Don't ask, I'll tell...

[Eagledad]

I wasn't going to respond because after awhile these replies are like ping-pong, is too, is not, is too, is not. But twin_wasp served one over that reminded me of an incident while I was a cub master. I needed an Assistant Cub Master, so I approached a dad who I was told was an Eagle Scout. He said he wouldn't become a scout leader because he was an atheist. He then followed by explaining how scouting gave him a window of adults believing in God. It allowed him to see both sides of religion and later as an adult he made the choice. He said had it not been for the scouts, there would not have been a choice, he would have started as an atheist. He had so much respect for the examples that scouts provided that he didn't want to confuse boys today. He wanted his son to see men who believed in God so he could choose later.

 

You said it yourself, boys are very acute observers at this age. Role models will influence them and scouting holds the line to one example of how a man should behave. If we don't set a standard, we take away choices. True, some boys will choice differently, but at least they got to see the difference.

 

(Hey, is twin-wasp referring to an airplane?)

 

Have a great scouting week.

 

Barry

[packsaddle]

BW, Thanks for stating this so clearly. A simple majority of a small number of persons require our public silence on disagreements with BSA. The merits of the arguments are unimportant. They don't care that we are devoted to doing good things for young people. And if we are quiet about our personal lives they don't care about that either. This is a control issue, not a morality issue, nothing could be simpler.

 

TwoCubDad, I appreciate your astute observations and I don't consider them over the line. In all the exchanges I've read, it seems that if BSA merely allowed public criticism, a majority of this criticism would go away. I have a mixed reaction.

First, I feel that TJ should stay if he passes the background check. I've said this before.

Second, the un-American way of coercing silence out of us should cause some good discussion for the boys during, for example, study of the Citizenship in the Nation MB. For that matter all of the Citizenship MBs. My boys have acute observation abilities and they are quick to identify hypocrisy and quick to point it out. One of my favorite scenarios: "A child, however, who had no important job and could only see things as his eyes showed them to him, went up to the carriage. "The Emperor is naked," he said.

"Fool!" his father reprimanded, running after him. "Don't talk nonsense!" He grabbed his child and took him away. But the boy's remark, which had been heard by the bystanders, was repeated over and over again until everyone cried: "The boy is right! The Emperor is naked! It's true!" The BSA realized that the people were right but could not admit to that. They though it better to continue the procession under the illusion that anyone who couldn't agree with their policy was either immoral or unworthy. And they stood stiffly on their carriage, while behind them other professionals held their imaginary mantle."

Sound familiar?

 

Third, this divides our attention between two injustices, a misdirection. Given BSA's ineptitude in other areas, this is unlikely to be intentional.

Of the three, I think their example for the boys is the worst. It smacks of another policy (use of tobacco) where they wink and say, "do as we say, not as we do". And the boys see this clearly.

I have heard several times the sentiment that such hypocrisy itself should be grounds for dismissal. I agree. If true to their own avowed principles, they would fall on their own 'terrible swift swords'.

As it is though, we can merely advise the boys that if they want to continue to be Boy Scouts, they should keep quiet, lest some public statement get them ejected. It's the BSA way, isn't it, the way of using fear to control?

[Bob White]

packsaddle writes "A simple majority of a small number of persons require our public silence on disagreements with BSA."

 

And that is close. Actually a small representative group of the the organizations that use scouting, in compliance with a Congressional Charter, are responsible for approving program elements and policies as recommended by subcommittees made up of volunteer scouters and youth members of the BSA.

 

They set the rules and methods for a private organization that we are not required to join.

 

So since they are operating well within the rules, laws and guidelines of such an organization, and have been for decades, it is our choice to be members and work within those rules or to not be members. There is no law or civil right that allows you membership in an organization just because you want in, or that allows you to stay just because you want to stay. To say "I'm going to stay and fight against the practices of my own program" is not your choice. Once you become a nuisance and distraction to the mission of the program you will likely be removed from the membership. There is no professional or volunteer whose job is to listen to members publicly denounce the BSA. We all have better things to do, namely serving the youth and adult members who accept the mission and the methods of the BSA.

 

If the rule was the reverse the reaction would be the same. If the BSA allowed homosexuals and you decided as a member to publicly denounce that membership practice then the BSA would remove your membership. You are not required to belong to a private organization that you disagree with, and the BSA is not required to retain you as a member.

 

Bob White

[packsaddle]

BW, as long as we are chasing our tails, I remind you that BSA does allow homosexuals. Gays merely have to remain in the closet. That is the essence of the hypocrisy. BSA preaches and enjoys the benefits of the Constitution. Then BSA doesn't live up to Constitutional principles itself. BSA indeed has the right to practice hypocrisy. And they do.

[acco40]

To diverge slightly from the Don't ask, I'll tell ... debate.

 

In the early 70's, females were not allowed to hold all adult leadership positions within the BSA. For example, females could be den mothers but not Cubmasters. Without arguing the merits of this policy, how did the policy change of allowing female leaders now hold CM, SM, etc. positions come about? Did anyone have their membership revoked for debating this topic either in private or public? I'm guessing that public and private discourse both weighed in the decision. Can anyone elighten me on this topic?(This message has been edited by acco40)

[Bryan]

OldGrayEagle & NJCubScouter:

 

First, thanks for your courteous and thoughtful answers. These are extremely sensitive topics.

 

Second, St. Joseph's and St. Francis are still there and I was actually born at St. Francis. The local WD Boyce Council office is just a few blocks from St. Francis.

 

The issue of blood in meat, as far as a Christian is concerned, is resolved at the slaughterhouse in my opinion. The meat packers put a water hose into the major arteries, and hose out almost all of the blood in a slaughtered carcass.

 

None of us is perfect. All have sinned. I believe that if a genuine effort is made to comply with God's will, then God will recognize it. There might, technically, be a few drops of blood left in a cut of meat, diluted by the water from the meat packer's hose. It's not enough to get in the way of your salvation.

 

Regarding the reasons for National's policy about homosexuals, the stated reason is that avowed homosexuals are unsuitable as role models. I'd have to agree that a promiscuous heterosexual, or even someone who is seriously overweight or a chain smoker, would also be less than ideal as a role model.

 

Background checks should be mandatory. An ounce of prevention is worth 10,000 tons of cure.

 

In my opinion, National hasn't been entirely forthcoming about its reasons for this policy. Certainly the $50,000 being spent on legal cases every month is a factor. But if National "came out" about this reason, it would be counterproductive because there would be a new wave of litigation.

 

The homosexuals have the Lambda Legal Defense Fund. "Defense" in the title is extremely deceptive. They are attack dogs.

[littlebillie]

NJCS'er,

 

I've given it a lot of thought. On the one hand, a rainbow flag could just be pretty. BUT (and I'm not saying right or wrong, here, b'lee me!) if the flag-hanger is a gay activist of any kind, that puts the flag in one context. on the other hand, if the flag-hanger quietly and unobtrusively lives with someone in a manner that you or I or the boys couldn't tell as different from having a room-mate, I can't take the symbol as an avowal - the rest of the context isn't there, and besides, sometimes a rainbow is just that - a rainbow! so this would fail the test for avowal but not too blatant, I think.

 

in fact, a straight who believes in gay rights could wear the rainbow.

 

I'm not sure there's any real form of subtle avowal - something that says someone's definitely gay, but says so in such a quiet way as to satisfy the BSA.

 

I mean, outside of telling one's doctor or lawyer or priest or other such bound confidant, but that wouldn't count either.

 

That's a toughie, all right...

[packsaddle]

littlebillie, NJ, are you guys talking about Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition? Or what? I have rainbow banners all over my yard in the summer. And elsewhere. Is this supposed to mean something else? I thought it was a celebration of the end of the flood and a new covenant.

[twin_wasp]

First, for ww40,

 

I was a camp program director back in the 70s, when women were routinely excluded from professional scouting jobs. I believe it was 1975; BSA sent

a confidential latter out to their council personnel people. My camp director read me the letter, but did not give me a copy.

 

As I recall, the letter said that they had reviewed the law, and the way the legal precedents were going, and concluded that they would not stand in the way of hiring women. They neither wanted to go to court nor felt they could win if they did. I believe the letter said that if a female applies, consider her qualifications exactly as you would any other applicant. There was no public announcement, no fanfare, no big discussion or debate, at least that I knew of.

 

Many camps already had female employees in traditionally female job, such as cook and nurse. In addition, it was well known that at least one large council (In New Jersey or New York City) already had a history of employing women at camp, especially as waterfront director.

 

What a differencs a few years makes. National BSA got out front on a social trend when it was based in New Brunswick, possibly in part because they could see what was happening on the ground in a nearby council.

 

On another issue, let me state my experience with holding dissident opinions as a member of a voluntary organization. My council knows my opinions. I am careful to bring thsm up in appropriate all adult settings, never with the boys.

 

BSA has never made an effort that I know of to silence or supress or expel persons who merely disagree with their gay policy, so long as the opinions are aired among the adults, not among the youth. BSA policy pretty much places discussions of sexuality outside of the BSA program.

 

So as long as you operate within program guidelines, BSA seems to have conducted the "argument" among members in a fairly civil manner. I am aware that others may have different experiences.

 

It as also important to note that BSA has never told units to report gays, and has never issued any policy directives to troops on this subject. I am sure if they did, they are aware that there would be significant defections from the ranks.

 

 

[KoreaScouter]

Packsaddle;

 

The rainbow "icon", as a vehicle bumper sticker/air freshener, or on clothing, is reputed to be a symbol that should set off your "gaydar". It's probably just one of those stereotypes, like when a guy wears a pink shirt, or a woman's wearing a g-shock watch, or other such nonsense. I'd continue putting them in your yard without hesitation...

 

KS

[scoutldr]

Yes, the "rainbow motif" is a symbol of the gay community. So is the purple Teletubby with the triangle antenna...I know that to be true, because the Rev. Falwell said so.

[SR540Beaver]

scoutldr,

 

I hope you were making a joke about believing Falwell's Teletubby comments. Remember, Falwell also said this about the events of 9/11:

 

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"

 

You don't believe that do you?

[dan]

scoutdlr

Now do not get me started on Spongebobs' neighbor!! Squidworth(sp?)!!!!!

[packsaddle]

Man, I tell you...this is the reason I pursued science - I am blind to these social codes, they're complicated and continuously changing and I just don't get it. First Sagerscout ruins my use of the phrase, "jump the gun" and now my favorite movie of all time, "The Wizard of Oz" is suspect for being 'over the rainbow'. What I am going to do is, I'm going to ignore all of it and continue to be the 'out of it' person that I am. If any of you ever see me wearing a rainbow, it means absolutely nothing!

[OldGreyEagle]

Hey, Watch that Wizard of Oz stuff, although Judy Garland is an icon of a certain population as is her daughter Liza. Maybe it was part of the Left Wing Liberal agenda started in the late 40's to destroy traditional family values and allow accpetance of perversion as "normal"?