ParkMan

The difference is in how you refer to people and the institution. You can explain in lots of ways why the BSA decision is wrong without rooting for it's demise or calling it's leaders morally corrupt.

How does a unit accepting gay youth cause any scout to violate the Scout law or oath?

It's not just that he insulted forum members - it's the blatant attacks on the BSA, it's leadership, and by inference those that support it. Calling the BSA and its leaders immoral and wishing it's demise is a problem. There are many more ways to make your point without having to revert to that.

We're not immune, but the oath and law should guide us to handling it better.

Not at all. The BSA doesn't have a rigidly defined moral code. It's about challenging yourself to be the best person you can be. A scout is: trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent. On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout law, to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight. The BSA gives scouts and families wide latitude in how to interpret this. All the BSA changed was who can try to apply these. They in no way changed the fundamentals behind it.

We have a steady stream of pot shots at the BSA & it's leadership. One that is fresh in my mind was from the topic on Executive Salaries. There @David CO writes: "We get a failing organization with drastically declining membership and morally bankrupt leadership. We should pay extra for this?" In this topic, we had an example from @LegacyLost: "It is better for the BSA to collapse than to persist as a vehicle of societal corruption. Particularly due to the BSA's historically wholesome and patriotic image from its past. This image makes the BSA especially dangerous, unfortunately, due to the arsenic it now carries" There's a ton of stuff like this.

I'd think it depends on the Scout. NYLT is about teaching scouts skills to be a better leader. The scout has to be at a point in his own personal growth where he could grow from the lessons. I think it's less about the program than the Scout himself.

I think that's the crux of it. The BSA is a reflection of society held to a higher standard. Society's view on homosexuality has changed. That doesnt mean everyone has changed - but in my lifetime it clearly has. As a result of this change, the BSA changed it's position. We are all going to view these changes differently. Those that favor the change are going to generally say "it's about time." Those that oppose are going to decry it as wrong. That's no different from society as a whole. It's fine that you don't like it. It's fine if you reach a point where you think "this has just gone too far." If you want to walk away, that's fine too. The argument over the choice is fine. That's what we do in free societies. The problem I have is that it's becoming personal and derogatory. The leaders of the BSA are not moral. The BSA itself is no longer moral. People who are homosexual are immoral. This feels patently wrong to me. Scouting is not about imposing your personal moral code on others by denigrating them.

That's my feeling too. While I understand that people disagree with the recent decisions, all this talk of the BSA becoming immoral is out of character with the non-denominational tone of the Scouting movement.

I'm a CC and I think the Committee needs to take a step back here. A large part of Scouting is providing an environment where Scouts can learn and grow. You've got a young scout who made a mistake. Let the scout and the SM deal with it and move on. The point here is to coach the scout, help him to see his error, and then figure out how to move forward.

I do as well. I know a number of people with strong, deeply held beliefs like this. I appreciate for some people their beliefs are so strong, that they feel it's morally wrong to compromise their beliefs. I'll admit the strength of his convictions drew me into the debate. While I appreciate that people feel this strongly, I do think that in the interest of the youth and the movement, you have to temper your beliefs in a Scouting context.

Yes, teachers make a fraction of what they should. Senior executives are well compensated. It's true in any organization that those people who have the biggest individual impact on the success of the organization make more - executives, finance, sales, etc. In theory you pay these folks more so that the organization makes even more money. You don't want a discount CEO.

Yes - these guys make a lot. However, these numbers are not crazy. Randall Stephenson made 28.7 million last year. That's 40x what Mr. Surbaugh made. I'm guessing the people who report to the people who report to Mr. Stephenson at AT&T make more than our CSE. I believe I also noticed that the directors of the BSA make nothing for their troubles.

it's not that. I've found the tone of the comments of late on the forum to be getting more and more negative towards the kids that are admitted through these changes. Comments like the one calling for the demise of the BSA. The one about how a Scoutmaster wouldn't let his scouts interact with the girls.

Welcome to the forum @ladybugcub. What's your main goal here? Is it to improve the pack or to make sure your daughter has a great Scouting experience? If you want to fix the pack, then I think you've got a big project. First thing I'd focus on is building a culture of three things: - great den leaders - good recruiting - a few strong pack activities. If you do those, the rest is much more likely to happen. If your goal is your daughter's Scouting experience - I'd suggest that you'll make better progress focusing on building a great den. A great den really only takes two leaders and 10 kids. You could be one - now you need a second. You don't need parents to run meetings- in fact, you probably don't want that. To build a strong den, you need energetic leaders with a strong vision- not a committee of parent teachers. From what I've seen you'll never keep 100% of the scouts. But, the best dens retain the scouts who participate in scouts. Usually when I see kids leave for a sport it's because the parent says to the kid - you're doing too much. But, if the parent and kid see how much fun and value the kid is having in scouts, they often find a way to make an exception. Don't create ultimatums, don't scale back your program, don't hold two den meetings. Do the opposite - make that den's program outstanding. Work with the families to find the best time for all. Make it a community. I've seen this repeated many times.

We'll I'm glad that I mis-read that then. Had this funny thing happen a few years back. My in-laws are some of the most devout, religious people I've ever met. Go to church every Sunday, sing in the choir, serve on the church board, have the minister over for Christmas dinner. Mother in law is a part time employee of the church office. Father in law is literally a preacher's son who almost became a minister himself. They have a daughter - who they love and adore. My sister-in-law in fact. Turns out that she's gay. Now I suppose you could say that my in-laws are morally bankrupt and ought to disown her - but I can't quite make that leap. About a year ago had another funny thing happen. A family I know well has a 15 year old son. I've know the kid his whole life. Big, tall kid - a scout too. Good role model, active, helped at church, at scouts. Turns on that he's transgender. Now, he was born a boy, he still dresses as a boy, still acts as a boy, but he struggles daily with his gender identity. Dad pushed back too. Told his son - you're not really, it's just a phase. Kid had the presence to stand up to his dad and fight for his acceptance. Got his dad to understand that it wasn't a fad, wasn't a choice. Did I mention - great kid? In both cases, I'm reminded that these are kids and human beings. They have hopes and dreams. They have hurt feelings as much as any other kids. I just cannot fathom so hating these kids that someone would root for the end of the BSA because they dared to let them be kids like everyone else.

Really - over the inclusion of girls?

It matters just as much. You claim that: "BP's choice to have two separate groups was a thought out analysis of how by boys and girls learn" is no different than my claim that: "BP's choice to have two separate groups was simply a bi-product of the times." This is an important analysis because we live in 2018, not 1907. So, understanding the context for the decision is important if we want to claim to continue to operate under his vision. I'd be willing to stipulate that we really cannot know what his motivation was in 1907. But, it's a two way street.

And your speculation is no different. So now we can stop claiming that it mattered what BP did in 1907.

Not at all. The GSUSA (or really Girl Scouts/Girl Guiding in general) didn't start until after the Boy Scouts were started. Why would BP have said "I'm going to start a group for boys, but not one for girls." Not cute at all. I get that you're trying to dismiss my point, but it's not working. Again - Scouting was started at a different point in time when the way men and women interacted was different. You can replace the "in scouting" part of this with whatever other transformation in gender norms occurred in the last 200 years and make the same arguments. I merely make the assertion that the man who founded the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts would have likely created a single gender organization if he were starting it in 2018. 100 years ago things were different. Many organizations 100 years ago were single gender. Today they are not. It seems a far fetched conclusion to think he would have said "you know what, just about everything else is co-ed, but scouting - nope."

BP was a visionary and a leader. He'd have been disappointed to see those who want to exclude girls from Scouting trying to do so in his name.

A couple of years ago Verizon had a commercial. I can't remember if I can post links, so I won't. But to find it, search Google for "verizon inspire her mind". It's about the subtle things that maybe we don't even realize we're doing to girls that discourages them from science. I've got a son and two daughters. Watching it, I realized just how much I'd been playing into the sterotypes of boys and girls. It made me question how I'd treated my own kids. I found that my kids were not nearly as different as I'd thought them to be. There is very little that will be any different in my troop once the girls show up. Sure, the interpersonal dynamics may be a little different. But, like any troop, there will be groups that hang out together. In our troop of 80 boys, they don't all just hang out together all the time. It will be no different in a coed troop in a few years once the newness wears off. Living today, I expect BP would have realized the same thing. I'm surmising that the executive board of the BSA did the same. Further, I'm sure they realized that it's just a matter of time. If they said no now, it would have come up again and again. So they could have said "no girls allowed" or instead make the gutsy decision to take a step forward.

Or perhaps the leadership of the organization looked around and said - "Why are we limiting this to boys? Girls can benefit just as much as boys do." The BSA already have co-ed Crews & Ships. A number of packs were getting siblings involved as well. So they said - instead of fighting the trend, let's embrace it. The more I see the number of people who do support this, the more I realize that the senior leadership may have indeed been leading.

I'm someone sticking up for BP. Looking at what he created and the core principles principles contained in the oath & law, it's a small step to ascribe the single gender nature of the program as a byproduct of the times. I find it very difficult to believe that BP living in a world that is moving in the direction of treating boys & girls equally would create a program and specifically excluded them. It's unfair to BP to try to lump him in with the "girls will ruin scouting" argument.

The only reason there was a separate group was because the world was much more segregated then. Economics, class, gender, race. It's just the world at the time. 25 years from now, kids will look back and be surprised that there was ever a time where Scouting was not co-ed.