A Rather Interesting Comment

[slontwovvy]

A local United Way decided to cut further funding to the BSA because of our freedom of association. There was a radio interview with the head of the UW, and something she said, I couldn't help but laugh at.

Quote "The reason we've done this is that we don't want anyone to be excluded." End quote.

 

Hmmm....like the Boy Scouts?

[Weekender]

On the bright side I guess this means the BSA doesn't have to hold off on their fundraising while the UW runs their's. Personally I would blitz the area about two weeks before the UW kicks off their campaign.(This message has been edited by Weekender)(This message has been edited by Weekender)

[Mike Long]

I know we are all upset over the UW but c'mon now! Is that what a scout would do?

 

Maybe we don't eye to eye with the UW on this issue but attacking the UW is the same as attacking the people they do help. Kinda like refusing to fund us hurts our boys.

 

Do unto others.....

[NJCubScouter]

Slontwovvy, you ought to be one of those tv political shows, because you can "spin" with the best of them. The United Way cut funding to the Boy Scouts "because of our freedom of association"? No, I think it was probably because of "our" ("yours" or "theirs," not "mine") discriminatory policy, which violates the funding guidelines of the United Way. I am not and never have advocated that any group cut funding or association with the BSA, but at least be honest about why the United Way (or at least some United Ways) have done what they have done.

 

As for your appropriation for the BSA of the line "we don't want anyone to be excluded": Ah, I see. The BSA is the victim in all this, right? Not the 5 or 6 people who have been thrown out of an organization with 4 or 5 million members, but the organization itself is the victim? That is such a "spin" that you are making me dizzy.

[Bob White]

There seems to be some scouters with a misconception of United ways structure and their support of scouting.

 

Here are some excerpts from the www.National.unitedway.org regarding funding to scouting.

 

United Way organizations have a long history of support for non-profit organizations that provide services to young people, including local chapters of the Boy Scouts of America. United Way of Americas research indicates that United Way organizations distributed $83,743,000 in funding in 1996 to Boy Scouts of America nationwide.

 

* Action taken by the volunteer board of any local United Way has no bearing on any other United Way or Boy Scout Council across the country. United Way of America as the national membership service and training organization for local United Way organizations, does not dictate policy or funding decisions to local United Ways except to the extent that funding decisions must be consistent with applicable laws.

 

From 1992 through June 2000, only the eight independent local United Ways in San Francisco, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz, CA; New Haven, CT; Branford, CT; Santa Fe, NM; Portland, ME; and Somerset County New Jersey adopted anti-discrimination policies affected their funding relationship with the Boy Scouts.

 

Since 2000 have more local United Ways dropped their support of scouting? Yes, but it is still a very small percentage nationwide. Interestingly enough in most communities where that has happened, the financial support of scouting has risen and the United Way funding has slowed in growth or even decreased.

 

In my own council where we draw from over a dozen counties, we still enjoy UW support in every county in the council. How long will this continue? Who knows. Maybe scouting will change? maybe United Way will? My son's Troop will still meet on Monday and the district and council will continue to do it's job. If we provide the program, the community will support it. We do not live and breath by United Way. It has been a good partnership in our community and I think that UW stands to lose more than we do.

 

just my .02

 

Bob White

 

[NJCubScouter]

I was aware that this was a decision by each local United Way, though that has not been much solace to my council. Unfortunately, I live within the territory of one of the Original Eight listed by BobWhite as having eliminated BSA funding (except where a donor specifies our council as the recipient) prior to June 2000 (when the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Dale case.) (I guess it is fairly obvious which one of the 8 I live in.)

 

We unit guys hear about this at Friends of Scouting time. "Reduced support" is always mentioned during the presentation, and at least once the United Way has been mentioned by name.

 

I can't fault my local United Way for what they have done, though I wish they hadn't done it. Better to keep funding the BSA and retain some leverage to eventually overturn this misguided policy from within.

[evmori]

In mu council, we have the strong support of the local United Way chapter. I guess we are blessed with a UW chapter with high moral fiber!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

[slontwovvy]

I was not intending to cause an uproar, I just found it necessary to point out that things go two ways. In an area where the three largest United Ways have dropped funding, I find it rather rich when humorous quotes come my way.

[Weekender]

I can't fault my local United Way for what they have done, though I wish they hadn't done it. Better to keep funding the BSA and retain some leverage to eventually overturn this misguided policy from within.

 

I won't fault them either...but they are the misguided ones.

 

Wasn't it one of the more liberal members of the forum who decried the thought of religeous organizations having too much influence on scout policy. Given the choice of who "steers us with money" I vote for the church over the UW.

 

I'm not saying the UW is doing bad things. But if they object to the BSA upholding moral standards then they are misguided.

 

[NJCubScouter]

Weekender says:

 

I'm not saying the UW is doing bad things. But if they object to the BSA upholding moral standards then they are misguided.

 

I don't think they "object to the BSA upholding moral standards." I think they object to the BSA discriminating against gays. You may see one as equivalent to the other, I do not, and the local United Way here (and more recently, elsewhere) do not. (And at least nine BSA councils, those who officially requested that local unit option be made the policy, apparently also do not -- are they immoral too?)

 

Or, to look at it another, the BSA is upholding your "moral standards," but they are ignoring my moral standards and those of a lot of other people who otherwise support the BSA. Mistreating people because of what it says in a book that you, but not I, regard as stating the literal word of God, does not sound very moral to me. More specifically, it does not seem consistent with the BSA's claim to be "absolutely nonsectarian."

 

But why should the BSA worry about BSA policy, right?

[tjhammer]

Wasn't it one of the more liberal members of the forum who decried the thought of religeous organizations having too much influence on scout policy.I had to chuckle a bit when I read this, as I have found myself doing on more than a few occasions debating on this board. It's fascinating to me that many of you who stand in agreement with the BSA policy banning gays insist that you're in an "us versus them" battle. From the earliest debates that I have had on this board I've been viewed as an "outsider" (far from it), a "gay activist" (hardly, except where someone else forces to speak on my behalf when I disagree with what they are saying), and now "liberal".

 

Granted, I believe it is wrong to discriminate against gays, and wrong to teach that lesson to the boys entrusted to us. And I suppose that is a more liberal view than many (though no longer most) in society. Ironically, this is one of the few "liberal" issues (of those traditionally considered "far left") that I embrace (along with some of the more rational environmental issues that have also been labeled "liberal"). Beyond that, I think you may be surprised, Weekender, just how politically "conservative" I am. Never once voted for a Democrat; been very active in Republican political campaigns since I was 16. I'm not "anti-liberal" (gosh, some of my best friends are even Dems, though a few of them are closeted!), I just think that the far left are wrong on most of the issues they champion. I'm starting to believe the far right is even farther off their rocker.

 

Don't be afraid, my conservative comrades... we are you! (social re-engineering tongue in cheek).

 

(PS -- Congrats! NJCubScouter... I see you've been deemed a Senior Forum Member... it's a shame many of those posts were spent repeating yourself to those that just keep missing the point! )(This message has been edited by tjhammer)(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[slontwovvy]

tj-

Maybe the reason you don't feel you get the respect you deserve is because you have a very condescending attitude toward other members of the board, almost DD-esque.

 

"it's a shame many of those posts were spent repeating yourself to those that just keep missing the point!"

 

Whereas once you protested DD, I'm wondering if now you may be becoming him. There is no place for such talk on the BB.

 

Also, I disagree that your views represent the majority of society. I'm going to play Nixon's "silent majority" by saying that I believe most people stand with the BSA on this issue, just many may be afraid to admit it.

 

 

 

[jmcquillan]

The "exclusion" thing that has become the flashpoint for many, including the UW, who now hold the BSA in lower regard seems to have gathered new focus recently with the revelations coming from the Catholic Church.

 

On the whole, I'd be willing to bet that the percentages of bad eggs (priests and scouters) to the whole (church and BSA) are very low. Yet both entities will, and do, suffer the consequences in public opinion, short term, and long.

 

On the whole, I'd be willing to bet that the rather public statements by the church that they must exclude gays from the ranks of the priesthood will gather a good deal less condemnation than similar language from the BSA.

 

On the whole, I see a Public public, that speaks out of both sides of its mouth, while the private public may, indeed, be that silent majority.

 

I am, and will forever be, amazed, that the news regarding the church, and its public call for exclusion of gays, has not garnered the condemnation from those who condemned the BSA. In the instance of the church, the call for that exclusion was based on abuse of children. Not so in the BSA. There was no abuse to which the stand for freedom of association could be attributed.

 

So..., why the double standard, oh Great American Public?

[evmori]

NJCS,

The BSA is not discriminating. They are exercising there constitutional rights of freedom of association. If you feel they are discriminating against homosexuals, do you feel the BSA is also discriminating against girls & those who don't believe in God?

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

[Rooster7]

jmcquillan,

 

I am, and will forever be, amazed, that the news regarding the church, and its public call for exclusion of gays, has not garnered the condemnation from those who condemned the BSA. In the instance of the church, the call for that exclusion was based on abuse of children.

 

In regard to public condemnation of BSA verses the Catholic Church, I have no opinion. Or rather, I'm not sure what I think about that situation.

 

However, I need to comment on your quote (noted above). The Catholic Church may well be concerned about the well fair of children in the company of homosexuals. Yet, I'm certain that this is NOT the driving force behind their exclusion policy. Per the teachings of the bible and the Catholic Church, homosexuality is a sin. That being the case, why would the Catholic Church allow someone who professes to be an unrepentant homosexual, to enter the clergy? Even if the said homosexual were repentant, the Catholic Church would still need to assess that person's fitness to serve. Good judgment demands that they evaluate the nature of the sin and the potential risks associated with it. For example, if a self-professed adulterer applied for the priesthood, certainly the Catholic Church would be inclined to deny him entry. His sin puts the congregation at risk. Furthermore, if unrepentant, he would not be fit for simple membership. Not because he is a sinner, but because he refuses to recognize his sin and flee from it. Christians as a whole, and I'm sure the Catholic Church is no exception, know how "sexual sin" can destroy lives. This is self-evident and a biblical teaching. Consequently, it should surprise no one that the Catholic Church would exclude them from the priesthood.