FYI

[Eagle74]

Found this site accidentally tonite; if it's a repost, sorry:

 

BSA Discrimination

http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/index.html

 

Interesting.

 

 

 

[VentureScoutNY]

 

That website is basically anti BSA. It is biased even when it discusses both sides of the debate. IMO

[Eagle74]

Know your adversary.

 

"When in a political war, a Hun must always keep an eye to the rear."

Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun

Wess Roberts, Ph.D.

[buffalo2]

Someone's got a serious agenda going here...

Kinda scary

[Proud Eagle]

I looked at that site quite a while back while gathering some intelligence on the various foes of the BSA. (Which I then compiled into a report that I presented at a secret meeting I attended at a unacknowledged facility I was flown to in the unmarked black BSA helicopter.) :-)

 

The site was quite informative about the true motiviations and desires of the BSA's opponents.

 

It makes it quite clear that the objective of these people is not some sort of reform, but rather to destroy the BSA entirely. Though I must say, this is by no means the most passionate or extreme of the anti-BSA groups, a fact that is somewhat disturbing...

 

I am really not a fan of a anti-Scouting group using a modified world crest as their apparent logo on their website.(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

[NJCubScouter]

ProudEagle says, about the site bsa-discrimination.org:

 

The site was quite informative about the true motiviations and desires of the BSA's opponents.

 

It makes it quite clear that the objective of these people is not some sort of reform, but rather to destroy the BSA entirely. Though I must say, this is by no means the most passionate or extreme of the anti-BSA groups, a fact that is somewhat disturbing...

 

ProudEagle, can you cite some specific examples from that web site to support your statement that their objective is to "destroy the BSA entirely"? Or that their objective is NOT "some sort of reform"? I had looked at the site a few times in the past, but after seeing your post, went back and read some (not all) of the material there. There is a lot of information there that appears to be factual, and there are also expressions of the writers' own opinions, which should not be surprising. Obviously their opinion is that certain BSA policies are wrong. I assume they believe that these policies should be changed, though I did not see anything specifically advocating that. On the other hand, I did not see anything specifically advocating anything. I certainly did not see anything advocating destruction of the BSA. I didn't even see anything that implied that.

 

But perhaps it is there and I missed it. Where did you find it?

 

[NJCubScouter]

I just went back to that site and found this:

 

While the Scouting movement's principles are noble and worthwhile, Scouting, as a human institution, has been guilty of corrupting those principles in the past on issues of race, political ideology, sex, socio-economics, and religion. Most of those failings have been corrected by Scouting, but today, Scouting has once again corrupted its bedrock principles of equality and openness on the issue of sexual orientation.

 

Does that sound like people who want to destroy Scouting? Maybe it does to some of you. To me it sounds like an expression of concern that "Scouting" (or as I would phrase it, the current national leadership of the BSA) has gone down the wrong path on this issue and is acting contrary to the true principles of Scouting. In fact their statement sounds very similar to statements I have made, except that I am more specific about who I am talking about, and I don't think I've ever used the word "corrupted" or its variations. I probably have said "distorted" in the same context. It's the same concept, they just use a stronger word. Who knows, maybe they got the idea from my posts. (Just kidding.)

 

As for their statements about unfortunate aspects of Scouting's past, I know what they are referring to in terms of race and I guess I know what they mean in terms of "religion" and "sex," but I don't understand the references to discrimination on the basis of "political ideology" or "socioeconomics." Unless, with political ideology, they are referring to same issue as today. I myself have said that the belief that gays should be excluded is both a religious belief and a political belief. I have a feeling they are referring to something else with "political ideology," but I am not going to guess.