It's not as popular as some think

[packsaddle]

Too subtle again. My characterization was of the action taken by BSA regarding UU boy scouts. I find the overall program to be valuable to the boys. I criticize this policy or any new policy that may be formulated in the future if it needlessly gives unequal treatment to the boys.

 

But call it what you want, boy scouts of any religion except UUA are allowed to wear the religious medal that they earned. UU boy scouts are disallowed because BSA disagrees with UUA ideas and literature.

This may seem a small issue to some persons. In my view the fact that BSA decided to do something this 'small' to boy scouts belonging to a religious minority makes the action that much more deserving of criticism. I add that I find support for my view in scripture: Matthew 25. Although the whole chapter is relevant, the essential point can be found in the last few verses, number 46 being even harsher than anything I've said here.

 

To answer your question, my son finished his eagle quite a while back. I continue to work with the troop because they need the leadership, the boys enjoy my leadership, and I enjoy working with them. Incidentally, I'm a little curious about the idea that BSA 'serves' me. I've really never thought of BSA as 'serving' me. I rather thought that I 'serve' the troop. Am I in error?

[Bob White]

pdunbar,

If by "the BSA executives" you are referring to the professionals then you are terribly mistaken because they do not make the rules. Do you know who does?

 

I am confident that no one in the BSA disagrees with your right to protest rules you do not like. Just understand that that your rights do not include maintaining your membership in the BSA if you protest publicly.

 

You have a responsibility to make your protest through the prescribed methods and channels made available to you by the BSA or else the BSA has the right to end your membership.

 

Do not confuse your right to protest with the BSA's right to free association.

[evmori]

I am confident that no one in the BSA disagrees with your right to protest rules you do not like. Just understand that that your rights do not include maintaining your membership in the BSA if you protest publicly.

You have a responsibility to make your protest through the prescribed methods and channels made available to you by the BSA or else the BSA has the right to end your membership.

 

So the BSA is allowed to trample on an individuals 1st Amendment right? I don't think so. If I want to stand up in the town square and scream at the top of my lungs "the BSA rules about patch placement on uniforms is stupid" there isn't a thing the BSA can do! I am allowed to express my opinion! This is the USA not the USSR!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt]

No, the BSA has the right to toss you out if you publicly criticize their patch placement rules--they are, in fact, a private organization that has the right to set its own membership requirements. But most organizations don't kick people out because they disagree with some aspect of the organization's policies. They might kick you out if you publicly criticize a "core" value--i.e., you might get kicked out of some churches if you deny the divinity of Christ. But I just don't see how expressing the opinion that COs ought to have the authority to determine whether gays can be leaders or members is a denial of the core values of scouting--since that authority has been given to COs on many other such decisions. Certainly, morality and reverence are core scouting values, but in most contexts the COs have been allowed to determine how those values affect membership and leadership requirements.

[pdunbar]

BobWhite

 

Do you believe that the day will come when we will see girls in standard scouting? Not just in venturing.

[packsaddle]

Hunt,

As an aside to your post, the first minister in my life was kicked out by our church because he did not support racial segregation. That church was as dead-set on segregation as BSA seems to be on its gay policy. They had the right to take the action they did. They were wrong. Many members of that congregation still think the same way (but very quietly) 40 years later.

[NJCubScouter]

Hunt,

 

Well said, I agree fully.

[Shell in WA- USA]

Civic Rights (segregation) and "Core Values" (Moral values) are two seperate issues.

[Bob White]

Pdunbar,

It seems doubtful unless the Girls Scout program collapses. The BSA initiated a proposed merger of the two programs a few years back into one organization called Scouting of America (or something similar to that). The discussions between the two organizations were eventually ended by the Girl Scouts. I was told that they were concerned that the overwhelmingly larger membership of the BSA would overpower the heritage and contributions of the Girl Scout movement and so they chose to remain independent.

 

The BSA has refrained from extending the co-ed program beyond Venturing out of respect for the Girl Scout program. As long as the GSUSA exists it is unlikely the BSA will ever be co-ed beyond Venturing.

[acco40]

Why do conservatives always see great secret clans of activists trying to force them to change their ways? BW and FOG, get off your moral high horse!

 

Everyone, take a completely hypothetical situation that I believe illustrates a fundamental difference in thinking that many of us have.

 

Let's say a recent decision by the BSA states: "In a return to REAL traditional values, the BSA believes that uncircumsized males cannot serve as proper role models to our male youth. Therefore, openly uncircumsized males are not allowed BSA membership. However, the BSA will not actively seek out proof of circumcision for our adult male leaders." The debate rages on with quotes of scripture, political correctness, tradtional values, letting units set their own policy, morality, etc. It is a devisive issue and a few uncircumsized Eagles get booted out.

 

Now, how would our tipless and "tipped" and female Scouters respond to such an edict? I think the "if you don't share these values you are shameful in keeping membership" argument is hogwash for this example. Similarly, for the gay issue I feel the same. I feel the BSA policy with respect to gay leaders is misguided. I also feel that it falls in the "be careful to pick your battles" arena as low on the priority list wrt my involvement and my sons.

 

The BSA should look at the character of their leaders, specifically at their actions. In defense of the BSA, letting the COs have total responsibility to determine character goes to far because many events include multiple CO units. However, if we exclude members to the least restrictive guidelines of all COs, I don't think anyone would make the grade. Some feel the bland act of just "being" gay is immoral (even celibate gays). Others can't comprehend why a loving gay relationship would be considered anything but moral. Why does the BSA choose to make this a particular issue of choice? I'll be crass, I think it boils down to money. If gay leaders were allowed, I feel the BSA feels that membership would shrink and certain COs would squawk. Can't say that I disagree. I also believe that this will change (and not soon enough!).

 

Now on to bigger and more important issues!

[eagle54]

 

To me the reality is that when value get dumbed down you do open a Pandora's box. Are we going to saying that lying on advancement reports is okay. As there are former gluttons there are cerebrate homosexuals our behaviors do change. All of us do change - if we believe that change is not possible we might as well execute all convicted felons since they can not change. (PS I am using this for argumentative purposes I have seen convicted felons change - those who believe that God can change are more successful in changes.) It is a privilege to see the change that takes place as the Scout goes up the trail to eagle. There is a reality that if I am doing something I know is wrong part of me wants others to tell me it is okay but when I use history to set out morals that have built up not torn-ed down. As someone change happens but not all change is good. True love tells a friend why I think what he is doing is wrong.

[Bob White]

Acco40

 

Just a reminder that I had nothing to do with setting the membership policies of the BSA. That is done by a board of volunteer representatives of chartering organizations a scout councils from across the country. As the representatives of their scouting communities they have always been the administrative bodies that have set the standards of the BSA.

 

As a volunteer member I would find it incredibly hypocritical to belong to an organizations whose values I resented as reflected in some of the posts I have read in this thread and others. Membership in the BSA is not mandatory nor is it an individuals right. Why on earth would someone join or remain if you found the values or actions of the program repugnant in any way? Why would anyone expect that their participation in a private organization is protected in any way?

 

I have no problem acknowledging my membership in the BSA and my acceptance of its values. I am comfortable explaining my participation to anyone even those who disagree with their long standing membership expectations. Even if the BSA altered its standards in a my way I would continue to support them for as long as I choose (or was allowed) to remain a member.

 

If that is riding a moral high horse then all I can say is "Giddy-yup".

 

 

[Hunt]

Bob White wrote: "As a volunteer member I would find it incredibly hypocritical to belong to an organizations whose values I resented as reflected in some of the posts."

 

I agree with this, to a point. Somebody who thinks BSA is a conspiracy of evil probably should not belong. But surely you wouldn't think this of somebody who, like me, merely thinks that the question of gay leadership/membership should be left up to COs? In fact, I would probably not want my son to be in a troop with gay leaders (just as I wouldn't want him to be in a troop that banned female leaders, or that required leaders belong to a particular church). Indeed, I would be on the other side of this issue if the question was whether BSA should require all COs to eliminate discrimination against gays (as it does with racial discrimination). I just think it's odd for BSA to tell denominations with gay clergy that they can't sponsor a troop with gay leaders.

 

Let me put this another way--the suggestion that somebody should quit if they are suggesting a radical change in core policies has some bite. Thus, somebody who wants to eliminate the belief in God requirement is, in my judgement, advocating a truly radical change. But, also in my judgement, leaving the gay issue to COs would not be a radical change in core policies. It would not require a rewriting of the Scout Oath or Law, or the Guide to Safe Scouting, or the Handbook, etc. Now if the leaders of BSA want to make a rule that anybody who thinks the way I do can't be a member, that's their prerogative. But they haven't done that, so I feel that my views are fully consistent with staying in the organization.

[fotoscout]

Acco40,

 

Your issue about money and this BSA policy is well founded. In another thread I referred to a Newsweek article that discussed just this point. Basically the article referred to the financial (and program) ramifications of the relationship that BSA had entered into with LDS and other blocks of COs, and, the policy limitations (and decisions) that have come about as a result of those relationships. In the end, the reader is left with the thought that BSA unwittingly got stuck between a rock and hard place.

 

BW, dismissed the article as just one mans opinion. Of course the rest of us realize that any article in a publication like Newsweek, let alone a cover story, goes through far more scrutiny that just one man.

 

The article makes very good reading, and I recommend it to all of you! I looked for the article online, but unfortunately I cant find it to reproduce here. It was printed in late 2002 or early 2003.

 

[Bob White]

OOPS sorry the spell checker works but now I guess I need Grammar check.

 

I wrote "Even if the BSA altered its standards in a my way I would continue to support them for as long as I choose (or was allowed) to remain a member. "

 

That should have been...

 

Even if the BSA altered its standards in (any way I would continue to support them for as long as I choose (or was allowed) to remain a member.

 

BW