Here we go again....

[Rooster7]

Packsaddle,

 

I think were already stuck in a circle. You quote Dwyer and condemn the BSA for his hypocrisy, but you ignore the fact that the so-called representatives of this council have chosen to circumvent the national policy. You cant seriously believe that the BSA condones this councils actions. If gay sympathizers with C.O.L. announce a new policy, but fail to implement it then blame those folks within that council. You have an excellent argument to condemn that council or the individuals that claim to represent it.

 

but if the BSA turns a blind eye to quiet practicing gays, as I believe they do, then a judgment of hypocrisy seems accurate.

 

As I said, theyre not turning a blind eye. They simply dont have the resources to investigate everybodys sexual orientation, addictions, undesirable character traits, etc. Just because the BSA cannot root these folks out in advance, through the membership process, that doesnt mean that they must be accepted regardless of what is revealed in the future. By that logic, you should be arguing for the inclusion of liars, drunks, drug addicts, and even pedophiles. As I said, this argument doesnt hold water. The BSA is not turning a blind eye. Theyre just being practical. In application, homosexuals are not being singled out. The only thing that makes homosexuals unique is their organized efforts to harass organizations that trumpet traditional values, such as the BSA. As a result of this harassment, the BSA was forced to create a policy to specifically address the claims of homosexuals and their advocates. Ironically, homosexuals and their supporters have managed to turn this thing around on its head. They portray themselves as victims of harassment. When in fact, they are the perpetrators of harassment. They are the ones who are spreading lies.

 

Yet another element of hypocrisy also occurs in that case if in this practice, BSA condones the lie.

 

The BSA did NOT condone this lie. They never supported the C.O.L.s efforts to change the current policy. The C.O.L.s announced change in policy was in direct contradiction to BSA national policy. Had the BSA officially approved this councils actions, then your claim would make sense. If you want to blame someone, blame the gay sympathizers that announced the policy change, but didnt have the muscle to make it stick. Theyre the ones who sold a lie.

 

Although, I don't think homosexual advocacy groups can attack these folks with a clear conscience. Who are these council members...the ones that attempted to make their council "gay friendly"? They are, of course, folks who support gays. When gays attack the C.O.L. for failing to live up to their promise, they are in essence, attacking their biggest supporters in the BSA. Ironically, I don't think this will stop the homosexual community from besieging the C.O.L. and attacking them. Why? Because as others have pointed out, homosexual advocacy groups don't really care if the BSA changes its policy...and they don't really care about their supporters in the C.O.L. They're agenda is much bigger and they don't care who they step on to achieve it.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Yak_Herder]

A press releaase from the National Council website:

 

"The Cradle of Liberty Council of the Boy Scouts of America has issued a statement affirming that it will carry out all the policies as set forth by the National Council. The council made this statement to clarify any misconceptions that may have arisen during the BSA National Annual Meeting held May 28-30.

 

Earlier in May, the Cradle of Liberty Council submitted a non-discrimination disclosure statement to the United Way of Southeastern Pennsylvania. This non-discrimination disclosure addressed the use of United Way funds in the Learning for Life program. These are the only funds the council receives from the United Way of Southeastern Pennsylvania.

 

The Learning for Life program, working through schools, businesses, and other community organizations, delivers values-based programs to thousands of children. Learning for Life is not a membership program, and selection of the adults who deliver the program is up to the sponsoring institution.

 

Cradle of Liberty Council President David Lipson has expressed disagreement with the BSA's membership policies, as is his right. BSA members are free to hold their own opinions, but we ask that they respect the values of the organization and abide by its policies, which they have agreed to by becoming members."

[Bob White]

Packsaddle,

 

How is the treatment of homosexuality any different from the BSA treatment of drugs, alcohol or even smoking. All four behaviours are seen as contrary to the values of the Oath and Law. None of these behaviors are to be supported as positive behavior when dealing with scouts. A Leader who supports a lifestyle of alcohol use or smoking (even if they themselves do not participate) can and should be removed from the program.

 

Can they do it in private, that is a personal decision, as long as the behavior is not supported to the scouts. The BSa has no intention of controling your behavior, they can't. They can control what behavior the scouts can be exposed to and what values are supported as positive and what values are not to be presented in any form.

 

Rooster, The fact that the BSA does not seek out to determine if a member is athiest or homosexual or a drinker etc. has nothing to do with manpower or resources. The BSA does not do it because they have no interest in doing it. It would serve no purpose in the program to do so.

 

If an indiviodual should show through public word or action that they reject the values that they agreed to support, they have in effect resigned from the program, they have just forgotten to leave.

 

You cannot live a public life that does not reflect scouting values and expect to be able to support the BSA values as a leader without cofusing the scouts and detracting from the program.

 

Bob White

 

 

[CubPack495]

YakHerder, thank you for posting the news that National has the COL position statement on-line. I've been following this thread as well as messages elsewhere, and as a member of COL, I've been wondering where the news media got its information. That prompted me to contact council to see if our policy truly had changed, and I've had the position statement for a couple of days now. It is clear to me, unless I am misunderstanding something, that the media reported in error. For that I am glad, for regardless of where one stands on the issue of homosexuals in Scouting, I think it's a positive thing to see that COL did not simply disregard/defy National. I'd like to say too that I appreciate the lively but respectful postings on this board! ~Laurie

[eisely]

Fancy that. The media report was in error. Shocking - truly shocking. We wouldn't be talking about The New York Times would we?

[packsaddle]

Bob White, I'll try to address your questions as I understand them. The difference is that the leaders who use tobacco or drink alcohol in public (and I know plenty of these leaders) are not dismissed - as long as those leaders do not promote the practice to the boys. This difference is quite clear. Regarding tobacco use, for example, at our camp such leaders are explicitly instructed by BSA "to try to keep the boys from seeing it" (use of tobacco). Thus it is clear that 1) BSA has knowledge of the leaders' addiction and 2) BSA actually condones the practice on BSA property (just try to hide it). Alcohol is strictly forbidden at camp but I know plenty of leaders who 'share the spirits' in public on numerous other occasions (beer preferences have been discussed peripherally in the past in these forums). As long as they don't promote alcohol use by the boys, BSA does nothing.

Legal drugs, as far as I know, have no restriction whatsoever for use by leaders (aside from whatever prescription limits apply). Illegal drugs, obviously, are illegal and their use constitutes an actual crime. In that case BSA not only can dismiss a leader but it also has the obligation to report the crime for prosecution.

[Bob White]

Excuse me packsadlle but you are incorrect regarding scoutings policy on the use of tobacco, drugs and alcohol. Nowhere does the BSA say "The BSA has written policies supporting your claim that "our camp such leaders are explicitly instructed by BSA "to try to keep the boys from seeing it"

 

The BSA says that the use of those products in the view of scouts is prohibited. The G2SS says DON'T do it not "try not to do it".

 

A leader who violates this policy will be eligible for the same revocation of membership as any adult that supports values in opposition to the Oath and Law. The BSA does search out which leaders smoke and which don't. They jusy say don't let the scouts know and don't support it. We even teach anti-smoking, we do not teach hetero, or homosexual behaviour.

 

If a scouter were to publicly support let's say the use of controlled drugs in a public really he would treated no differently than a leader at a rally supporting homosexual lifestyles.

 

Or if a scouter publicly supported the rights of scout leaders to smoke during scouting events and not have to hide their behavior, would be treated the same as a leader who did not want to hide there sexual preference.

 

This entire argument is about supporting behavior that is not deemed in keeping with the values of the Oath and Law, and spreads far beyond sexuality and religion. If you do not support values that the Oath and Law represent you cannot be expected to be an effective, functioning, leader.

 

Bob White

[Hunt]

"A Leader who supports a lifestyle of alcohol use or smoking (even if they themselves do not participate) can and should be removed from the program."

 

Are you saying that the editor of Wine Spectator, or an employee of Phillip Morris should be removed from the program? Or do you just mean that they can't support these activities for underage Boy Scouts?

 

[Bob White]

Good question Hunt. I'm saying that there are other behaviors besides homosexuality that are considered legal by the community that can be considered in opposition to the Oath and Law and that the BSA can, and has, taken the same action in revoking membership as they have with atheists and homosexuals.

 

If you make your personal views and lifestyle more prominent than the values of the Oath and Law, then you interfere with the mission of the program and risk revocation of membership.

 

Bob White

[packsaddle]

Bob White, I think I understand you on all this. I mentioned the instructions we received at camp because at the time those instructions were the only authority for that camp. You may be correct that they disagree with BSA but it is a BSA Council-run Scout camp. FYI, on those occasions over the years I make myself unpopular by protesting loudly if tobacco is forbidden for the boys, the adults ought to be able to do without as well. Perhaps we have another rogue council in need of a good rebuke. I could also mention the Council camporees where entire troops attend with 'alternative' uniforms composed of full camouflage with BSA and Troop emblems on them.

Also, I assume you meant "illegal drugs" rather than "controlled drugs" because it seems perfectly right to advocate the appropriate use of prescribed medicine.

[Bob White]

The BSA program does not differentiate between the use of illegal drugs and the misuse of any drug. Neither is acceptable.

BW

 

 

[Rooster7]

Bob White,

 

Rooster, The fact that the BSA does not seek out to determine if a member is athiest or homosexual or a drinker etc. has nothing to do with manpower or resources. The BSA does not do it because they have no interest in doing it. It would serve no purpose in the program to do so.

 

I agree with your previous posts on this matter, but I have to disagree with the above statement. How can an organization set a standard for moral behavior, require its compliance for membership, but also claim they have no interest in knowing whether or not its members are conforming? That makes no sense. Of course, they want to know whether or not they are accepting a member who is an atheist, or a homosexual, or a drunk. Why even have a standard if it matters not whether or not members conform to it? Theres a practical matter here that cannot be ignored. To make these discoveries, to verify conformance, the BSA would have to invest an inordinate amount of time and money. Furthermore, since much of this behavior is conducted in private, the BSA would be in the very seamy business of probing into peoples personal lives. For most folks, it would be tantamount to a witch-hunt. This kind of intrusiveness might reveal a few homosexuals (or drunks, or atheists, etc.), but it would also offend most of the BSA membership who willingly complies with the standard. Its just not worth the financial or political costs.

 

So, yes I understand why the BSA doesnt do it. But, one cannot claim that the BSA has no interest in knowing, or worse that it serves no purpose. The purpose would be to weed out members that dont want to follow the moral standard set by the BSA. That seems reasonable to me. But as Ive pointed out, for these cases the cost would be too high and the means far less than 100 percent efficient.

 

Bob, if you stand by your original statement (noted above) than please reconcile my question:

 

How can an organization set a standard for moral behavior, require its compliance for membership, but also claim they have no interest in knowing whether or not its members are conforming?

 

Now, before anyone exploits and twists my words into something unrecognizable. I am not implying that members must be morally perfect or face expulsion from the program. I am saying, those members who willingly ignore the standards set by the BSA and make no effort to conform to them, should be expelled. It is not the same thing as being perfectno more so than a Christian who struggles to meet the standards of the Bible. The point isnt whether or not the standard is always met Its whether or not you believe in the standard. On occasion, I can lose my temper, but I do not believe in venting my anger on people.

[Bob White]

Rooster,

 

I never said the BSA had no interest in knowing. I said the BSA no interest in seeking them out. It is not a function of the program, nor would it enhance the mission.

 

It has nothing to do with the amount of resources that may be needed. Even with the resources the BSA has already said they would not do it.

 

Bob White

[Rooster7]

Bob White,

 

Okay - a careful reading of your post confirms your assertion ("no interest in doing so" vice "not wanting to know") - Nevertheless, I still maintain that it would serve a legitimate purpose. If the people running the program don't have the same values as the BSA, I find it difficult to believe that they actual teach those values to Scouts. In short, the program would be better off without those individuals, because - presumably, people who believe in the BSA program and its values would take their place. However, as I already stated, it would not be worth the financial or political costs to root out a few "loose cannons".

 

[Bob White]

My concern with your post Rooster is that there are people who will read it and say "Ah ha! If the Scouting program had the resources in money and manpower they would finance a witch hunt to ferret out homosexuals." and that is simply not true. It has nothing to with resources or political fallout. If political fallout was a deciding factor they would have folded their principles long ago.

 

It is simply not the mission of scouting to go looking for these individuals. Your words and public behavior either support the values of the program or they do not. The BSA would remove an adult who used vulgar language or promoted vulgarity for the same reason they would remove someone who publicly supported homosexuality. But if you only use that language in the privacy of your home the BSA is not going to try and discover whether or not you swear.

 

The BSA has made this clear in a position statement you can read on the national website. To suggest that the reasons are otherwise, misrepresents the scouting program.

 

Bob White