onevoice

Just as funny as people who had an objection to the previous policy, but stayed in the program anyway, and listed their rank earned as an accomplishment all their lives

That is just a stupid comment. If the rank is earned by doing the real work, and the scout has learned the lessons from that work, the incidence of Eagle scout who "become miscreants" is probably substantially less than the general population. Same as with Christian pastors. This whole thread reads like a 99% vs 1 % argument. Just a excuse to tear down ones who put in the hard work to achieve a goal. Does anyone really believe what the thread starter said "that the accomplishments of its members can be equal parts good and bad". If so, why are you even involved?

If I hadn't seen similar things before, I would think this whole episode is a joke, but unfortunately it happens all too often. Mouthy kid gets in trouble, non-present parents can't come pick up their troubled angel because they "have plans", little angel proceeds to lie about the details to parents, they are "livid" but really don't do anything, drama parent says everyone is out to get their angel, and continue to blame everyone else for their problem child. Now drama momma wants to rejoin. I would lay odds that the troop will pay for them to go to another unit. Don't expect volunteers to raise your problem child. If you REALLY cared, you would join up and go on the outings instead of crying about how your angel is being treated.

Posted by oldgrayeagle: "Do you think the BSA could learn anything from Habitat for Humanity" Sure they could, that a charity organization shouldn't exclude anyone, and don't stand for anything, and no one will have a problem with you. Unfortunately, we don't fit that mold, and the issue won't be solved so easily. Nearly 2/3rds of CO's are churches or religious organizations, most of whom object to the atheist/gay inclusion. A substantial part of the others probably also don't want a change. It's pretty easy really, there are less than 5 million of us, take a vote and find out where everyone really stands. If it is hugely one way or the other, everyone shut up and get on with life as the results dictate. It could kill scouting, but this struggle will surely kill us also. I could live with that, could you?

Posted by novice cubmaster: "The BSA can change to reflect broader interpretations of "morally straight", and acknowledge that atheists can be good people and worthy role models - without abandoning the other 11 more universal points of the scout law" Not going to happen. You will never convince the BSA to take "duty to God" out of the oath. Just how does an atheist do that anyway? Does it bother you to pledge to something you don't believe in? Posted by novice cubmaster: "I don't think any other group could ever create a national organization to equal the BSA" Why do you think that? If sentiment is as you think, an organization like what you want would surely surpass BSA and leave them in the dust. Or is it that deep down you know that an organization that stands for nothing will appeal to no one. Their oath could be: If I feel like it I will try a little to do something for my country as long as I get to pick its course. To obey the parts of the law I want to, to help others when I feel like it and it doesn't bother me To keep myself from falling apart, but give me an award for everything, even if someone beats me. Mentally awake, as long as that doesn't mean I can't take drugs, because lots of other people do and accept any other behavior that someone will call me a bigot for not accepting. Posted by novice cubmaster: "But that doesn't mean the BSA won't wither and die on its own" It's not going to die on its own. It is with the help of groups like: http://www.scoutingforall.org/data/layer02/wycd/wycd3Frame.html Who claim they are helping, but are just tearing scouts down, by trying to starve BSA to death. Why don't they start their own group instead of trying to destroy BSA, and turn it into their group? Because they don't want their own group, they just want a punching bag to use to get their position in the news. It's all politics.(This message has been edited by onevoice)

Posted by scoutlass: "How are gay people causing the breakdown of the family" Hmmm, you tell me, I never said they were.

Posted by novice cubmaster: "And I think you can be reverent and an atheist. If you show respect for the world you live in, the people around you, your"good fortune" (what theists would call "blessings" in your life, and not take everything good in your life for granted - then I'd say you're reverent" That's an interesting opinion, and you're entitled to your opinion, but do you seriously believe that is what was meant by reverent when the scout law was written? What would really be interesting is a survey of scouters. Don't be fooled by the "but everyone I know agrees with me" line of thinking and it's just some bigots that disagree. If your ideas had substantial backing by scouters, we would be a lot closer to resolving the issue. I see the exact opposite. Posted by Horizon: "how does being gay make someone in violation of the oath and law?" I think in the context of this discussion, the general interpretation of "morally straight" only includes sex inside a monogamous marriage. That doesn't always happen among heteros either, but as an ideal, I think it is a fine thing to pledge to do your best to meet. "On my honor I will do my best" means something. You can't do your best if you don't believe in what you are pledging, and it is a lie to pledge to something you have no intention of upholding. That is why I say, change the oath and law if you have the muscle, or get over it and start your own organization. A big hurdle in your way though, is that unlike the U.S.Constitution, the scout law and oath don't have a mechanism for being amended. How do you think you will enact such a change? My personal opinion though, is that if the gay issue had been quietly changed 40 years ago, no one would have noticed. The vast majority of scouters would have never even met a gay leader. It is too late for an easy solution now, the battle lines have been drawn. Financial blood has been shed that has hurt many districts, mine included. The "no gays or atheists" side sees themselves as defenders of the faith, and they feel they have already been unfairly attacked as bigots for upholding what they believe as scoutings true beliefs. They will not go quietly, and I fear some would rather scuttle the ship, than see it taken over and changed.

Posted by horizon: "I don't. I level the bigot charge at people who are bigots. There are plenty who I disagree with, but when someone decides that my friends have a birth defect that makes them unworthy and unwelcome in Scouting - that person is a bigot. Period." I knew that would get a rise. But it is undeniably true. Why do you assume "defect" is a bad word? It simply means an imperfection that affects utility. Any living object that is born with a condition that impairs their continuing their species, by definition has a defect. It is unlike scoutfish's other examples, which are clearly choices. The statement was in regards to whether gay is biological. You have just assumed I have something against gays, I do not. I have gay friends raising a child that I would be happy to have in my pack. However, they are also atheists, and see no reason to enroll their child in a organization that has a belief in God at its core. They have no desire to change BSA to their thinking, why do you? I said in my first post in this thread that the largest problem facing scouting is the breakdown of the family. My issue with gays is that their example is just more fuel on the fire of bad family role models, and that they do not fit within the boundaries of the Oath. I have no beef with them personally. Change the oath and law, and let them in. Or don't change it and keep them out. But don't pretend that the Oath and Law don't mean what they say. Any other interpretation of the oath and law is wishful thinking. It reminds me of a quote by Justice Scalia, "What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?

Posted by novice cubmaster: "A large segment of the population apparently doesn't find being gay or atheist in contradiction with all the things scouts are supposed to be - brave, loyal, trustworthy - and even reverent & morally straight." What exactly does a "large segment" mean? Because I think the vast majority of the population would understand that reverent and atheist; and gay and morally straight, are exclusive positions. Even if they don't believe the terms should be in scouting.

Posted by Horizon: "I will stay and instead keep on working on changing things from within" Be my guest, try all you like. Just remember, YOU are the one trying to change things, and you may not like what the organization you want turns into. And please don't resort to leveling the "bigot" charge at anyone that disagrees with you. Posted by Penta: "What makes you think things would change even if local control were passed? Like I said before "We have been torn apart over an issue that barely exists". The issue has been about politics from the beginning. It wasn't about helping kids, it was about pushing their agenda, and BSA was an easy target. Does anyone really think the ACLU gives a darn about whether scouting is strong for the long haul? With local control, the issue would have died long age, because there just aren't enough gays that want to be scouters to make a difference, or if someone didn't want to be in a unit with gay leaders, they would have no problem finding another. But the politicization of the issue has gone beyond that. Both sides have dug in their heels, and the end result will be continued loss of membership with no winner. That is why I think the people who want to change should start their own organization, otherwise, by the time they get done with BSA it will be in shambles.

Posted by Horizon: "To bring this back to the original topic - I have plenty of anecdotal data that our policies cost us membership among people who would normally have joined Scouting and become amazing volunteers and contributors to our program. It would be interesting if a credible survey organization was able to gather the data to find out how much our policies cost us in terms of membership and support." Yes, that info would be great, but from what I have read, it would have to be substantial. And it really doesn't matter anyway, there are people that will never change. My understanding is that the Mormons have said they would pull 400,000 scouts if gays are allowed. The fighting will eventually kill BSA, and the change will eventually kill BSA. Pick your poison.

Posted by Horizon: "I believe, and science backs me, that there is a biological basis to sexual orientation. Based on that, yes, I equate gay with black" I never said it didn't have a biological base. However, it is not the same as skin color, black is simply pigment, being gay is a birth defect that effects behavior. And yes, any condition that inhibits any species desire to recreate itself should be labeled a defect. Posted by Horizon: "As for creating my own organization? I have no need. I simply want my organization to be its best, to continue to provide the best possible opportunities for young men. The bigots can't chase me out. I will continue to be at Roundtable with my "Dress" uniform covered in knots, I will continue to volunteer at the Pack, Troop and Council level, and I will NOT allow the bigots to ruin my organization. Bigotry is not morally straight" First off, it's not your organization, its all our organization, and no here cares how many knots you have. No bigots are trying to chase you anywhere, or ruin BSA. It is you that is trying to change the status quo. I would maintain that it is you who are the bigot. Why is your version of bigotry only when someone else doesn't agree with YOU? You want another organization, you go form it!

Posted by Scoutfish: "GRanted, all media will tweak, dressup and "adjust" info in order get people interested" You are missing the point, many other news organization poll lower numbers, why define the issue by the outlier? Also, why define right and wrong by 51%. Posted by Horizon: "It is not the number of gays who want to be in Scouts, it is the NON-gay parents who do not want to put their son into an organization that they see as bigoted. I could ban all African Americans from my Troop and it would only impact 1 Scout out of 100. However, another 99 would quit my Troop if I did something so racist." So you equate gay with black? It is not bigoted to want to keep someone out of your organization that has values different from the organizations. That is like saying it is bigoted for churches to not ordain atheists. Take out "morally straight", and "Reverent" and no one will have an issue. Or go start the Gay Atheist Scouts. Why are all these people afraid to start their own organization? If the numbers are there, they will come out the winner, and Boy Scouts will wither and die. Why do they feel they must change the BSA?

Originally posted by Horizon: "The God/Girls/Gays issue does cost us some adult leaders, and also some Scouts. I know of more than one Eagle Scout who won't put their sons into Scouting due to the gay ban. I know several other families who won't consider Scouting for the same reason" That attitude is something I just don't understand. The girls issue is a non starter, Girls have their own organization - why would they want to be boy scouts? The answer is they don't, they just want an issue to hammer Boy scouts about because their organization is not near as successful. The issue of God is another headscratcher, God has always been part of scouts, if someone wants an organization without God, why don't they start their own? The answer is they wouldn't have enough members to shake a stick at, so they try to tear down a successful organization that they can't be. The gay issue is the worst though, it is a made up issue that in the real world wouldn't have any effect on 99.9999% of scout units. Just how many gay adults are there that want to be in scouts? My guess is that answer is effectively zero, because of the small number of gays in the population, and the even smaller number with scout age boys. I wouldn't expect ANY adult to project sexuality on boys, gay or not, and think they would quickly run afoul of YPT if they did.

Originally posted by shortridge "OK, I guess the New York Times is lying, then." Actually, the NYT lies and spins the news the way they want quite often. A CBS poll 8/24/2010 said 40% supported gay marriage, Gallup poll says 44%, FOX poll says 37%, ABC says 47%, http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm Even the poll you cite doesn't say what the NYT says it does. The poll asks whether "Americans think the Constitution provides same-sex couples the right to marry" and a separate question about whether they think it "should". I wasn't directly asking whether they personally support gay marriage, ie it was partially a question of what they have been lead to believe constitutional rights should be. Such a poll can obviously be biased by peoples ignorance of the constitution, and conventional wisdom they have been fed by sources like the NYT.