BSA is dying

[Zahnada]

Bob White,

 

I must admit, those numbers are a relief to me. I hope I don't give the impression of someone who wishes the destruction of BSA. I'm just not an optimistic person. It probably comes from living on the West Coast. I assure you that the comments I have made accurately portray the situation in many areas here.

 

And as I stated earlier, I believe that numbers can be deceiving. So I don't put all my faith about success in membership figures. I still stick to my statements in other posts that BSA needs to refocus and that refocus should center on JLT. I am still not convinced that scouts has finished weathering the storm of controversy and I expect many more debates and court cases and controversy in the years to come.

[Bob White]

Zahnada,

 

I do not perceive you as wanting the the downfall of scouting, but I see your attitude as self defeating. How could you possibly hope to win a horse race if you truly believe you are riding on a dying nag.

 

Also you seem to let numbers dictate the quality or success of the program. If you were a BSA professional it may dictate your employment status, but as a volunteer the only thing that matters is the quality of your next troop meeting and the adventure of your next outing.

 

Rather than worry about the registration numbers on a national level, I would recommend focussing on the membership numbers of your unit (or if a District volunteer within your district).

 

The program is not dying. There are political groups that want you and other grass root volunteers to buy into that vision, but the fact is thats just not true.

 

I suggest we focus on what is, not what might be, and worry more about the scouts that you chose to serve not the small numbers of youth and adults that shout about not being able to join because they don't beleive in our principles.

 

I agree with a couple of other recent posters about the real problems that face scouting today.

> Troops as a whole do a poor job of recruiting Webelos

> Too many boys leave the first year because many trops do not use the First Class emphasis program, and too many troops have boring outings.

> There are too many untrained volunteers and leaders who run "their" program rather than the scouting program.

> Scoutmasters who try to "run" a troop rather than train junior leaders.

 

Look at the problems that are discussed on this board outside of Issues & Politics. You will see that scoutings problems seem to be who we let in, not who we keep out.

 

This is not to say that this program does not have tens of thousands of quality volunteers because it certainly does. But it also has thousands of adults that are looking for a piece of life where they can be "in charge" and do things their way. They do more harm to the Scouting program and to the youth they say come first then is done by all the hype about our membership rules.

 

Just my opinion,

Bob White

 

[Zahnada]

Bob White,

 

As this discussion seems to be "dying" down, I don't know if there's much reason for me to defend myself further. But for the past several posts, I HAVE SAID THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE MEMBERSHIP NUMBERS TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SUCCESS OR LACK OF IT FOR AN ORGANIZATION.

 

Please stop attacking me on a matter that I have actually stated I do not believe in.

 

And I feel that caution is not always "self-defeating." Pessimism and optimism need a healthy blend for success. To blindly follow either one is self defeating. I feel that my faith in the program and my love of scouting is enough optimism. My worries about the road scouting is taking are the pessimism. We may not agree on that road, but I am not participating in scouts saying, "Well, I should let my troop die because scouts is dying."

 

But now we're off the issue.

[Bob White]

Zahnada,

There was no attack intended. You addressed me and I wrote back. You mentioned that you felt I was saying you wanted the downfall of scouting and that is not true.

 

You brought up numbers first and used them to show the faltering program. I responded with the current numbers to show that if that is your barometer then we are fine. I think the problem is you are buying into a scenario created by outside organizations who do want scoutings downfall. They manufacturer and exaggerate problems that do not exist, but they are able to convince some that they do.

 

You say that we have not grown or advanced. We improved training techniques, adventure elements, learning opportunities through changes in the advancement program, the new venture program, ScoutReach. Just look at all the program changes we have gone through in the last 9 decades. We created cub scouts, explorers, varsity and venturing. We expanded opportunities to female adult and youth members, constantly added and updated Merit Badges. We developed High Adventure bases, COPE, and inner city scouting.

 

75% of Rhodes Scholars are scouts, 75% of all graduates from US military academies are scouts, over 70% of FBI agents are scouts, nearly every man that walked on the Moon was an Eagle Scout.There are over 30 Eagle Scouts in Congress today.

 

Is this a program in jeopardy?

 

The only thing you can sight in your argument is that some media and a couple small political action groups don't like our membership rules and some United Ways have shifted their budgeting emphasis away from the BSA and other similar organizations.

 

I think it's great that you are an Eagle Scout. Be brave. Don't worry about what the media says, worry about your next troop meeting. Controversy comes and goes. Any organization that has been around as long as the BSA will from time to time be the target of others. That is no reason to change who we are or what we do.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Bob White

 

[littlebillie]

"They may not always be the opinions held by the

loudest or even the majority but then the majority is not always right, nor are the loudest."

 

However, it needs to be made explicit that the majority is not always wrong, and the assumption that democracy is built upon is that it usually is headed in the right direction...

 

(just to round out the picture, doncha know!)

[slontwovvy]

Wow, leave for a weekend, and when you come back, this!

 

Anyway, I feel that these declines are mainly in certain segments of the country. Many troops in my area (including my own) have experienced growth in the past few years. We are now twice as large as we have ever been.

 

Additionally, we've improved relations with the chartered organization through increased community service--the troop now does over 1000 hours per year (by approximately 40 Scouts). We've tried our hand at plumbing, food serving, insulating, general maintenance, etc. As a result, our chartered organization has begun once again to grow fond of us.

 

The BSA is shrinking only if we let it.

[acco40]

Not to beat a dead horse (no reference to the Bob White dying nag analogy) but if membership is to be used as a barometer, the real statistic to be used for BSA is the percentage of boys eligible for the program. If the population of baby boom children is decreasing (the baby boomers are graying rapidly), one would expect BSA membership to decline too. If the male age group is increasing, membership should increase too.

 

I agree with Bob White that the BSA should not stick its finger to the wind to decide policy as so many current politicians do today. However, I do no view homosexuality as a sin or immoral and therefore do not agree with the BSA stance 100%. The term avowed is somewhat vague. I agree with GSA (GSUSA?) that the sexuality of the leaders (whether heterosexual or homosexual, members and leaders may not promote a particular sexual orientation or display any sexual behavior.) in and of itself should not determine if a leader if fit for leadership. There is a differnece, in my eyes, to not hiding a relationship to flaunting a relationship. Good role models for the BSA should be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. And no, I don't view "clean" as having a sexual connotation.

[Bob White]

littlebillie,

You raise a good point, however it would be more appropriate if we were a democracy. We are in fact a Republic ("and to the republic for which it stands") and as such we are not majority rule. We make decisions based on elected representatives. Those representatives are chosen by those who participate in the process. In the case of the government they are politicians elected not by a majority of citizens and in some cases such as the presidential elections not by the majority of voters.

In scouting the decisions are made by representatives of our chartering organizations that use the program. Not by a vocal minority whether in or outside of the program.

 

The reason our founding fathers chose to rule by a republic was for the very reason we are experiencing in scouting. A true democracy that rules by majority would have no stability in their decisions. Laws would change as the winds of public opinion ebbed and flowed. The goal of the BSA is not to reflect whatever the current political mood is but to advance the mission of scouting.

 

Bob White

[Eagledad]

>>Good role models for the BSA should be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. And no, I don't view "clean" as having a sexual connotation.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

We talk so much about the dangers of smoking and drinking, but a few years ago there was a statistic that showed the average gay person didn't live to see 40.

 

That "statistic" was by Paul Cameron, a fraudulent and long-discredited researcher who was thrown out of the American Psychological Association over 15 years ago. There's a good reason his statistics aren't talked about; they're clearly bogus:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_obit.html

 

 

[acco40]

Eagledad, as one of my favorite announcers would say, Whoa Nelly!

 

"You're saying titles have nothing to do with role modeling." Uh, where did I say that? I am concerned with actions (behavoir), not titles.

 

"If you are willing to be forced ..." Isn't this a contradiction in terms? How can one be willing AND forced? I don't understand this.

 

I just don't think being a homosexual alone, in and of itself, should be grounds for non-participation in Scouting. Love (in the emotional sense, not physical sense alone) for a fellow human being is a "scout like" behavior in my book. As for your worry about exposing your son(s) to homosexuals, ("Every parent needs to assume that their son may accept and develop any lifestyle of your adults because that is what they will see.") I don't believe sexual orientation is #1) a lifestyle or 2) something that is "chosen". Do you let your son help the homeless? Feed the hungry? Help the sick? Are you afraid that they will pick up their "lifestyle?"

 

Pornographers, spouse abusers, drinkers, smokers, strippers - those are all behaviors that many debate as acceptable or non-acceptable. I agree with you whole heartedly (and so does the Supreme Court) that it is about a private organization, of which I am a member, setting its own membership qualifications.

 

But I am amused by the knee-jerk response of some individuals who act as the moral police. Take pornography for example. Say you are a sports reporter for a newspaper. Everywhere that I've lived, the local paper's sports section has a myriad of advertisements for "gentlemens" clubs, massage parlors, etc. Is the reporter supporting pornography? The answer is not so black and white.

 

I don't believe in using sexual orientation as a litmus test for Scouting. I do agree with the BSA policy that sexual orientation should not be "avowed" regardless of what it is. It has nothing to do with the aims of Scouting in my book.

 

[Eagledad]

>>I don't believe in using sexual orientation as a litmus test for Scouting

[Rooster7]

Eagledad,

 

I can relate. I grew up in the 70's. I used to like Elton John a lot...then I found out he was bisexual. I could never listen to his songs and appreciate them in the same way after that...suddenly, I questioned if "Daniel" was really his brother...it was very disturbing.

[acco40]

With the risk of going way off topic (BSA is dying?) ...

 

Some of the best music that I enjoy was made by drug addled, misogynistic, egotists. But I did enjoy the music!

 

Now, there is a difficult or fine line between enjoying something someone produces (i.e. Pablo Picasso was not what I would hold out to my sons as a role model but he was a great artist) and supporting or endorsing them. In the Detroit area, the Arianna Huffington The Detroit Project TV ads have generated a lot of controversy. Does buying gas guzzling SUVs support terrorism? Some will not listen to Richard Wagner for political reasons. To each his own I guess but I can easily separate the accomplishments of individuals and the individuals themselves. William Schockley, Edward Teller, Peter Townsend and Freddie Mercury all come to mind.

[evmori]

When we hold up human beings as role models we are bound to be disapointed. Think about it. The people kids look up to now and when when I was a kid are hardly good role models.

 

I think the best we can do is try to be the best people we can be for our families the Scout in our Troop. We can do this by trying to live the Scout Oath & Law in our everyday lives.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10