Some responses (from other thread)

[NJCubScouter]

BobWhite made a few points in different posts on the "Undue Influence" thread that I want to respond to. In the interest of trying to allow that thread to be about what it was originally about, I have started this new thread. So here are my responses to BobWhite:

 

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.

 

In my own little way, I have taken the same approach as that religious leader. I have continued to spend many hours working for the boys in my pack and my son's den. As a matter of fact, I did not become a registered leader until three months after the Dale decision, and even after I concluded that the BSA was not going to do the right thing and change the policy, I became an assistant cubmaster. Now with my son less than a year from crossover, I am considering volunteering as a committee member for whichever troop he joins. But I'd be a lot happier if the organization I was involved in would not persist in making what I believe is a tremendous mistake, which is both wrong in and of itself and has greatly tarnished its reputation among people I have to deal with in my life.

 

The one place I may draw the line is getting involved above the unit level. I have been going to Roundtables and have "become known" to both the DC and DE, and would not be surprised at a call one of these days to get involved in the Cub program at the district level. At this point, I don't know what I'll say, though my disappointment at national is far from the only factor.

 

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.

 

The problem is that many of us who oppose the policy believe that the BSA's exclusion of gay leaders is exactly that -- a political position, combined with a religious doctrine. I believe that they have used the BSA as a tool to promote their political-religious position against gays. Now, have some opponents of the BSA also pursued a political approach? Yes. But what I guess I keep coming back to is that the BSA is the one with the wrong policy, not the opponents.

 

So, if the BSA is pursuing a wrong policy with the wrong motivations and using the wrong tactics, and the opponents are pursuing a wrong policy with (let's say) the wrong motivation and using the wrong tactics, when you balance it all together, the policy is still wrong and needs to be altered so there is a compromise. None of the political posturing, lawsuits, or anything else can change that.

 

The following paragraphs are from 2 different posts by BobWhite but they make the same basic point.

 

The rules of scouting say that if you want to implement a change you go through the proper avenues. You take your views to the national representative of the executive board. You don't rally to have funds cut or have sponsors leave or put on the BSA's uniform and denouce them at the same time. That is destructive to the youth we serve.

 

Now go the the home site for Scouting for All, an organization they say is made up almost half by Eagle Scouts who want to improve the scouting program. Follow the events link to their annual National Rallies. The goal of which is to pursuade charter organizations and corporate sponsors to quit their support of the BSA and for scouts and scouters to return their awards to natioal.

 

I agree, at least as far as my own activities are concerned. I have not rallied or spoken against Scouting nor have I lobbied chartered organizations or funders to cut ties with Scouting. In fact, in my own small way, I have done the opposite. I live in a township with approximately 8 Scouting units with an average membership of about 70 (due to 3 over-100 units), and half of these meet in public schools. Through my non-Scouting activities, I have a number of friends on the school board, and I have kept a close eye on my friends in order to alert the DE if we start to have a problem in using school facilities for free, and start to mobilize the troops, so to speak. (It also doesn't hurt that the v.p. of the school board is an assistant scoutmaster of one of these troops.)

 

So, ok, BSA, I am out there working for you. Now how about meeting me halfway, comply with BSA's own values of non-discrimination, and let units decide for themselves whether they want to exclude gays as leaders.

 

As for whether Scouting for All's tactics are right or wrong, I will not judge. I do not participate in them. But the point is that if their tactics or even their motivations are wrong, and even if I wish they would stop, they are still right on the ultimate issue. If the BSA does not respond to Scouting for All's approach because of their tactics, then let them respond to my opinion, because nobody can argue with my "tactics."

 

BobWhite also goes through a litany of Scouting leaders who cursed in front of the kids, had a drinking problem, had affairs, and partied (presumably with alcohol or other prohibited substances) with children, and how they all got kicked out. There are several differences between these people and, for example, James Dale. One, these people were booted because of their conduct. James Dale, and the other 4 or 5 well-publicized cases that I am aware of, were booted because of their status. Second, whether to boot these people was probably up to the units and/or council, and I would guess that the individual circumstances were taken into account. For example, if it had been a long-time Scoutmaster with the drinking problem and the problem was a mild one, he might have been given a longer period to work out his problem before being "gone." The extramarital affairs, I don't know. I suspect that some who have had affairs have been allowed to stay. I also suspect that the result in some of these cases depends somewhat on what part of the country you are in and what kind of community you live in. However, in the case of gay leaders, supposedly there is NO option. Dale got a termination-of-registration letter with a demand that he not be involved with any Scout unit. It's an AUTOMATIC NATIONWIDE policy for gays, not case-by-case like everything else. Third, and this I guess is where the real dispute comes in, those people were poor role models. In my opinion a gay person, simply by being gay, is not a poor role model. As I have said, heterosexuality is not a value, it is simply what most people are. I guess we will never agree on this issue, but I think that if the BSA wants to do the right thing AND remove this distracting issue (two different goals), it needs to make room in the organization for those who disagree.

 

But, don't be a guest in someone's home and complain that you don't like the way they run their house. That's not polite and it's not effective. Your not a prisoner, if you feel you'd be more comfortable in someone else's home, or in your own, then you owe it to yourself to go there.

 

It's not your house, and it's not the house of the people who temporarily control the votes on the national committee, it's our house. I have just as much right to be in this house, and try to change the rules of the house as anyone else, because it's my house as much as anyone else's.

[Bob White]

NJscouter

 

I agree with some of what you say. There are two things I want to clarify. One point I will make you have probably read in another thread.

 

1. You said the BSA is a non-discrimination organization. That is not correct. The BSA has always descriminated. Keep in mind that most people now-days only think of the illegal discrimination definition. There is also legal discrimination.

 

)From Miriam Webster)

1 a : to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of b : DISTINGUISH, DIFFERENTIATE

2 : to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences; especially : to distinguish from another like object

intransitive senses

1 a : to make a distinction b : to use good judgment

 

The BSA distinguishes (discriminates) between behaviors and beliefs that the majority of our Charter Organizations and national representatives feel are not in keeping with the BSA mission.

 

Secondly, you say "it's my house as much as anyone else's".

Actually not. As unit volunteers we serve the community and the chartered organization as program volunteers, but make no mistake the chartered organizations own the program. It may not feel that way in your unit but in other charter organizations it is well understood. They own the program, we choose to help guide THEIR scout unit.

 

If you were the choir director of the youth choir that does not put you in charge of the church. If the governing body says there is a song you cannot sing because they feel it is not in keeping with there beliefs, you have some choices: don't sing the song and stay, don't sing the song and ask that the decision be changed, sing the song and be fired. If you try to reduce donations or try to shut down the church, they are going to throw you out, and they won't really care about your appeal to sing the song. See where this is going?

 

I do greatly respect your willingness to express your opinions in a orderly and direct manner to the BSA national committees and to not let your personal opinions interfere with delivering the BSA program as it stands today. Who knows maybe the values will change maybe they won't. But the tactics being used currently will not get the results that some people think they will.

 

Bob White

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bob White]

Sorry, make that Merriam-Webster. I didn't catch it in time to edit.

Bob

[sctmom]

Well said NJ!

 

[LongHaul]

I'll open by saying I support the National policy in relation to gays, both as a right to decide who will be allowed to join and that gays are not acceptable role models. It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. That is the point. This country was founded upon and by people who wanted to discriminate. (See Bob White's post for a proper definition so this post can be viewed in the proper context) This country was founded upon the belief that everyone has the right to choose who they will live and asociate with and that they had the right to keeep those with opposing views out of their community. Everyone has the right to do as they please as long as they do it SOME PLACE ELSE. Today we have group after group demanding the right to force their views on those around them. Let's face it folks there is now place else to go anymore. We have to live together, but we don't have to become of one mind.

NJCubScouter writes "As I have said, heterosexuality is not a value, it is just what most people are." This begges the question "Do you think Homosexuality is 'an ACCEPTABLE alternate lifestyle? or a perversion (again grab the dictionary look up pervert) of the NORMAL sexual orientation?" Why should I be forced to accept any group which I believe is wrong? Again look up accept;

Webster's New American Dictionary

ACCEPT

1. to take(what is offered or given); receive willingly.

2. to receive favorably; approve

3. to agree or consent to

4. to believe in

 

Why should I "accept" being forced to do something I disagree with just because it has become "politically correct." I want to draw a distinction between the attitudes of my leaders, as a youth, that homosexuality was something a person should be jailed for (grew up in the 50's/ 60's) and the attitude that I should "accept" homosexuals as "acceptable" role models for the youth in the Scout troop which I serve as Scoutmaster.

Again to NJCubScouter, as to your reluctance to serve above the troop level, let me pass along something my Scoutmaster told me at a PLC when the question came up as to wether parental participation should be taken into account when deciding a Scouts eligability to attend outings. "Dad never drives you don't go" approach. (Again the sexist 50's) My Scoutmaster said "Never take it out on the boy because his father is an 'Anal orifice'". The man in question was indeed that and everyone was thankful he never came around because he was indeeed not a positive role model. The PLC was discussing options to improve parental participation. My point is don't deny the boys in your community (District) your input and influence just because National is in your eyes an "Anal Orifice". As has been said many times in these posts it has to be about the boys. "What's good for GM is good for the country." What's good for the boys is the road to follow. Don't short change the boys. You may not be able to change the attitude of National(adults) but you sure can influence the attitudes of the Scouts(young minds who will one day,God willing, be those adults).

 

Bob White, as to your analogy of the church choir. This again begges the question "Who's church is it?" You feel it belongs to the ruling body some of us believe it belongs to the "parisioners". The "Church Elders" or the "Parish Priest" work for the parisioners, it's our church, they were selected to provide us with a service. In our instance it's the local Scout Troops not a transisent rulling body on some committee. You say that the chartering organization owns the "program". Yes they own the troop, as far as material possetions go and are leagaly liable for some of it's actions but PROGRAM. If you "buy" a McDonald's franchise you own the store yes but your still expected to sell hambergers not chicken on a stick. Chartering Organizations that have enough "numbers" to have a voice on some National Committee shouldn't be allowed to change a program which has benifited boys, in this country since 1911, in an attempt to mould it to their specific views. You refere often to our Congrssional Charter, look at what "politics" has done to the original concept of "representive government" "of the people, for the people, by the people" Today it's a retirement position not a representative responsibility. When I see this happening to "Scouting" I become alarmed. I don't agree with NJCubScouter's position but I fully encourace action upon it. People, as a group, through out history have kept silent until it was to late. We can survive longer without National Committees than National Committees can survive without Scout Troops. I don't work for my community or my chartering organization, I work for my Patrol Leaders Council. I am empowered by my Chartering Organization and the Community benifits from the Scouting program but it's Baden-Powell concepts and 90 plus years of history which attracts the boys. When the boys are being short changed their voices must be heard. As Scoutmaster I am their voice to the District, Council and National bodies. That's how I see it anyway. I don't have to be a voice with my Chartering Organization, as I've said elsewhere my CO is full of Scouters. Many of us are constantly in Council's face.

[Bob White]

Longhaul,

You and I agree 99%. The only place we really have a differing point of view is in who owns the program. the Charter Organizations own more than just the equipment, they own the program.

 

The Nation Executive body is made of reresentatives of the COs my son's troop's COR is a national board representative. We live in a relative medium sized community and he is neither a member of the LDS or RC churches. He does not see an LDS conspiracy at the national level.

 

National, Council, District and unit leaders, are all volunteer servants to the needs of the Chartering Organizations who use the scouting program, and to the boys and girls who are served by the COs.

 

There are scouters and even scouts who sit on all the sub-committees that develop the scouting program. But the final vote as to what constitutes the rules and policies of the program all pass before the executive board for approval. That board is made of representativees of the organizations that use the scouting program. this has been the way BSA has operated since 1916.

 

Although this is probably the most political and heated topic that the BSA has had to deal with. They are not going to alter the method of administration that has worked so well for decades, just to appease those who disagree with the decision.

 

Other than that I feel you make many valid points.

 

Bob

 

[LongHaul]

Yes, Bob, I do agree that I agree with 99% of the opinions and explanations you post. I think that our disagreement on PROGRAM may be definition rather than position. The "program" in my eyes are the things BP wanted to pass on to youth. The patrol method, boys taking charge and accepting responsibility, self confidence and determination, getting and staying in touch with the outdoors and their surroundings, and above all Honor. Having your word mean something. These are the things that CO's decide to use to benifit the youth within their sphere of influence. These ideals or purposes should not be up for change by whomever is in power today. As you stated in a post refering to your discussion with GreenBar Bill (green with envy, Yes I am) Scouting is a fluid movement. We chamge our APPROACH with the change in youth and the times but our PROGRAM should remain constant and the quality of the delivered program should be one of our primary concerns. How we teach changes, what we teach should remain constant. The exclusion of Gay leaders, just as the exclusion of Female leaders is policy not program and shouldn't be confused.

[NJCubScouter]

Let me just pick out a sentence from LongHaul's most recent post:

 

The exclusion of Gay leaders, just as the exclusion of Female leaders is policy not program and shouldn't be confused.

 

I can't help pointing out that the exclusion of female leaders is former policy -- actually now the policy is local option. Just as it should be with gay leaders.

 

The BSA, having won the legal right to exclude female leaders, soon decided to allow female leaders anyway. That is how this issue should end. Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

 

[Bob White]

Thanks NJ,

A very good point. I had no problem with the people who wanted to have a policy changed taking the BSA to court to have the legal system decide. That is their civil right and I endorse participating citizenship. However when the legal option was carried to the end and all parties had their day in court, when decision did not meet with their liking, the proponents of change switched to trying to cripple the BSA rather than accept the judgement of the Supreme Court. That to me showed their true intentions.

 

When the issue was women as scoutmasters,I always supported qualified adults as leaders in the BSA and made my opinion known to national. When the courts found in favor of the BSA and they still chose to change their regulations, I was very impressed. It showed to me the quality of our leadership at the national level.

 

Whichever way this controversy ends up going I will continue to follow the regulations as I said I would when I joined, or find another program to support. However I will not bad mouth a program of which I am voluntarily a member.

 

Bob White

[LongHaul]

NJCubScouter,

Yes it is former policy to exclude women. I was making a distinction between policy and program. Having the gay issue resolved with the same result as the female leader issue isn't very likely. I believe the decision to allow female leaders in Boy Scouts was not an altruistic nor purely consiliatory decision. It was based on the realization that there simply weren't enough male leaders to keep the store open. We either have women leaders or we gonna die. I saw it purely as a money/membership decision. Allowing some local councils to still deny membership to women was how National dodged the bullet they are being threatened with now over the gay issue.