So What Would You Do?

[dan]

As usually when a statement is made or a question is asked in these forums, it seems I do not have enough information to answer the question or statement, if one could answer a statement.

When you say that it is optional to be charted by the BSA, does this also mean that the charter can also have optional requirements? Meaning only gays but no atheist or only atheist and no gays? Or none of the above? What would the BSA do if this did happen and a unit would not allow atheist to go on a campout?

[fotoscout]

No surprise here, I would stay.

 

To prevent, or at least stem the tide, BSA would have to allow CO's to choose their own membership criteria with respect to god & gays. they could opt for one set of rules or the other.

 

SP, your opening thoughts on why you would stay were excellent !!! Thank you.

[Proud Eagle]

I would possibly take the following actions, depending on the exact details:

 

Wright a letter of protest and distribute it to - Scoutmaster, Troop Committee Chairman,

 

Charter Organizational Rep, Instatutional Head, District Council Regional and National Key 3s.

 

Write a letter to local media outlets explaining the change and my position on it.

 

Write a letter to current supporters of Scouting who I know personally explaining my views on such changes.

 

Write a letter to my elected representatives in government outlining my position on the changes.

 

Write a letter to the Troop to resign as Assistant Scoutmaster.

 

Write a letter to the Council Camping Committee Chairman resigning from his committee.

 

Write a letter to the council Scout Executive resigning my position as Lodge Adviser.

 

Resign my position as Boy Scout resident camp Program Director.

 

Request that the council registrar remove me from the council's membership.

 

Request that the National Eagle Scout Association remove me from their current database.

 

I would also offer an explanation, in person, to my troop, the lodge executive committee, the council camping committee, and the council executive board.

 

I would begin looking for other ways to make use of my time and talents to benefit others.

 

 

Again, that would all depend on the exact nature of the changes.

[DugNevius]

C'mon Dug, you can argue all you want, but this was over the top!

 

(This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[scoutingagain]

For the record, I would stay. I would not totally agree with everthing in the press release but on balance I would feel the program offers enough benefits to my son and other youth that I would stay involved at the local level. But that's the situation I'm in now. I don't totally agree with the National membership policy, but am willing to live with it for the sake of the overall benefits the program offers.

 

SA

[Trevorum]

I love thought experiments.

 

Given Semper's scenario (unlikely though as he has outlined it), I would of course stay and try my hardest to help the movement weather the inevitable exodus of religious extremists.

 

Something similar to this will happen sooner or later. BSA is on the wrong side of history and interpersonal ethics on these issues. BSA changes as does society, albeit somewhat more slowly. Did you know that, these days, even people without a Y chromosome are accepted as Scout leaders? (gasp!) How times do change...

 

I think much more likely will be BSA giving chartering orgs a local option to accept gays and those who do not profess a belief in gods/goddesses. My best guess is that this is 20 years out, not more than 30.

 

 

[Prairie_Scouter]

Bob,

I didn't say anything about who provided insurance to BSA; makes no difference if they are self-insured or not. My point was that if someone decided to sue in regards to some BSA action, they might not only go after BSA, they could choose to go after the CO as well, if that organization had deep pockets.

 

We do follow the rules in regards to Safe Scouting to the letter, to the best of our ability. That doesn't guarantee protection from litigation, regardless of what BSA says. They can try their best to shield the local units, but they may or may not work.

 

Regards red giants and such, all that really protects BSA from policy changes right now is a sympathetic Supreme Court. It could just as easily gone the other way, and may at some point in the future if the makeup of the Court changes.

[Bob White]

I'm sure you are right Prairie Scouter. I mean what lawyer is going to think that the national office of the Boy Scouts of America with 10 thousand employees and nearly 3.5 million members would have deeper pockets than the 75 member Post 192 of the American Legion.

 

What was I thinking?

[Prairie_Scouter]

Read my post again, please, Bob. I didn't say that someone might sue a CO with deepER pockets, I just said deep pockets, and by that I meant that a lawyer could choose to go after a reasonably wealthy CO if they thought they'd have better success in court than against BSA.

 

Besides, the number of employees and members BSA has has nothing to do with with what assets they might have that could be acquired in a court settlement. If BSA is as well as off as you seem to think, they shouldn't be taking a cut of our popcorn money and sending out FOS agents every year.

[Bob White]

Fair enough Prarie Scouter I am always open to learning new facts. Can you offer me a CO in your council with deeper pockets than the BSA.

 

PRAIRIE we have been through this before. POPCORN is not a national program it is a local council program. The profits are split between the council and the unit. National, the folks who will be sued, don't get that money.

 

You really need to learn about the operation of the BSA beyond the unit if you are going to be criticizing the hard work of other people.

 

If unit leadership is not fulfilling and you want to get involved at other levels have enough courtesy to stop and learn a little about it before you decide all the things you "think" they should be doing.

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Eamonn]

This hypothetical news flash for the most part sounds like what has happened in the UK.

Scout Groups can be sponsored by organizations or they can be stand alone Groups.

While trying to find the "Outlander Promise" in the POR (policy regulations and rules) on the UK Scouting web site. I thought it strange that it wasn't there.

The gay thing wouldn't upset me that much. I do however think that Scouting without God would be very shallow. With that in mind I would find another organization that I thought was closer to my values.

Eamonn.

[packsaddle]

Hunt, wyomingi, Good Ones!

I did a quick accounting of our CO's assets and, whew, I have to tell you it would be a tempting target. I'd sue 'em all and let the jury sort 'em out. Wait a minute, there's something not quite right about that...

 

The scenario would likely put more boys into our troop. What a beautiful day!

We'll keep the light on so the few of you can come back if you change your mind.

[Hunt]

Although I continue to think that such a sudden change would be far-fetched, I have given it a bit more thought. As Semper describes it, this change would more than a "local option"--it would involve changing the Oath and Law to remove Reverent. To me, that's a big deal, a much bigger deal than allowing COs local option on gay leadership.

Honestly, what I think I'd do is turn to the unit--the troop--and try to make a collective decision on whether to stay or go. If the troop as a whole decided to go, we could at least continue as a church-sponsored group that carries out many activities similar to Scouting. If the troop as a whole decided to stay, I'd stay if my son wanted to. It wouldn't be the same Scouting--but it would continue to be as good, and probably better, than, say, a baseball team to occupy my son's time.

 

It surprised me that so few people said they'd leave if this radical change were made. That tends to confirm my view that very few would leave if a more modest change were made--ie, local option on gay leadership, no change in religious requirements.

The sad fact is that if you leave Scouting, you have noplace comparable to go, unless you start it yourself. That might work--but probably only if BSA made such a huge change that people left in droves. I don't see that happening.

[anarchist]

Hey SemperP,

 

I fully realize that you were asking for personal 'opinion' (sort of to show how enlightened most of the posters are?) ...but to suggest that my 'guess'(I think) on many, many organizations pulling charters is what I think will happen falls under the same hypothetical (anyone here thinking the LDS and Baptists and many others would allow their facilities to be used by Atheists or Homosexuals?) My questions still stands and is pertinent to the discussion...Where is my unit going to 'continue' scouting, Semper?

 

Is there a Hypothetical Homosexual-Atheist League that will set up meeting halls in thousands of communitties?...In your News Flash is each council gonna share the popcorn money to rent meeting halls? It's a fair response to your question...

 

And of course, as with all 'Hypotheticals' folks can 'vote' knowing the outcome is moot...sort of like congressmen voting for 'crap' legislation knowing that while it looks good for the 'home' constituents it doesn't stand a 'snowballs' chance of being finally passed...or signed into law...the votes are not 'real' in a meaningful way...read where 'the rubber meets the road'.

 

Meaning no disrespect or offense to anyone here, this hypothetical reminds me of the dark ages when startled friends, upon hearing I was rooming with a black guy at school, gave me the old..."er, ah, some of my best friends are negros...but..."

 

We are members of a conflicted society, We belong to an organization that has two (politically incorrect) unpopular membership requirements...currently legal requirements, but viewed with distaste and/or hostility by 'right thinking', liberal minded individuals...

 

As many have indicated in this thread, they feel BSA will eventually 'evolve'...but I doubt that a large segment of the membership will ever go along with such an evolution.

And once again I ask the corresponding hypothetical...if your 'news flash' did come about, how would it be fair to existing members who disagreed? Where is balance and where is fairness...?

Or do the 'neanderthals' just go away ...quietly?

 

 

It was fun!

 

[acco40]

Eamonn, for reference - look at my response in the "Was it another dream" thread for the Outlander's Promise.