County Closes Bank Account to Protest Handling of Boy Scouts

[Buffalo Bruce]

""An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth soon we are all blind and toothless." Tevia from Fidler on the Roof." - Paul

 

Actually, Paul, I believe that would be Mahatma Ghandi, though I'm sure they stole it for "Fiddler"

 

It does refer to violence. Withdrawing funds from

a bank would in fact be a non-violent means of protest acceptable even to the Mahatma.

 

Years ago, there was a big flap when Levi's, R.E.I. and one of the big software companies (Lotus)withdrew their support form scouting over the no-gay-leaders issue. A lot of people stopped buying Levi's and Brittania clothing.

 

Levi's, Lotus, R.E.I. (go figure! - they sell camping equipment!) and the HSBC(?) bank have a perfect right to not support an organization with which they disagree. Members of that organization have a perfect right to stop patronizing those businesses. All of that is right, fair, and non-violent. It accords with the principle that a scout is obedient - even if he differs with the laws - or rules, or business practices - he tries to change them in a positive way.

 

Both the Bank and the County have acted correctly, IMHO - both have stuck to their principles. Hooray for both sides.

 

Time will tell how this issue is finally resolved - as it will be - in our country. So long as we're talking, and not shooting, everybody is setting a good example:)

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

It looks like the html codes are showing up in the forum posts, instead of working. Let's hope that our forum hosts can banish these glitches quickly and permanently as they continue to improve the forum.

 

I want to respond to the messages from LongHall and slontwovvy, but I think a few codes are going to show up. I think the best thing to do is just put in the codes I would put in anyway, and hopefully, things will straighten themselves out. In the meantime, basic html font-codes aren't so difficult to "read."

 

LongHaul, in response to one of my posts, said:

 

NJCub Scouter,

You ask "Who needs a united country(in time of war)" Do I take that to mean you support our response to 9/11/01?

 

My comment, in its original context, was sarcastic, and basically meant that (in my opinion) the issue of sexual orientation and how gays should be treated has divided this country, and we don't need to be divided over something so trivial. (Trivial in the sense that gay or straight orientation, in and of itself, is not something that people should become upset over, and certainly is not something that should cause anyone to be discriminated against. Obviously if you are a gay person being mistreated because of who you are, it is not trivial.) The reference to war meant that, especially in these times of national crisis and war, we should focus even more on the things that unite us and not the things that divide us. I think that meaning was pretty clear from what I said.

 

So what I said really has nothing to do with whether I agree with our response to 9/11. As it happens, I do agree with what we have done so far, and I think we should continue trying to bring the murderers of our people to justice (or bring justice to them, in the words of one of our leaders, I think it was either Cheney or Rumsfeld.) I just hope that we are not getting ourselves bogged down in a quagmire trying to unify Afghanistan through use of our military force, which I think is a futile effort that will ultimately do nothing more than waste American lives. Once we have fulfilled our mission, that country is a good place not to be. So you wanted my opinion, you got it, off-topic though it may be.

 

LongHaul continues:

 

Stand up to terrorist as long as peopled died first but if the terorist is only trying to hurt you financally turn the other cheek. Don't stand up for your right to choose who you associate with is some one may be offended. See page 53 of the Handbook, read the part about being brave.

 

Not sure exactly what you are getting at here. Are you equating a real war on real terrorist killers with an economic boycott? And which side in a boycott, the side you agree with or all sides? If this paragraph has some relevance to the "gay issue," maybe you should spell out what it is. And as for "brave," how does that relate to the issue? I will venture one possibility, the gay Eagle Scouts who have battled through the courts not to be discriminated against by their own organization, seem pretty brave to me.

 

And LongHaul goes on:

 

Compromise? What would your feelings be if President Bush announced that the United States would be willing to agree to a compromise with those responsible for 9/11/01. No retaliation not criminal trials "Let's sit down and talk this out." A couple of thousand dead could lead to some meaninful discussion.

 

My feelings would be about the same as yours, I suspect. Don't forget, though, that for some period after 9/11, maybe a week to 10 days, the president was willing to leave the Taliban alone if they handed over al-Quaia, even though the Taliban had harbored the terrorists and given them the comfort and safe haven they needed to plan their attack. So maybe what you consider unthinkable came closer to happening than you think.

 

Now, at least LongHaul seemed to be relating the "war" issue to the Scouting issue under discussion, though exactly what he was saying was (I thought) difficult to figure out. Slontwovvy on the other hand, picked up on the war message and promptly launched into a discussion that was not, up to that point, taking place:

 

LongHaul,

 

You hit the nail on the head. So many idealists want peace, which is not bad. However, they are willing to go to such extremes to get it that it becomes dangerous. I can just imagine what would've happened if this attitude would have prevailed during World War II. We would be "peacefully negotiating" with Adolf Hitler and telling him why he shouldn't annihilate over 10 million people. Idealism, though admirable, is not often practical.

 

I wonder who in this forum you think favors peace at the cost of tyranny. And, since I apparently started this sub-thread, however unwittingly, let me be the first to take offense at your comments about Hitler. My great-grandparents, great-aunts, great-uncles and cousins were among those slaughtered by Hitler while this country dithered around about whether to get actively involved in the war for more than two years. And turned away ships loaded with refugees so they could get sent back to be killed. We didn't do enough, soon enough about Hitler. So don't talk to me about Hitler.

 

[LongHaul]

NJCubScouter,

Obviously I misunderstood your reference to a nation at war. I don't look at this as much as a gay/straight issue as I do an issue of someone trying to impose their views on others. I don't care what two grown people do in the privacy of their own home. But to make it public and then insist that I accept it is offensive. I have gay friends, I invited one to my wedding, HE brought his BOYFRIEND. My Mother almost have a coronary. These people know that I would not allow them to be leaders in our troop. I respect their rights they respect mine. My reference to page 53 of the handbook was to the deffinition of brave as it is written there. A Scout has the courage to stand up for what he believes in even if people laugh at him or threaten him. Yes the gay/Eagle scouts are showing bravery, they are demanding to be heard. As for compromise in the days after the 9/11 attack I was refering to a compromise with Osma not the people hiding him. If Bush tried to reach a compromise with Osam that didn't include is standing trial the people would impeach him.

[NJCubScouter]

LongHaul says:

 

Obviously I misunderstood your reference to a nation at war.

 

Fair enough.

 

I don't look at this as much as a gay/straight issue as I do an issue of someone trying to impose their views on others.

 

I also see it as an issue of "someone trying to impose their views on others," but I suspect that I am referring to different "someones" than you are.

 

I don't care what two grown people do in the privacy of their own home.

 

Maybe you don't, but I don't think the same is true for a number of other people who post on this subject. Nor do I think it is true of the BSA, which says that this type of private conduct is immoral, and if you avow yourself to be of the orientation that is prone to engage in this type of conduct, you're out.

 

But to make it public and then insist that I accept it is offensive.

 

I don't think of it so much as making it public, as being honest. I do not want to get into a whole discussion of why gay people "come out," there are probably whole books and web sites about it and I am not an expert on the subject. But I will say that gay people have told me that we heterosexuals are announcing our orientation to the public all the time, we just don't always realize it. I mean, do you ever hold your wife's hand in public? Do you ever show pictures of your wife and children (if any) to your co-workers? Before you got married, did you ever talk to anyone about your "girlfriend?" You were, and are, essentially telling people all the time that you are straight. Where does that leave a gay person? To make up stories when asked personal questions in social or office settings? To say, I never discuss anything about my personal life (which in some peoples' minds, says more than an actual answer)? To evade and say "I just haven't met the right girl yet." (That would be for a guy. Heh heh.) Or to be honest and reveal your orientation, or identify your "partner" or whatever. In my opinion, any of those are acceptable -- including the last one, which avoids some of the problems created by the first three.

 

As far as you accepting it, I don't see who is insisting on that. Asking that the BSA not discriminate, that is what is being requested. You can decline to accept something that someone does without excluding them.

 

As far as "offensive," I find discrimination offensive.

 

Yes the gay/Eagle scouts are showing bravery, they are demanding to be heard.

 

This issue is not about gays "demanding to be heard," it is about not discriminating against them. I don't think James Dale demanded to be heard. He did not go to his troop and say "I am gay, you must accept me." There is no evidence that he mentioned anything about his orientation to anyone connected with the troop. Rather, at a college in a different county, he became involved in a student organization seeking to end discrimination against gays and to help gay college students deal with the problems they face, and his name got into the newspaper in this connection, and the BSA kicked him out without any further discussion.

 

If Bush tried to reach a compromise with Osam that didn't include is standing trial the people would impeach him.

 

OK, and I'd be first in line to impeach him. I still don't know what that has to do with this issue. Are you equating a compromise that would absolve the murderer of thousands of people, and one who makes war on the USA, with a compromise that would allow Scout units to choose their own leadership?

[LongHaul]

NJCub Scouter,

You wrote:

I also see it as an issue of "someone trying to impose their views on others," but I suspect that I am referring to different "someones" than you are.

 

If by this you mean National trying to impose it's views on local troops I think you've missed the issue. If you don't share National's views you need to find another organization OR work to change the National's views. But to take National to court to force you're views on them is wrong. Please understand that when I say "you" I don't mean you personally NJCubScouter. If you want to join my club you follow my rules. If the "someone" you are refering to are the religous organizations which provide the bulk of our membership and there fore get the bulk of National's ear, again I feel you have missed the issue. The straight is normal anything else is SICK mentality has been the cornerstone of these religions since there beginning. Morally straight has never included being gay. If people want that to change they need to get enough people to boycott BSA that it becpomes financially better for National to back the new group. Let's face it National is a Corporation and like any Corporation money is the bottom line. National is not going to go against those who provide the capitol. Change follows the money when the people in charge of deciding policy get paid. If this was left up to popular vote and decided by individual moral views I still think the "Keep it Straight" group will out number the "Open Door Policy" group.

[Mike Long]

Maybe I'm being hopelessly optimistic but I thought in the BSA the boys were the bottom line, not money.

 

To change a moral view or policy based on money and not on a moral epiphiany displays a definate lack of morals or at the very least cowardace. An organization that purports to be a moral one and does this is not an organization I would want to be a part of.

[evmori]

Once again, ditto to what Mike Long posted!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

[LongHaul]

People, we are not kids. Does anyone think that if National was in danger of losing it's pay check it wouldn't change policy to appease the masses? If morality was such a big thing why hasn't National made a policy before. Until now it has been the CO that was the deciding factor in who was eligible to be a leader. When the CO said gays are OK and the LDS and SCLC said they would fold their tents if National didn't make a rule, National made a rule.

[OldGreyEagle]

Longhaul,

 

Once again I refer to my comment, "I must be out of the loop". When did the LDS tell national that it had to make a rule no gay leaders? What documentation is used to support this claim? I am not disputing it, I just want to know where this information may be found as I am constanly reading things on this foum that I never knew (Thank you Scouter.COm for this forum)and these facts are presented in a manner that makes me feel I am the only one who doesnt know this stuff.

 

When is this stuff discussed? Not at any committee meeting I have been to or round table or even at the national jamboree have I heard this topic brought up by any adult leader. The only reference I hear to the no gay policy comes from scouts who usually tell me they dont understand why gays cant be leaders. Other than this forum, where do you guys discuss this subject?

[Mike Long]

No we aren't kids anymore. We also don't appreciate the suggestion that we are simply because we reject your view.

 

I used to share that view, I don't anymore.

(This message has been edited by Mike Long)

[LongHaul]

Mike Long, Mike, I am not suggesting anyone of us are kids in fact I am stating that we are not kids. I have no problem people who have different views than I in fact I welcome it. I too have changed my views on certain topics as I have grown. I never ment to offend anyone. I simple see things differently than you do. On another thread we discussed a scoutmaster who was a DI and runs his troop autocratically, little patrol method, no PLC control, no boy run troop. Do you think for a minute that Council would tell the CO that if this troop didn't start delivering the Scout Program properly their charter wouldn't be renewed? I have never heard of a charter not being renewed unless there was a criminal charge involved. I love this program, whats more I believe in it and because of leaders like you, Bob White, evmori, Old Grey Eagle et.al. I know that it will survive no matter what differences of opinion we have because you believe in it also. You state that you used to share "That View" which one is that.

[Mike Long]

Once again I guess it was just the way it was worded or how I read it that struck a chord with me. Were are all family, it's all good.

 

Specifically the view that the bottom line of National is money.

 

I too have never heard of the scenario you describe but the BSA does have a channel set up to help/encourage units to present the Scout program as intended. Unit Commissioners, Roundtable, District Executives and regular training classes to name a few. No the BSA doesn't regulate units. It instead relys on the above support structure to "enforce" the program. No it obviously doesn't always work because some units operate outside that structure and other simply refuse to follow the program. In some examples yes there is an excellent case for doing so but I personally would not welcome a series of inspections of my program. Not because I worry that I will not pass muster but that I see it as a lack of trust. A scout is trustworthy and as such we take each other at our word.

 

There is always room for improvement, I'm guesing that is why we all post here because we want to improve.

[tjhammer]

Ask any district executive to honestly explain "Critical Achievements" to you... that's the checklist of their job performance and the sole basis upon which they are evaluated for promotion. Ask them to show you ONE component to Critical Achievements that measures their contribution to program... it's not really there. BSA professionals excel based on three things above all else: did you meet or exceed your fundraising goals (which are an increase over last years), did you increase the number of new units, and did you increase the number of registered members. Those three things, the infamous M&Ms (Money and Membership) dominate professional Scouting from the entry level of field service. True enough, measuring M&Ms is much easier than measuring a pros contribution to Scouting program.

 

Now, the standard response from professionals is that their real contribution to the program of Scouting is to "put the boy into Scouting so that others can put Scouting into the boy" (they learn that at PDL training, catchy). And I suppose that would be a good thing. But the problem is this: it's usually not the pros alone that start new units and recruit new members; and a HUGE percent of the money raised by the pros pays for the bureaucracy of paying to have pros.

 

Now, before you all come running to the defense of your local DE, let me say that none of this is intended to be an indictment or attack on specific professional Scouters, but rather an indictment of the system. We all know an awful lot of DEs that are very, very involved in the program of Scouting... they spend time planning Camporees, they hang out with local units, the run Day Camps and Advise OA lodges... but ask them how much of that contribution to the program of Scouting they're getting professional credit for in their Critical Achievements... the answer is not much.

 

If you're looking for the explanation of why Scouting is influenced by numbers (even at the highest levels of the organization), you need look no further that the Critical Achievements philosophy at the lowest levels of Scouting.

 

(It seems to me this discussion has now wandered away from the original topic sufficiently to justify a new thread, so I'll cross post this to a new thread and hope that this part of the discussion can jump there.)

 

[slontwovvy]

I don't believe that it is appropriate for any forms of sexual promiscuity or deviance to be promoted by the BSA. If there is a highly promiscuous heterosexual couple who wanted to gain entrance into my troop I would say no. Same with those who practice the old standbys of bestiality and incest. Same with those who are nudists. If they want to do their thing that's fine, but then they will have to deal with the consequences of their actions.

[LongHaul]

slontwovvy,

I have never know National Policy to "promote" sexual anything. Nudism, bestiality, incest, or any of the other 2009 fetishs, perversions or alternate lifestyles are specifically addressed by National as being grounds for exclusion. These issues are to be addressed by the individual Chartering Organization. WHY Gays an athiests are singled out is the topic of many posts. We, meaning those of us who post, tend to be divided on that one.