Prejudice will drive more away than it will draw near

[evmori]

Bob,

You won't know unless you ask each one & listen to their response. The one who says "Because that's what the rule is" is probably the mindless one.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White]

Let me see if I understand your positon Ed. You say that if you see two people both obeying the rules, you know which one is mindless because he is the one who knows what the rule is.

 

So then the one that doesn't know what the rule is what Ed?

 

 

Merlyn, The BSA says that to be a leader you cannot be an avowed homosexual. Since the ACLU has never filed a lawsuit against Merriam-Webster you may be unfamiliar with the definition of "avowed". It means to state openly, bluntly, without shame.

I, for instance, am an avowed supporter of the BSA.

If a BSA member were to come up to me and state they were homosexual they would have violated that condition of membership.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

You still haven't told me where this supposed rule is written.

[Eagledad]

>>See, I'm much less concerned about "injustice" or "fairness" on this issue... for me it is not about whether gay men should be Scoutmasters.

[Bob White]

Merlyn,

Since A)you are not a member of the BSA, B)you have no intention of becomeing a member C)this standard does not involve government funding or the use of government facilities, and D)this standard is readily available to all members, why do you care?

[Hunt]

"Hunt

Your are suggesting that the BSA about allowing each unit to determine what the values of the BSA are."

 

I think a better way of putting it is that I am suggesting that since BSA already allows COs to trump certain BSA membership and leadership requirements based on the values of the CO, it should consider adding this particular membership and leadership requirement to the list. BSA allows COs (not "units" as you keep saying, for some reason) to exclude female leaders, and to discriminate on the basis of religion. To me, it is extremely odd for BSA to claim that it is wholly non-sectarian, and then to offer charters to COs that limit memberships on the basis of religion. I don't really see the principle there, unless it is the principle that in some areas the values of the COs are allowed to predominate.

Of course, BSA gets to say what it's values are, but they have changed some of them over time, in at least one notable case going from a blanket rule (no female leaders) to allowing COs to decide. In the case of female leaders, which "value" of BSA was right--the one espoused before the change, or the one reflected by the change?

[EagleInKY]

Well put Barry. I agree with your logic.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Bob, why can't you tell me where this supposed "rule" is written?

You say it's "readily available to members", but that's just dodging the question.

 

You've claimed that a member telling you he's gay is actually violating a rule, a rule readily available to members; which rule? What's the wording of the rule?

If you keep dodging the question, I'm sure some other BSA member can come up with the same rule, since it's readily available.

 

Unless there IS no such rule.

[Bob White]

Hunt

Your premise is flawed. the COs are not trumping the BSA in any way. With the exception of racial discrimination COs are allowed by the BSA to be more restrictive than the BSA membership standards.

 

What you are suggesting is that they also be allowed to be less restrictive. Well what is the use of a law or policy if you allow anyone to be less restrictive? A comparable situation would be traffic laws. If the speed limit is 40mph it is legal to go 35 but you cannot go over 40. If the law allowed that, then the speed limit itself becomes pointless and chaos follows.

 

Can you think of any national organization whose policies can be altered at will to be less restrictive?

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[acco40]

Barry, I feel your pain. I (an engineer) grew up in a household led by my psychologist father!

 

I enjoyed your post. It is true, boys (and girls), troubled or not, do seek out boundaries. You state that moral decision-making is the only tool you have to give a boy the boundaries where he can see himself in the future, and see how to build respect toward himself. What if a boy believes himself to be gay? Should he not have adult role models too? Do we want him to feel shame about his feelings? Do we want to encourage self-loathing?

 

I don't want to debate genetics, learned behavior, etc. but I think Scouting can teach our youth, regardless of their sexuality, about fidelity, respect, and numerous other fine qualities. Now as a Scout leader, I don't see myself as a heterosexual adult role model - I see myself as a role model period. Many religions view homosexuality as a sin. Many do not. Why not allow COs to choose their leaders FULLY.

 

Try this analogy on for size. Let's say the Scouting program was identical the way it is right now except for an added "Declaration of Meatless Fridays" clause. I for one would still be tempted to join up, allow my boys to reap the benefits of Scouting, etc. even though I was somewhat ambivalent about the Meatless Fridays declaration. Yes it may have some worth, Americans do tend to eat too much red meat. Similar to the tradition of Ramadan and other periods of fasting (Ordeal weekend ring a bell?) can teach us to reflect on worthwhile things. But if asked (please don't ask by whom!) why Friday?, why meat? do you really believe this?, etc. I may answer no. I'm sure I would be called a hypocrite, asked to go start my own program, be criticized if I wanted to change that declaration, etc.

 

Now on the flip size, let's say the BSA relented and made the Meatless Friday a CO option. What about Jamborees, Conclaves, District events - i.e. anything with multiple units participating? Should most go meatless on Friday out of respect for those who do believe? Should one go up an chomp on a juicy steak in front of others to show defiance? Choose your battles wisely.

[Bob White]

Merlyn,

The information I share on this board is for the benefit of scouters, scouts, and families of scouts, who are looking to enjoy the program. Since you do not fit any of the elements of that profile I have no interest in helping you.

 

You choose to spend your time attacking a program that means a great deal to me. I could not care less where you get your answer, knowing as I do that you will only look for ways to use it to further your goal and not Sscouting. Please do not write me again.

[Hunt]

Bob, I don't think my analogy is flawed at all. At one time, all BSA units were forbidden to allow any women to be leaders (except Den Mothers). I assume--correct me if I am wrong--that there was some principle or value behind this total prohibition. Then, in a series of decisions, leadership was opened to females, although COs were allowed to retain the restriction if they choose to do so. Presumably, the new principle or value is a recognition that the decision of whether to have female leaders is best left to COs, which have their own values with regard to such matters.

As far as gay leaders go, we are currently in the place we used to be with female leaders--prohibition. If you want to say BSA would be changing its values if it allowed COs to make this decision, fine--then what I am saying is that there are strong arguments for making the same kind of change with respect to this issue that was made with respect to female leaders. You can certainly disagree with those arguments, but you can't really argue that BSA has not, does not, and can not make such changes, if the decisionmakers become persuaded that it's the appropriate thing to do.

 

I'm glad you brought up racial discrimination, because I don't want to suggest that all decisions be left up to COs (although you seem to be hinting that by saying things about making changes "at will," etc.) Clearly, I think BSA is right in not chartering any CO that would (at least overtly) discriminate based on race. I've never gotten a clear answer on whether that, too, was a change in BSA policy at some point in its history--if it was, I applaud it.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Bob, it's pretty clear there IS no such rule.

 

The BSA still doesn't state in any of its materials that gays can't join.

James Dale didn't realize that gays couldn't join, because nothing stated that.

 

And when I call you on the same sort of unwritten rules, you dodge the question on the irrelevant pretext that I'm not a BSA member.

[Bob White]

Hunt how can I get you to see that you again give an example of how the COs are allowed to be more restrictive but not less.

 

You cannot have a rule and then allow others to create one that is less restictive and still have any pupose to having the rule.

 

Lokk at it it this way The BSA says you cannot have alcohol on at a scouting event when children are presnt. If the Co wants they can be more restrictive, The can say you can't have alcohol at their units scouting event even if their are NO children present. they cansat you can't have alcohol or caffiene products. They can say you can't have Kool-aid if they want. They can be more restrictive than the rule.

 

BUT they cannot be less restrictive, They cannot say have alcohol whenver you want scouts or no scouts. They can't say that scouts can have alcohol when no adults are around. They can't say you can have beer but no hard liquor when scouts are around.

 

More restrictive but not less. That is not trumping the BSA that is working within their rules.

[evmori]

"Let me see if I understand your position Ed. You say that if you see two people both obeying the rules, you know which one is mindless because he is the one who knows what the rule is.

 

So then the one that doesn't know what the rule is what Ed?"

 

Not what I said Bob. That's what you want to interpret what I said to mean. And that's not what I meant.

 

The BSA doesn't want mindless obedience. No decent organization does! All that would do is stifle creativity because people would be too worried about the consequences!

 

Are we to obey the rules & regs the BSA has in place? Yes we are. Are all those rules & regs so definitive that there is no room for individual interpretation? No.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10