Did the BSA ignore molestation warnings?

[torribug]

What are us laypeople to do? Err on the side of caution. There could be a 50% cure rate. But I think that hoping that the person you approve could be among that 50% is a little like playing Russian roulette. If a psychiatrist says that a pedophile is "cured", then maybe it's okay to have them live back into society instead of being institutionalized foreveer (although I personally don't agree with that, the name John Couey sticks in my mind right now) - it DOESN'T mean that they should be given carte blanche access to children.

 

To use another analogy: You don't go and put a nice tall, sudsy, cold mug of beer in front of a thirsty person who just got their 90-day coin from Alocholoics Anonymous and say, "I'm going to leave you alone with this; I know you won't touch it, because you're cured" and walk away.

 

I think the counselor who said he was cured shares part of the blame. I wonder if he (she?) sleeps well at night.

 

 

[anarchist]

Prairie_Scouter,

 

I suggest you reread you own last post...even my 15 year old son picked up on an obvious slant to your posting...

 

It appears that you are looking for an answer that agrees with the opinion you have already formed...Semantically loaded questions and examples point to a bias already formed...There are many references and stories around, visit the web, a library or call Merlyn...but my guess is you want the BSA program to be inclusive of a certain segment of our society currently excluded. Any thing less is a failing of the BSA program no matter that now more than ever more socio-economic groups, races, and folks of different religions have the opportunity to participate in scouting...

or am I just reading too many psychology books lately?

 

good luck with your quest or is it a crusade?(This message has been edited by anarchist)

[Prairie_Scouter]

Anarchist,

Well, I can't disagree with you. I was pretty clear in my last post that I have my own points of view on where Scouting is and where I think it should be. The point of my examples wasn't to explain what bias I have, but to bring some examples to light in the hopes that somebody will say, "well, that's true", or "well, no, that's not quite right". We all have biases based on things we think we know or just our own personal beliefs. I *think* what I was trying to say was that "I've got this view, and here are a couple of examples that lead me to believe that I'm correct in that view; what do you guys think of these examples?".

 

I'd be perfectly happy to be able to say, "you know, I understand the BSA policy on gays and where it came from. From their perspective, it makes sense; I just don't agree with it". Where I am right now, tho, is looking at what BSA says about gays and not seeing any sense to it, or having any historical perspective of how it got that way. What I see are arguments from BSA that seem to conflict with their own policies, or are just arbitrary findings, like "gays aren't able to be "morally straight".

[fgoodwin]

Prairie Scouter writes:I'd be perfectly happy to be able to say, "you know, I understand the BSA policy on gays and where it came from. From their perspective, it makes sense; I just don't agree with it". Where I am right now, tho, is looking at what BSA says about gays and not seeing any sense to it, or having any historical perspective of how it got that way. What I see are arguments from BSA that seem to conflict with their own policies, or are just arbitrary findings, like "gays aren't able to be "morally straight".Actually, I think "morally straight" has meant that from the beginning. Here's a link to a book written in 1915, "The Scout Law in Practice", and I think the author would be appalled at any suggestion that homosexuals could be considered "morally straight":

 

http://ecommunity.uml.edu/scouting26/sctlaw/chptv.html#Straight

[anarchist]

Prarie_Scouter,

 

What is being missed here? The organization says...homosexuals are not eligible for leadership or membership in the organization/movement...take it as a personal (corporate) belief...what is so hard to understand?

 

Many organizations doing tremendous amounts of good work have their own membership requirements...US ARMY for one, numerous church and fraternal organizations additionally...

 

Societies in general and orgainizations in particular have cyclic lives. They go through 'conservative' and 'liberal' swings usually in response to events and pressures in the real world. U.S. history, Church history even world history bears this premise out. War, hunger, crime, poverty, rapid change, new discoveries and economic upheaval all can lead (frequently?) to revivals, renaisances, retrenching, change, or growth. These things can even cause the break down of societies or countries...

 

To see a dramatic change in the supposedly 'new' antigay stance by BSA is grasping...

More cogent would be the realization that certain members of our society inorder to validate their own existence find a powerful need to brake-down any and all 'barriers' they find. They do this to enhance their own feeling of self-worth. Why else would someone find a need to 'belong' to an organization regardless of the discomfort their overt presence evoked in the other participants in that 'movement'?

 

There is no law (or rule even) to prevent Gay men from starting their own outdoors-based organization. So why the need to force ones self into an organization that just says no???

 

crusade or not at least you don't call folks names...

 

 

[Prairie_Scouter]

Anarchist,

 

Not really meaning to crusade, just discuss.

 

Regards this...

>>What is being missed here? The organization says...homosexuals are not eligible for >>leadership or membership in the organization/movement...take it as a personal (corporate) >>belief...what is so hard to understand?

Not hard to understand, just wondering who in BSA gets to decide where the line is drawn? What happens if they next say, "blacks are not eligible for....". Would that be ok, too?

 

If their whole argument falls back on the phrase "morally straight", then you have to go back to who decides what is "morally straight", and in that case, I think anyone could make a strong case that BSA is violating its own statements on being non-sectarian by espousing a policy that is directly aligned with some groups' religious beliefs, and not others.

 

The fact that BSA "says so" doesn't necessarily make it right. If, as you say, it's a "corporate belief", I'd say that no other "corporation" in the U.S. could get away with something like that.

 

Part of the problem, I think, is that BSA plays pretty loosely with the rules it likes to live by, in effect, their own little view of the universe. They say "how dare you question our policies? We have a right to make our own rules.", while at the same time denouncing organizations who deny them funding only because they are following THEIR own rules. Don't THEY have a right to live under their own rules, too? That's why, in the big picture, I think the whole issue of touchy subjects like gays and athiests has pretty much nothing to do with some sort of "moral obligation" BSA has to protect some set of beliefs as much as it is a political game for power and money. That's why I'll stick with the local units, where the REAL work of Scouting is done, and where the most worthwhile work is done, and let the national organization do it's game playing, hoping that it doesn't do too much damage in the process.

 

And no, I won't call names, or try to denigrate other folks here. I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind, and that's not really my intent. I just like the discussion, mostly.

 

[anarchist]

Prarie_Scouter,

 

corporate rather than Corporate; as in a group or formal organization not necessarily incorporated...sharing goals and purpose. It is somewhat naive to think Corporations do not have numerous (non PC) biases. (And get away with it...as do many STATE GOVERMENTS...AND US ARMED SERVICES...and many Churches...etc, etc, etc. Most Corporations are only concerned with the almighty dollar thusly present a PC face to the world or face being hurt in the market place...BSA is not Most Corporations.

 

The Black issue is a hypothetical and a non starter...debate wise...(merlyns straw man?)

 

And your terribly flawed argument about BSA being sectarian due to its position being the same as one (or more)denonination(s) and different from your denominational preference demonstrates that we have beat this horse to death 'cause it's (the arguement) so darn weak!

 

My belief in one area might be the same as a Methodist...that doesn't make me a member of that church...

I can believe in some of the same things a Catholic believes...that does not make me a Papist (like that word?), I can believe something Mohammed said... I am not a Muslim...and I can disagree with a Baptist and still be one...or not...

 

A similar position on any particular policy does not in any way even come close to suggesting denominational or sectarian unity... ask the Episcopal Church...

 

I will not argue right or wrong, fair or unfair... the God rule as well as a societal bias against homosexuality was in the organization from the earliest years...

 

If you sit at my poker table, I can make the rules...you can play or go find another game that choice is aways open to you...

 

And if you can convince the legal system to abandon Scouting after years of service...that's the breaks...we will gripe, (even we don't like the 'rules' to appear to be changing)...But in the end it is our game...

 

Power and money??? this 'fight' is about folks that don't like the rules, our rules...to say that the BSA is whining when the Government is "just playing by its rules" is on the face incorrect...the courts are now re-intrepreting the same Constitution that functioned with scouting for over 75 years under a more "PC" 'socio-pablem' way...sorta kinder gentler left wing activist sort of way...and thats the breaks, too...we will survive.

 

Personal story...these discussions led me to ask a bunch of folks (11), parents in our troop, while we were just sitting around in the parents pen (room) waiting for the SPL and Scout Master to finish up...the "QUESTION"...'What they would do if BSA was required to allow homosexual leaders join the troop..."

(This discussion took place in the Basement of a United Methodist Church, In the near suburbs of a major metropolitain area. Ten of the eleven members of this group of parents have had at least 4 years of college and are in the upper middle class socio- economically) Most of their scouts are 11-12-13 year olds.

 

Eleven out of eleven said, without hesitation, they would withdraw from scouting. I wonder if National has that in mind?

Bias or fear? Just for arguements sake; Is the potential distruction of a national scouting program worth the personal validation for (what?) 10% or less of the population ...the 'injured class'? Interesting question?

[scoutingagain]

 

As far as I know, no one is talking about requiring individual units to accept gay members. Individual units are allowed to discriminate based on gender and religion so there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on sexual preference as well. All most are asking, is that sexual preference be put in the same category as gender and religion, i.e. allow for a local option. So as a parent, you could choose to join a unit that allowed gay leaders to be members or not. So the proper question to ask is what would parents do if a charter was granted to another unit that did allow gay leaders? Would they quit the current troop that didn't?

 

For the record I tend to agree with Prarie Scouter on the gay issue, but I have wondered about the question put forth by Anarchist as well.

 

So, for the sake of discusion:

 

As of July 1, 2004 there were an estimated 220 million adults over the age of 18 in the US. (From the US Census website.) Of those 1.2 million are adult volunteers in the BSA, or 0.6% (From the posted 2004 State of the BSA article). If 10% of the 220 million adults are gay, that gives an estimated gay adult population of 22 million. Assuming that gay adults would volunteer to be adult leaders at the same proportion as the general adult population, 0.6% this means the current BSA policy on gay membership effects approximately 132,000 people. (0.006 x 22 million).

 

I believe this is a high estimate, because 1. The 10% figure often used as the proportion of gay people in the country is disputed and 2. I don't believe gays would volunteer at the same proportion as the general population only because I don't believe they have children in the same proportion as the general population and a large percentage of the 1.2 million adult volunteers I believe are parents.

 

So my guess is the current BSA policy on gay membership effects less than 100,000 adults, or < 0.045% of the adult population. Doesn't make it right, or wrong, it just doesn't effect a large percentage of the population.

 

So, if some units within the BSA were to open it's doors to gay members as adult leaders, I'm not expecting a hugh rush of applicants. There would also be those units that would be allowed to continue to discriminate based on sexual preference, so I don't think it would effect the membership of the troop I serve or much of the BSA one way or the other.

 

SA

 

 

[Lone]

If 10% of the 220 million adults are gay, that gives an estimated gay adult population of 22 million.

[NJCubScouter]

Lone says:

 

The point hinges on being morally straight. An individual practicing homosexuality is not, has never been, and never will be morally straight.

 

Well, not in your opinion, anyway.

 

[Snake Eater]

Check out the article in the link below. Prarie Scouter, this is the future of the Scouts as you envision them.

 

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zeiger/040812

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Hans has been discussed here before

 

http://www.therant.us/staff/bios/hans_zeiger.htm

 

He isnt exactly what I would call an independent journalist. He does have, of course, a right to his own opinions and a right to express them

 

As does Prairie_Scouter

 

[Snake Eater]

OldGray,

 

If he's not independent then he answers to an employer for what he writes. I believe you mean that he isn't unbiased, which means he has an opinion and writes from that viewpoint. Unbiased journalism is a rare thing if it exists at all.

 

With all of that said... Even if this fellow is the most biased reporter on the face of the earth if what he has presented is fact then his bias does not matter to the issue at hand. Do you dispute that BSA Canada has been in rapid decline since they changed their policies? I think that it's pretty clear that this is so unless you are saying that Mr Zieger is a liar. Or you may dispute whether the policy change was the cause of the decline - but there seems to be a positive correlation at least.

 

I don't think that I said that anyone should not have a right to have and opinion or express it here or anywhere else. Why did you feel the need to insert that comment?