, G.L. (2007) Prevalence and Stability of Sexual Orientation Components During Adolescence and Young Adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior 36, 385-394) with a very large study sample (far larger than Kinsey's, for example) that there is a high rate of movement from self-image as gay or bisexual to heterosexual within a 1-year period (age 16 to 17, in the longitudinal study) in adolescents, which continues over the next 5 years, so an LGBT orientation is by no means a fixed self-identification. Kids are always in a state of flux, and are as prone to sexual identity experimentation as any other sort of self-identification. The movement from homosexuality or bisexuality at age 16 to self-identification as heterosexual by age 17 is 25 times higher than movement from the opposite extreme (heterosexual to a homosexual or bisexual self-identification). This research could be used to support gay inclusion in the BSA, incidentally, on the evidence that many boys (and girls) who are unsure about their orientation do, in fact, "grow out of it," and that a youth program model that encourages moral rectitude without harassment or bullying could cause a greater rate of change in orientation in those with a desire to be heterosexual, or simply out of a realization that most kids who may join while identifying as "gay" are statistically unlikely to remain that way. It deserves some consideration by those who oppose inclusion of youths who self-identify as LGBT, although youth safety issues involved in inclusion will remain problematic for many adult leaders and parents. Surprisingly (or maybe not), the pull towards heterosexuality remains quite strong (which an exclusively evolutionary as well as a religious model of human origin would predict), and only a small proportion of those who identify exclusively as same-sex attracted at age 16 continue to do so at age 17 (without any intervention models). A very small percentage of those who identify as heterosexual move to homosexual. A large proportion (the majority) of those who identify as bisexual at 16 move largely to exclusively heterosexual, with a small group retaining a bisexual identity and a much smaller group moving to exclusively homosexual. The sexual orientation self-identification rates from the cohort from age 17 to 25 show heterosexuals continue to largely remain heterosexuals. Of those who continued to identify as bisexuals by age 17, a majority moved to heterosexuality but a larger proportion continued as bisexual than during the 1-year 16 to 17 age period. 75% of those with a full same sex attraction at 17 had moved on to heterosexuality by age 25. Females show the greatest drop from full homosexuality at 17 - very few reported full same sex attraction by age 25, although women with an initial SSA are the only group that ended as a high proportion of bisexuality (than SSA or heterosexuality) at the end of the study. There are no studies showing whether a counseling model based on long-term peer-group support for adolescents in a BSA model of mentorship and a spiritually-based program focusing on positive moral values would work any better than clinically based "conversion" programs (which are very controversial), as I don't think this has ever been tried before. Use of the BSA by some troops as a "gentle" conversion program would probably not be seen as a desirable outcome by LGBT activists. Could make the kids dig in their heels more, too, but maybe not. From a strictly utilitarian perspective, the CDC research shows a much higher rate of suicide and self destructive behavior in nearly every category for LGBT youth. While some have argued that this is solely the end result of low self-esteem due to bullying and societal and family disapproval, if LGBT self-identification is more flexible that those with a political agenda may have led us to believe, maybe we should try to steer youths away through the youth mentorship programs pioneered by the BSA. I don't have a dog in this particular fight, but it will be interesting to see what happens. I don't think National would want to touch this side-issue (religious counseling for conversion) with a 10-foot pole.

I think that's pretty much all anyone writes about now in academia, Merlyn - whether someone is or isn't gay. Usually, you can make an academic career by claiming someone - anyone - is. Claiming they aren't really won't earn you any points. The sliding scale for gayness is pretty easily met nowadays. Some biographers have claimed Hughes was gay, others (like Arnold Rampersand) have written that he wasn't. No gay lovers ever came forward. He could have been asexual, and lacked a strong sex drive, or felt largely romantic but non-sexual feelings. Some people are that way. He could have had a same-sex attraction or a bisexual attraction, but remained celibate, which seems likely. That's not unknown. Not everyone feels a need to play out their sexual fantasies, and some people with a SSA may realized that they will not ultimately be happy if they become a practicing homosexual. A man who has an overwhelming attraction for a woman (who happens to be married to another man) may never pursue her, out of a realization that such an act would be immoral (as fornication or adultery), or likely to lead to greater unhappiness than he feels now. Ultimately, who cares? We'll probably never know.

Again, why do you think the executives at National in Texas were familiar with what Trekkies knew? If we were to draw a Venn Diagram for 1985 with circles labelled "Trekkies," "George Takei's personal friends," "The Hollywood Community," and "middle-aged BSA Executives in Texas," I doubt you would find much overlap of the first three with the latter group.

George Takei came out of the closet in 1995, 10 years after he became a spokesman for the BSA. I think you'll agree that Takei's sexual interests were probably not discussed in Trekkie fanzines in print before 1985, nor did Trekkie blogs or websites exist in 1985 - the Internet had not yet reached popular acceptance. (Sometimes I feel like I do when I have to explain to my niece why Wyatt Earp couldn't have just sent an email requesting help against the Clantons.) Takei has never, to my knowledge, been arrested for any morals charges, so a background check would not have revealed any sexual proclivities. Why do you think that the BSA should have been scouring poorly mimeographed and offset Star Trek fanzines to check if Takei was gay?

O/T, Old_OX_Eagle83, Moosetracker isn't a "he".

No, a sect is not " religious branch of which isn't large enough to qualify as a denomination." It is a schism from a larger branch, but in common parlance (and most dictionaries, including theological ones) it means the same as a denomination; thus, "non-sectarian" means the same as "non-denominational." You claim that "BSA is filled with strictly Christians-only practices such as praying before meals in a Christian style, holding Sunday morning services at camps, removing hats and bowing heads to pray, and saying "Amen" at the end of any prayer. Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, Zoroastrians, and Shintoists do none of these things. This is all Christian behavior." No. Almost all religions, Abrahamic or not, pray before meals, and most include the same elements are found as in "Christian-style" prayers: saying thanks to God for the meal, for the company around the table, and the other blessings He provides. Buddhists, Taoists, Zoroastrians, Jews, Muslims, B'ahai, Shintoists, and Hindus pray before meals. Most BSA summer camps I have attended provide religious services for adherents of non-Christian faiths IF there are enough members at the camp, and IF the appropriate cleric is available to conduct the ceremony (if a cleric is required). As most camps are in rural areas, this is not always possible for all denominations or sects. If the individuals wished to conduct the appropriate observances on their own times, and on their own sabbath day or day of worship, accommodations would certainly be made. Faiths that do not remove their hats for prayer, if they are members of a troop, will usually advise the troops of the difference in modes of worship through the troop's chaplain. In and of itself, "Amen" does not have any religious significance. It is simply a word of Affirmation in the Hebrew language that means, "So be it," or "truly," or "verily," or "it is so." Most religions, including non-Abrahamic ones, include such statements of affirmation, so it is not an alien concept to people of faith. It is used by Jews (in fact, it is commanded to be used at the end of any blessing, even a Christian one, outside of liturgical settings, such as a non-sectarian prayer). It is used by Muslims ( آمين‎, ʾÄÂmÄ«n). BSA volunteers rarely have degrees in Comparative Religious Studies, but they do the best they can to treat people of other faiths with the respect and courtesy they deserve. If they give offense, people of good will understand that there was no intent to insult, and will forgive them. You also claim that "Only the Abrahamic religions believe in a jealous God that is personable and reacts negatively to lack of belief. Buddhists don't even necessarily believe in any spiritual anything at all nor do Confucians or Daoists." If by "personable" you mean a God that is a person, not a God that is pleasant at parties, many religions who believe in a God or gods react negatively to lack of belief on behalf of their god. Buddhists by definition do believe in something spiritual, in that they deny a strictly materialist conception of reality. Karma, accepted by most Buddhists as well as Hindus, Jains, and Sikhs is not a materialist concept and is spiritual in nature, as well as Buddhist conceptions of the existence and continuances of the Buddha on other planes of existence. "I do not understand the Scout Law's insistence that we respect the beliefs of others. I think disagreeing with someone's beliefs is to not respect them by default. If you think someone believes nonsense, you cannot respect their beliefs. You can, however, be respectful of those people and their customs and not criticize them or insult them. And doing that sometimes means not praying or holding Sunday services...BSA is a Euro-American Christians club which says they want to welcome all faiths, but is stupid in execution and fails." And curiously, an insistence on "respect" for all religions leads to a recommendation that favors atheists only. I refer you to Forrest Gump's philosophy on stupidity in this regard.

When I read what you wrote, I think historical revisionism just leaned back and did a back-flip. The new paradigm for the Scouting For All movement seems to be that there was a warm Golden Age of Homosexual Acceptance in the Boy Scouts until the 1990s, when them evil Neocons and bible-thumpin' Religious Right members came and ruined everything for the wonderfully progressive and inclusive Boy Scout movement. Did you all just slip in from some alternative history parallel world timeline, or what? From National Headquarters, 1978: "Q. May an individual who openly declares himself to be a homosexual be a volunteer Scout leader? A. No. The Boy Scouts of America is a private, membership organization and leadership therein is a privilege and not a right. We do not believe that homosexuality and leadership in Scouting are appropriate. We will continue to select only those who in our judgment meet our standards and qualifications for leadership. Q. May an individual who openly declares himself to be a homosexual be a registered unit member? A. No. As the Boy Scouts of America is a private, membership organization, participation in the program is a privilege and not a right. We do not feel that membership of such individuals is in the best interests of Scouting."

In the U.S. military, you also keep your headgear on indoors any time when you are bearing arms, SSScout.

I would agree with you that those studies don't sound very impressive, Rick, and that just because an academic study or studies appear to support a particular POV, that we should place our faith in them because they are "science" or "S*C*I*E*N*C*E!" We can consider the data and studies and decide if they are useful, but scientists are as prone to political pressure, shoddy work skills, and bias as any other worker. The conclusions of the youth safety experts should be considered in this perspective. As the Regnerus study demonstrated, a sociologist making a research conclusion that criticizes homosexual behavior can't expect it to help his or her career, whether the study and research were valid or not. You may have read the New York Times article recently about the sociologist who falsified at least two of his studies: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels-audacious-academic-fraud.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp&. The website Retraction Watch tracks research studies where the studies were withdrawn from academic journals because of falsehood, errors, and shoddy workmanship. There's one or two every day, which make for interesting reading if you're involved in the sciences. http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/ We should be guided by data, but make our decisions based on common sense and prudence.

Many parents now see the sum total worth of camping is in getting that Eagle Badge so you can put in on your college applications. I think it is far more than that. Dean, I know you don't feel that either. What if the admissions director is a radical feminist who hates the Boy Scouts because they don't let in girls (excuse me: Wimmyn) into the organization? We better start admitting girls. What if the admissions director is a Jehovah's Witness who doesn't like the Boy Scouts because we say the Pledge of Allegiance? Better stop doing that at meetings. What if the admissions director is an atheist who doesn't like the Boy Scouts because they don't admit atheists and because he likes to refer to "Sky daddy" and "the Flying Spaghetti Monster"? Better drop that requirement and all mention of God. What if the admissions director is a Marxist who despises the Boy Scouts because they advocate patriotism and love of country? Better add a line about "the class struggle" to the Scout Oath. What if the admissions director is a pederast who got turned down for an adult leadership position 5 years ago? Better drop the requirement for a background check. What if the admissions director is a cloet racist who doesn't like the fact that the Boy Scouts admit all races? Better stop all this race-mixing. When you start trimming your moral fabric to fit the fashions of the time, you are inevitably going to left with a pretty small garment. Best to advocate for what you think is moral and right, and let the chips fall where they may. Don't concern yourself with whether you are going to be popular.

Could you cite those for me, Rick? In which academic journals did they appear? What was the definition used for a "fundamentalist" in the research studies? What was the definition of "abuse" - physical? Sexual? Emotional? All three? What was the reporting basis - self reporting by those abused? Self reporting by the abusers? Police reports? Medical reports (and if so, how did the parent's religious denomination show up on the police or medical reports?) What was the number of cases used to make this conclusion? 3? 23? 203? 2003? Sounds like the very definition of junk science to me. I can cite a quite good peer-reviewed academic study, funded by the government, that shows a greater percentage of atheists are involved in the most heinous crimes against children than would be expected, based on their percentage of the population. A much higher percentage of school shooters express atheist viewpoints than religious viewpoints in their final communications. Does that mean atheists can never be trusted around any children? No. What point are you trying to make in regard to the the question of whether teen and pre-teen boys should be allowed to have the final say on safety issues?

And so it begins...

I'm pretty sure many - maybe the majority - of boys would be comfortable with taking fireworks on a campout, bringing a Gameboy, and jumping off a cliff into unchecked waters. "Boy-led" doesn't mean we let them make immature decisions relating to safety, yo.

An Interesting if controversial read on the controversy in the link. There was a thread (which is probably dead) earlier by a liberal scouter asking conservatives to help him or her understand their mindset. This essay probably explains a traditional way of thinking as it applies to scouts pretty well, even if many will not agree with it: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/04/9970/

It looks like some parents have filed suit against National over what they see as an attempt to pack the voting group in violation of the organization's bylaws: http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/something-rotten-in-the-boy-scouts