onehouraweekmy

As a CC who had to clean up a messy, disfunctional Troop by removing a SM and his wife, the treasurer, against their will (not a pleasant scene), I can tell you the CC in this situation should be the one to inform the "Advancement chair" that she's welcome to serve on the committee, but advancement responsibilities will now be handled by Mr or Mrs X... and if she doesn't like it, she can be left off the recharter next time around. Seriously, it's a disservice to every kid in the program to allow adults to "do their own thing" to the detriment of the program. I'm only sad it took me a year to go get trained to learn about what my responsibilities are as CC... maybe this troop's CC needs to be encouraged/persuaded to take the training.

It has nothing to do with "ethics." These rules are guidelines in reality. The BSA could, but does not, enforce these "rules" by revoking charters, the only enforcement tool they have. I can tell you, it will not happen. When my little troop dipped under 5 boys one year, the "rule" is that the troop should have gone out of existence. Did the Council raise a fuss? No. Did National do anything? No. The BSA wants to keep units chartered, and has de facto allowed for tremendous flexibility in applying the "rules" in individual units. To me, the beauty of scouting is that there is no absolute, inflexible template. If there was, our CO would probably not be interested. That being said, the answer to the original question is that the CC "interprets" BSA policy for the troop, and once his decision is rendered, it ought to be case closed, unless the scouter wants to raise a fuss at Council, and best of luck with that.

Amen to all the above, with the possible exception of a monthly meeting... we get along fine with a quarterly one, but our troop is quite small. It can be a difficult job. I was recruited for it in our troop by the founding SM and had no idea what the job entailed. After a year of figuring it out and getting fully trained, it came about that I realized I would have to replace the SM who had recruited me. Very touchy situation, but fortunately I had the CO and most of the parents supporting the move, and a very good SM to take his place. But the bad feelings are there to this day. A CC has to always remember it is all about the boys and the program, not the adults.

The CC should pull him aside and get to the bottom of it. It's not a personal issue if folks are going to leave the troop because of the scandalous activity. Last I looked, a scout is supposed to be trustworty, loyal, and morally straight. If this adult leader is sending an opposing message, because he can't manage to keep his "affairs" private, then removing him is an appropriate (though not mandatory) option. If it were my troop, and there was anything to it, he'd be gone.

Excuse the religious belief comparison. I was not trying to suggest you would want to change me, I was clumsily trying to point out that simply believing someone is in error and trying to persuade them to change their belief and conduct is not "hateful." It may in fact be the most unselfish form of love to wish to bring someone out of a way of life that one considers to be self-destructive. Nevertheless, my position is not predicated upon emotion, since I have no emotional reaction to homosexuality at all, except for maybe sadness that some people want to engage in activity that is in my view contrary to human nature and certainly against the proscriptions of Jewish and Christian moral teaching. I prejudge no one. A person with an inclination to homosexual activity can choose to control that inclination and become a great saint and a fine human being. A person who struggles with such an inclination and fails from time to time to control it can still be a fine person. No one is immune from failing to live up to what humanity is supposed to achieve and to what God expects. In just the same way, I condemn no one since I am not without fault. Condemnation and judgment are for another place and time; my only point is that to argue that homosexual practice is wrong and to be discouraged is not to condone hate. Rather, failure to act to preserve the moral and social fabric that has given us 6,000 years of Jewish/Christian/Western civilization would itself be a form of self-hatred and neglect. There are numerous reasons why our civilization has never sanctioned open homosexual activity. Unreflexive hate of some sort is not one of those reasons, even if some people wrongly use the immorality of homosexuality as an excuse to be hateful to individual persons. A happy Thanksgiving to all reading this. Despite our differences, we can still celebrate and truly give thanks that we live in the freest and most prosperous nation in history.

Yeah, I understand that you don't like the fact that lots of folks don't approve of homosexuality. But you can't conclude from that observation that folks hate you. I don't hate you; I don't even know you. I don't condone your acting on your homosexual impulses. But don't feel alone-- I don't condone kids acting on their heterosexual impulses by having premarital sex; I don't condone married people acting on their impulse to have sex with someone other than their spouse. By the same token, you might disapprove of my being of (for example)the Zoroastrian faith. The fact that you disagree with my religious beliefs should not lead me to conclude that you hate me. Even if you wanted me to give up those beliefs and practice Buddhism (or whatever), I would not take that as hateful. I would assume you want me to change because you believe Buddhism is what's best for people. And even if you disapproved of my religious ACTIONS (not just my belief) of sacrificing small animals, and wanted to prevent me, even by enacting a law, from doing that, it would not be just of me to assume that you hate me. You might be acting on the belief that it is not in the best interest of society or of individuals to allow small animal sacrifice. Again, you are entitled to reject my rejection of homosexual activity; you are not entitled to ascribe hatred as my motivation since you cannot read my mind or my heart.

There is no "hate" involved in opposing open, active homosexuality, anymore than there is hate involved in opposing adultery or premarital sex. For those who accept the argument that the natural law (i.e., the statements about what is best for human flourishing based upon the nature and ends of mankind) or religious directives convincingly show that homosexual activity is contrary to man's good, opposing those acts is a principled, rational, stand. It is in no way to be taken as an excuse for hateful acts towards homosexual persons. In fact, those who hold the traditional view for either philosophical or religious reasons, far from hating anyone, we want to convince people that they would actually be happier if they refrained from such activity. Not surprisingly, this is all in accord with why the BSA prohibits active open homosexuality. Nevertheless, whether you agree with this traditional outlook or think it's nuts, you have to be honest and not sling around the accusation of "hate." It's no more hateful to point out the reasons why homosexual conduct is contrary to nature or to Judeo-Christian religious principles than it would be to point out that an adulterer or a fornicator is in violation of the same proscriptions.

"GW makes an important concession and I respect him for it. As much as many people would like to believe that human morality is timeless and inflexible, the fact of the matter is that definitions of morality are constantly shifting, evolving to reflect changes in culture." Sure, and by that relativistic view of morality, there are literally no standards that cannot be just cast aside. Think it's wrong to steal? Hell, that's just a culturally-conditioned belief. In my view, stealing shows that I value the possession of the goods more highly than my "victim;" it's a more efficient way to allocate resources, so don't bother me with any moralistic stuff about theft being "wrong"-- after all, people used to think interracial marriage was wrong. Murder? Heck, haven't you heard of survival of the fittest? I have the right to live my life exactly as I wish, and if my "victim" gets in the way, then who are you to say I can't rid myself of him or her? You're just parroting some worn out old Christian or moralistic code that's gone by the wayside, like when people used to think that women should dress a certain way and not vote. So I agree, there is no definitive morality. So not only must the BSA stop advocating morally straight behavior by theoretically excluding active, open homosexuals, they must also stop all this nonsense about the boys being "honest" "loyal" "obedient" and any other requirement that is tied to a supposed "morality" since we now know that there is really no morality, just a democratic consensus about what "most" of society agrees is "right" and "wrong" at any given moment. Once 51% of the people decide that it's OK to lie or cheat, who are we to say otherwise? By the way, the old canard about lumping homosexuality in with historical examples such as slavery is just dishonest; racism was never a universally accepted viewpoint; that homosexuality should not be a favored activity has pretty well been universal in societies from time immemorial. Why? One cannot chose one's skin color; one can choose to commit homosexual acts or not. NOTE: this is not to say that homosexuality may not be strongly innate in some (not all) homosexuals, it is merely to state that acting on those urges is what morality is concerned with. Much in the same way that I have an innate desire to sleep with many women; it would be wrong for me to do so. I have a desire to possess the shiny new car with the keys in it. The desire is not wrong; the carrying out of the desire is.

There's a noticeable difference between trying to change some low-order rule like scouts can't sponsor a hunting trip and trying to get BSA to formally admit open and active homosexuals and professed atheists. The problem with some of the agitators is that they refuse to be content with the reasonable modus vivendi pursued by BSA--essentially don't ask don't tell on homosexuality and atheism-- and want BSA to profess the wonderfulness of atheism and homosexuality. There's a big difference between BSA tolerating atheists and homosexuals who don't ring a bell about it or try to recruit boys to their viewpoints, and christening homosexuality as morally straight behavior and atheism as just as good belief in a God of some kind. By all means, tinker with the small rules. But when you try to re-fashion the underlying philosophy of the organization... it's time to go find some other group that suits you. Leave the rest of us alone to enjoy BSA as it is.

well, lots of folks have accused BSA of that, my comments were not restricted to just those on these boards, but as for those, how bout: "I would actually prefer all of the BSA units that refuse to follow the BSA's discriminatory policies inform the BSA of that decision, but I'm sure they're all afraid of losing their charter, and it's easier to just lie to the BSA. I don't consider lying to the BSA under such circumstances to be very unethical, and I consider following the BSA's policies to be more unethical, so it's more a choice of doing what is less unethical." --Mervyn (following BSA policy on homosexuality/atheism is "unethical") "I find it hideously immoral that we're contributing to the prejudice. I find it shameful that we allow prejudice to contribute to the destruction of young people's lives." --tjhammer Heck, that's just a couple of minutes using the search function. The message? BSA's policy is immoral, unethical, life-destroying. OK, not "hateful" (at least that I could find a few minutes of search), but ummm, close enough?

should be "they're trying to IMPOSE..."

The funny thing about some of the belly-aching about the BSA being "intolerant" for excluding atheists in principle is that the reality, as reflected by the comments on this thread, is that the BSA is an extremely flexible, locally-adaptable organization. If a unit chartered by Fred's Garage wants to focus only minimally on religion, that can very practically happen: the only express reference will be recitation of the oath and law. Even these, it is clear, invoke only the most ambiguous and undefined "deity." On the other hand, a unit chartered by a church or synagogue or mosque can be as religious as it wants, with the Troop assisting at religious ceremonies, praying at meetings and campouts, encouraging the earning of religious awards, and so forth. But if you believe some folks, the BSA is all about forcing a particular brand of religion down scouts' throats. We all know that's baloney. Which leads one to wonder what the real agenda is of those who are constantly agitating against the BSA's tepid endorsement of belief in a Supreme Being... could it be they're IMPOSE allowance of atheism on scouting under the guise of "tolerance" and "non-discrimination"?

Well, if you feel strongly enough about homosexuality and atheism, you should indeed be true to your principles and leave Scouts for one of these alternatives. After all, when GSUSA went radical and became all cozy with radical Feminism, Lesbianism, and atheism, what did the traditional values folks do? Stay there and try to subvert the institution? No, they went out and formed their very own scout-like group, American Heritage Scouts (I think that's the correct name), so they could exercize their right to have their children participate in a group that does not offend their values. Go thou and do likewise. Will it be less convenient? Probably. But if your principles are strong enough, and you want to send a clear signal to your kids that you believe strongly in these ideas, then you really should switch, and let the kids know exactly why. Most kids respond very favorably to a principled stand. It seems that would be a much more honest and straight foward position than the current one which seems to be: "Johnny, you know the BSA is a hateful group for excluding homosexuals and atheists. and even though we despise these core values of BSA, we're gonna stay and [pick one:] try to subvert the mission of the BSA by trash-talking their positions whenever we can; or we're gonna be quiet and just ignore the fact that we belong to a hate-mongering bigotted institution.

Yeah, I'm making a new "unofficial" knot, the "Prevaricator's Knot" for those who support tolerance towards not telling the truth, since after all, who's to say what truth is, my truth and your truth are two different and utterly contradictory things. It's my way to fight against the power and show that I'm for diversity. I want all scouts I encounter to feel free to discuss with me their confusion about telling the truth always, so I can affirm them in their search for their own truth. After all, who's to say that "honest" really means telling the exact truth all the time, anyway. The concept of one unalterable truth is probably a culturally conditioned prejudice that is thankfully giving way to a much more open and understanding view which holds that each person has his own truth, and therefore no one can compel us to one form of "honesty." The BSA needs to get with the times and change this antiquated notion. Next up: knots for disloyalty (only a rigid paternalistic worldview holds up loyalty as some type of unalterable virtue); disobedience (parents and authorities are often wrong, after all); spendthriftiness (why hoard your goods when people are suffering); and so on.

Sure, troops can have women leaders along camping. I wouldn't recommend it, since I believe it's flirting with many problems and perceptions to place adults sexually attracted to males in the close contact that (especially backwoods) camping brings them. Nevertheless, the elephant in the living room is that the problem is not at all about Scout moms molesting boys. The problem is that there is a significant portion of the homosexual community that is involved with such molestation. The experience of the Catholic church and other denominations shows that when young boys are molested, it is most frequently done by an adult male and only extremely rarely done by a woman. Not surprisingly, studies have borne this out (see, e.g., http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/674504/posts). We may not like to recognize this uncomfortable fact, because we like to give people the benefit of the doubt, and some of us know homosexual persons who would not dream of molesting anyone. Nevertheless, the policy the BSA has adopted is rational, supported by facts, and also happens to comport with a view of human sexuality and morality that has been endorsed by 6,000 years of Judeo-Christian tradition, if it's not too discriminatory or upsetting to to the delicate to refer to the dominant religious current that undergirds our entire Western culture. I acknowledge that many people on the board want to change this policy or see it as unfair. Fine, go and start your own scouting organization and open it to atheists and homosexuals. (much like AHS arose in response to what those folks disliked in GSUSA). But please, if you're not gonna leave and start your own group, you shouldn't be attacking BSA's long-standing policy. You knew it was there when you signed up, right?