Undue Influence?

[Quixote]

tj- i would say that by being honest with yourself about the state of your belief and faith and that you seek him that you are indeed satisfying the requirements of scouting as far as reverent and duty to God go.

 

I also pray that you have accepted Christ as your PERSONAL savior.

 

YIS

Quixote(This message has been edited by Quixote)

[evmori]

tjhammer,

Ditto to Quixote!

[CubsRgr8]

Thanks again to both tjhammer and Bob White for the membership information. I was actually quite surprised to see how few units were sponsered by the public schools. Being only a recent Scouter, I wonder if that's the way it always was or a more recent trend of the past twenty years. But I digress. So, to return this thread back to it's orignal topic...

 

If Scout leaders are expected to serve as role models to the youth of their units; and

 

If being role models includes one's public actions and statements, even when not in uniform; and

 

If the majority of units (about 60%) are chartered to religious organizations which still officially teach that sexual relations belong in the context of a heterosexual marriage; and

 

If avowed homosexual means someone whose public actions and statements indicate their preference for sexual relations outside the context of a heterosexual marriage;

 

Then, the LDS and RC church bodies did not exercise undue influence in the establishment of the BSA policy regarding the suitability of an avowed homosexual to serve as a Scout leader. Rather, the policy reflects the teachings of the majority of BSA chartering organizations.

 

[NJCubScouter]

CubsRugr comes to a conclusion based on several "if"s, the key one of which is

 

If the majority of units (about 60%) are chartered to religious organizations which still officially teach that sexual relations belong in the context of a heterosexual marriage

 

Assuming for the moment that this "if", if true, would support your point, I don't see how you get the 60 percent figure from the list that was posted. The issue is not whether a particular church teaches "that sexual relations belong in the context of a heterosexual marriage." Reform Judaism probably teaches the same thing, but they also teach that homosexuality is not a sin and that discrimination against gays is wrong. We are talking about "morally straight," so if a church does not teach that homosexuality is a sin, they don't make the list.

 

You get LDS and RC. United Methodists are divided so let's say you get half. You're at 38 percent. Which other churches are you counting to get up to 60 percent?

 

And I disagree with using unit numbers instead of membership numbers, since they are so skewed. If LDS wants small units, that's fine, but why should they be allowed to double their voting strength that way? Actually the answer is simple, because everybody else lets them do it, and that is how the by-laws are written. So everybody else needs to get smart. Someone suggested the United Methodist Church was considering having smaller units. Maybe everybody should limit unit size to 30 boys for a troop and 50 for a pack, and the voting strength will start to balance out. In my town alone we have two packs and one troop with 100 boys each, two sponsored by public school PTA's and one by a church of unknown position on this issue. Those 3 units with 3 CO's could be 8 or so units with 8 CO's.

 

Is that what we're coming to, though? Pure power politics? Is this the lesson we want to teach the boys? Even if the number is 60 percent, what are you saying to the other 40 percent? This is supposed to be an organization FOR ALL BOYS. Are the 60 percent going to deed to the 40 percent, 40 percent of the land at Philmont, 40 percent of the council camps and offices, 40 percent of the offices at Irving, 40 percent of the uniform inventory? Is Mr. Williams going to cut his half-million dollar salary and benefits to a mere $300,000?

 

Maybe this IS the lesson we need to teach the boys to prepare them for the real world. Dog eat dog, beat the other guy before he beats you, take what you can grab and the hell with everybody else. Maybe we need to take helpful, friendly, courteous and kind, and maybe 1 or 2 others, out of the Scout Law to reflect reality. You who agree with the BSA on the gay issue, and who bolster your argument based on voting strength, power politics and might-makes-right, think about where you are taking the boys.

[NJCubScouter]

I do realize that this has gone off-thread, and now I am going to take us a little further into theological territory. Not too far, hopefully. But religion is the key to this whole issue, so it is worth discussing.

 

Ed Mori says:

 

The oath says duty to God. Now, for you and me, that is the same God. For a Muslim, it might be a different God.

 

I don't know if your God and my God are the same. As I said, my beliefs combine some aspects of the Old Testament and some aspects of Deism, and I suspect from your question about Sodom and Gemorrah that you haven't read the web site about Deism yet. The theological question is: If you believe that the bible is the literal truth and the Word of God in all respects, and I consider much of it allegorical and that it is the word of man, I am not sure our God is the same. My God made some people gay, he doesn't condemn them and he doesn't much like the fact that you call them "sinners" and favor excluding them. Which one of us is right, if either, we may or may not find out someday.

 

And by the way, Muslims do believe in the God of the Old Testament. He (God, that is) is Elohim in Hebrew and Allah in Arabic, this is not a coincidence. It all means God. The Muslims revere Abraham, the first of the three Hebrew patriarchs, as their own patriarch, but trace their lineage from Abraham's son Ishmael instead of Isaac, the second patriarch of the Jews (and by extension the Christians.) The Muslim prophet Muhammed is said to have revealed the God of the Old Testament, added some teachings and changed some practices, similar to what Jesus is said to have done for the Christians. (I know it is not an exact match, as you believe Jesus has a divine nature.)

 

Ed also asks:

 

Since you say homosexuality isn't a sin, explain why God destroyed Sodom & Gomorah?

 

I don't know that he did. To me, it's a story in a book. I have no reason to believe God destroys any cities. The people he created do, and the natural forces that he set in motion do. But in my little religion, he doesn't pick out a city or a person and say, here comes the lightning bolt. That's why I actually don't believe that you will be sent from the Gates of Judgment to Hell even though you favored the mistreatment of the 5 percent of God's flock who turned out to be gay -- because my religion doesn't have Gates of Judgment or Hell.

 

Ed also said:

 

I feel the oath means duty to the God you believe in.

 

I agree. The God you believe in. Meaning, each one of us. Not necessarily the God that the religion you were born into believes in. Not necessarily the God that anybody else or any organized religion believes in. The God you believe in. I perform my duty to the God I believe in, just fine.

 

[LongHaul]

Bob White, Reading your posts in this thread I have to ask a few questions. You said that the National Relations Committee is composed of 20 members. Who decides who will sit on this committee? The info I have says that even if the National Office finds merit in any suggestion it will be three years before it will be acted upon. Do think it was three years from the onset of the gay question before policy was written? Don't you think your many years of providing program to youth at the troop level, where we get to see if program works and how to adjust to individual boys, should be at least as important as how many troops you sponsor? Volenteers with influence who have never run a troop remind me of Catholic priests explaining how to work out marital problems. It's all second hand info. If a District meeting in not the place for District volenteers to discuss what OUR movements is doing and where it is heading where should we discuss it. Are you saying we should adopt the BSA right or wrong BSA attitude? Why should you quit if your values are compromised by National policy? What makes this their movement instead of yours? I write letters all the time, some have even been answered. If all the people who are involved with Scouting that disagree with the present policy on Gays refused to allow FOS (Friends of Scouting, which is our name for the annual hit the parents up for a check night) Texas would be on the next flight out wanting to know what the problem is. Money and the witholding of it gets attention. You have stated repeatedly what a great program you think Scouting is, shouldn't you be willing to stand up to those who would cause you the quit because you felt you had to compromise yourself inorder to folow their rules?

[LongHaul]

CubsRgr8, You asked why public schools don't sponsor more units and wheter this has always been the case. I can only speak for the Chicago Area, but it believe it was a nation wide change, when the athiest vs Bsa thing came up publicly owned facilities were no longer allowed to sponsor troops. The school tropps around here were PTA sponsored and they all had to find new CO's. The Fire Dept Explorer post dispanded and the Police Post went to a private not for profit organization. The park district troops closed and the Chicago Housing Authotrity was forced to stop funding it's troops. New court cases have changed some policies but actions against BSA by special interest groups have cause many units to move or close down in my area.

[Bob White]

Longhaul,

 

You wrote "Bob White, Reading your posts in this thread I have to ask a few questions. You said that the National Relations Committee is composed of 20 members."

 

Bob: You got the wrong guy. I reread all my posts on this thread and I never said that.

 

As for all your other questions, they pretty much come down to this.

 

This is not my organization it is owned and operated by the the Chartering organizations. I chose to volunteer my time as a leader to help the chartered organizations in my community deliver a meaningful youth program to the young people in my area. Since joining "my area" was increased in size. First I volunteered to brin the program to a unit as a leader, then to a community as a district Volunteer, thatn to bring the program to a several communities by helping as a council volunteer and now from time to time I am asked to help my community of all american sscouts through projects I have been asked to work on as a national level volunteer.

 

Throuought it all I have been helping a program that is owned and managed by the chartering organizations, I am proud to serve them and the BSA. But it is not my organization it belong to the charter institutions.

 

Think of it as a baseball team. If i'm a coach on the Yankees, then I can say that I am a Yankee. But does that mean I own the yankees, or that I control the yankees? No, I took the job and if I don't like it I can leave and if the upper management decides for whatever reason they don't want me they can make me leave.

 

I am a scouter, do I own the scouts? No. Do I have final say in operations, No , but I have a voice and I have always felt my opinion was respected.

 

This representation system is not new. It was set down in 1916 by congressional charter. Why is the representation by Charter Organizations and not units served. Mainly three reasons. First, they own the program. Secondly, that's the way our congressional charter was set up. Thirdly, The number of Charter Organizations does not fluctuate as much the youth enrollment does, so it is a more measureable, stable, method of administration.

 

You wrote "Money and the witholding of it gets attention."

 

No! Withholding money only hurts our scouts, to make them the pawns in this political debate is cowardly and discusting.

 

The Chartering organizations own this program. We as unit leaders are servants of the community. Some scouters make not like to hear that. They would rather be the self-important center of their scouting universe. Our job is to deliver the program that 92 years of volunteers and professionals have designed for us.

 

Respectfully

Bob White

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tjhammer]

I've done some further research now, and can expound on the 1996 statistics I first provided...

 

Scouting enjoyed about twenty years of consistent membership growth following the Vietnam War through 1997.

 

The growth in membership started to slow in 1998 and worsened again in 1999. In 2001, for the first time in more than two decades, membership actually decreased (though this fact is very hard to find, it is in annual reports).

 

2001 Membership--------Members------------Units

Cub Scouts.............. Lost -3.6% ....... Lost -1.6%

Boy Scouts.............. Lost -1.2% ....... Lost -1.2%

 

The changes above are the loss of members in just one year, from 2000 to 2001. But the pattern since 1998 coincides with Scouting's very public battle against avowed gays, and while no survey or poll is likely to conclusively prove a corollary, I would ask if anyone can come up with another possible explanation.

 

This decline in membership also happens to have occurred despite the Mormon Church increasing their membership since 1996 by 7% (number of units) and 3.6% (number of boys). The decline last year and slowed growth since 1998 has also happened despite an increase in Total Available Youth (TAY) that could have joined the program, according to the US Census.

 

I suppose BSA Inc. looks at the slight loss (if you can call 1% to 3% in a single year slight) and considers it better than losing the 12.7% represented by the Mormon Church when they abandon Scouting. I personally believe we're lucky, and the only reason the membership is holding steady (or slightly slipping) is because of the continued support of people who know the real value of Scouting.

 

I worry that the most important demographic out there should be the young parents of kids approaching the age of five, who have had no prior contact with Scouting and only know it from its positions in the news on discriminating against gays. Difference of opinion on the morality of homosexuality is very generational; you can assume that many of the young families that will be BSA Inc.'s market of the future don't agree with BSA on this issue, and without any other knowledge of the value of Scouting, I am greatly concerned that membership trends could turn dramatically south over the next five to ten years (are we already seeing this in the loss of so many more Cub Scouts than Boy Scouts in 2001?). And undoing that public image will take decades to repair.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[SagerScout]

Bob White - you are such a valuable resource on this board, and I very much appreciate your input. Could you offer me some advice, please?

 

I'm a member of the United Methodist Church, and as has been noted here, my church is divided on the homosexuality question. Probably most folks here know what side of it I'm on. What would be the mechanism for ME, lowly unit volunteer, to communicate my concerns to the BSA regarding this issue without being thrown out of the organization.

 

While I think - hope - I meet the role model standard, as does my husband, I am very concerned about throwing gay boys out of the organization for their preferences, at a time when they are already undergoing intolerable stress as they struggle with what has to be a horrible realization. Then, we've kicked out the gay leaders of high moral standards who could be the only ones to show them that there is a way to live with this orientation that does not involve casual sex, drugs, and sleeping in the gutter. There seems to be an assumption - a stereotype - here on these boards that gay automatically means promiscuous or engaging in wild behavior, and this has simply not been my observation at all. I agree that a gay leader that was hooking up with the partner-of-the day would NOT be a good role model, just as the leaders you named who engaged in adultery are not. I also agree that any leader engaging or promoting sexual activities with the boys is out of line. This includes male leaders making crude sexual jokes or crude observations regarding girls with the boys - which I have heard more than once, in more than one troop. As a female volunteer I've been hesitant to say anything, but it doesn't seem appropriate.

 

So anyway, I am in the position of having to explain to my son that this organization that we both love is, IMHO, plain wrong on this topic. I'd like to also tell him that I'm doing something constructive, not destructive, to express my beliefs on this. What are my options?

 

Julia

[Bob White]

Hi Sager,

 

First off you are not "lowly" The boys and gilrs we serve are at the top of the service peak the leaders who guide them are next. Every thing else in scouting is provided to support you and them.

 

Every council has national representatives who serve on committees that that form tha scouting program. Talk to them about your concerns. Ask you Council executive for names and contact information of executive board members. Write them and tell them how you feel.

 

Remember that the decision to restrict membership was not made to punish boys but to maintain values of the program that were held by the vast majority of the families and organizations that use scouting. The BSA understands that not everyone agrees and they look at this situation often.

 

As a religious leader and Eagle Scout, said tio a group of us at a national training center on this issue, his church is in total disagreement with the BSA on this issue. However they still charter and will continue to charter scouting units. The reason he gave was that this is such a small part of who we are and what we do that to deny the use of the program to the community would be the greayer evil.

 

A big problem with the BSA on this issue is the politicizing of it. For most involed it is not about serving youth it is about making a political inroad, and the BSA does not intend to sacrifice itself as someone elses political pawn.

 

Here is an excerpt from a BSA position statement that might help explain their stance:

 

More than 90 years ago, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) was founded on the premise of teaching boys moral and ethical values through an outdoor program that challenges them and teaches them respect for nature, one another, and themselves. Scouting has always represented the best in community, leadership, and service.

 

The Boy Scouts of America has selected its leaders using the highest standards because strong leaders and positive role models are so important to the healthy development of youth. Today, the organization still stands firm that their leaders exemplify the values outlined in the Scout Oath and Law.

 

On June 28, 2000, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the Boy Scouts of America's standing as a private organization with the right to set its own membership and leadership standards.

 

The BSA respects the rights of people and groups who hold values that differ from those encompassed in the Scout Oath and Law, and the BSA makes no effort to deny the rights of those whose views differ to hold their attitudes or opinions.

 

Scouts come from all walks of life and are exposed to diversity in Scouting that they may not otherwise experience. The Boy Scouts of America aims to allow youth to live and learn as children and enjoy Scouting without immersing them in the politics of the day.

 

There have been very few leaders and even fewer scouts who havew ever joined scouting and then said "I am an avowed ____________(fill in the blank with the membership restriction of your choice)" Are there Gays in scouting now? probably. Has scouting launched a witch hunt to expel them? NO, and they are not about to. They ask that if your a scout be a scout, Not a gay scout, or a athiest scout, or bullying scout, any of which couls get you removed from the program because they violate our values, just be a scout.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CubsRgr8]

NJCubScouter,

 

Even if I use youth membership instead of unit numbers, the charge of undue influence by the LDS and RC church bodies just doesn't hold up.

 

In 1996, the church bodies in tjhmammers membership information sponsered units which contained 54% of youth membership. Almost all of these church bodies still teach that sexual relations belong in the context of a heterosexual marriage.

 

Therefore, it is perfectly logical for these church bodies to support a policy which says that a person who advocates sexual relations outside of heterosexual marriage (by their public actions and/or words) cannot be consider suitable to serve as a Scout leader, who is supposed to be a role model to youth.

 

Now, if BSA established a policy regarding Scout leaders that was based on the position of just the LDS or RC church bodies (eg no caffiene or celibacy), then there might be something to consider. But when a policy is reflective of the public position of the majority, I just don't see support for the complaint that a minority had an undue influence in establishing it.

 

Once again, I started this thread to discuss the charge of undue influence, not the value of the policy. You raised some valid questions and concerns, but I'll respond to them another time in a new thread.

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

CubsRugr8 says:

 

Even if I use youth membership instead of unit numbers, the charge of undue influence by the LDS and RC church bodies just doesn't hold up.

 

I have not expressed an opinion on the "undue influence" issue, I was just asking how you got your numbers. I still do not agree with your calculations, see below. But, as I have said in another thread, I don't think the issue is how the BSA policy got this way, the issue is that the policy infringes on the religious belies of some BSA members. The BSA says it is "absolutely nonsectarian," not just nonsectarian among the "majority religions."

 

In 1996, the church bodies in tjhmammers membership information sponsered units which contained 54% of youth membership. Almost all of these church bodies still teach that sexual relations belong in the context of a heterosexual marriage.

 

Therefore, it is perfectly logical for these church bodies to support a policy which says that a person who advocates sexual relations outside of heterosexual marriage (by their public actions and/or words) cannot be consider suitable to serve as a Scout leader, who is supposed to be a role model to youth.

 

Do you realize that your number includes several religious organizations that joined in legal briefs AGAINST the BSA position in the Supreme Court? This includes one of the major groups in the United Methodist Church and part of the Episcopal Church; I do not see any Unitarians or Jewish groups on tjhammer's list and suspect they are somewhere down in the low zero-point-something percentages. Even if you are correct that all of the religious groups on the list teach "sexual relations belong in the context of a heterosexual marriage," your statement that it is "perfectly logical" for them to support the BSA policy is irrelevant. The fact is that some of the religious organizations on the list, or major parts of them, believe in traditional marriage but at the same time do not condemn homosexuality as immoral and do not support the BSA policy. So I think your total number includes some groups that should not be included.

 

As I said, not that it matters. If the BSA are violating the religious beliefs of others, it does not matter if they are 60 percent or 10 percent.

 

 

[sctmom]

Bob White says:

"A big problem with the BSA on this issue is the politicizing of it. For most involed it is not about serving youth it is about making a political inroad, and the BSA does not intend to sacrifice itself as someone elses political pawn. "

 

Where does this come from? What leads you to believe it is ONLY about "making a political inroad"? If so, what is the point of that "political inroad"?

 

 

[Bob White]

Sctmom,

Let's say you wanted to be a member of a private organization because you thought they were a wonderful group and you wanted to be a part of it. But you go to join and find you do not meet the requirements.

 

You say "But I'm a wonderful person and your a wonderful organization why can't I join?" So you take them to court because they obviously don't realize how wonderful you are, and that what they are doing is obviously wrong, they just don't realize it.

 

Then the highest court in the land say's "Sorry it's not that either one of you isn't wonderful, it's just that they have a right in this country to choose who they associate with".

 

So you say "Well if they can choose who they can associate with, and they don't want to associate with me, then I'll work to cut they're funding and remove them from meeting places unitil I've hurt them so bad they will want to let me in their wonderful organization."

Why would they want to harm a youth organization that they claim to love?

 

If you asked somone on a date and they said no (note; I was non-gender specific) would you beat them until they realized what a good person you were?

 

Dale et. al. had a right to seek membership, they had a right to take the BSA to court, they have a right to continue to try to hurt the organization that they say they love so much.

 

The BSA has not tried to harm those who seek membership, they have not tried to take their income, or have them removed from their homes, or deny them access to their legal rights, or access to public properties. All the BSA said was "We have rights too, that are just as valid as yours. One of those is the right of association to choose our membership."

 

The BSA has a right to say "no".

 

The Constitution of the United States says so, the Supreme Court says so.

 

The organizations that are trying to harm the BSA are hiding behind a veil of wanting membership in scouting. What they want is for scouting to validate their lifestyle or they want scouting to disappear. The tactics they have adopted have shown their real intent.

 

(The preceding was an editorial and does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of this station or the BSA. We return now to our regular broadcast schedule.)

 

Bob White