Friendly & Kind Association

[ohadam]

Beaver, we all know we can do it. We're talking about whether we should do it.

 

A constitutional right is not a moral mandate.

[SR540Beaver]

ohadam,

 

It isn't our decision. All we can decide is whether we will go along with it or not.

 

I don't have as much of a problem with the atheist side as the gay side. From my experience, religion does not play that important of a role in scouting units. When we have a "scout's own" on campouts, it is very generic. We promote the boys doing their duty to "God" and that that instruction comes thru their home and "church". I can see room in that for boys who are not "churched".

 

Now, before I get labeled as homophobic, my sister is a lesbian and my best friend from college is gay. I love them both dearly, want them to be happy and feel like they can do what they want as adults. That being said, I don't think allowing gay registered leaders provides the right example to young heterosexual (vast majority) boys. That is just me, I realize others feel differently.

 

Bottom line is that the BSA gets to decide their membership requirements and we get to decide whether we can accept them and live with them or not. Will it change with time? Probably. Will it change sooner or later? My guess is that it will be MUCH later than sooner.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Being able to decide what is right is not always the easiest position to have in life. Ethical decisions can begin with a body of knowledge that is based on local authority, meaning that the group decides what is correct. Correctness may be a mirror of what a family believes to be right or a church, etc. Some may choose to defer to universal truths, such as the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, or the Constitution. Others may look to role models that have shown the way for others to follow or shown others how to live. Some may want rules simply to reduce hurt, harm or violence. If the decision comes down to two parties taking the opposite side of an issue and one party decides the path by force, then morality takes on an absolutist position. Yet, others may try to balance all rights of all parties by using a centrist approach. Then there is the situational approach that allows the environment or the situation to decide what is right and wrong. There are those that believe that correctness is based on safety, protection of the weak, empathy, fairness, consent, trust, and knowledge. Whatever the decision that is made, it must be made in the light that people have studied and argued for centuries without arriving at a fundamental conclusion on the best method. It is without a doubt that politics is the least harmful and not always satisfying method at arriving at those conclusions that we have today. FB

[Hunt]

I do not believe that BSA will charter a CO that discriminates on the basis of race. I can't quote a rule, but I believe that is in fact BSA's current position. There are certainly plenty of de facto single race units, and a unit limited to a particular religion may similarly limit race.

I would also like to point out that you don't necessarily have to have the same view on all three of the "Gs." For example, my opinion is the reverse of SR540Beavers--I don't see a problem if COs want to allow gay leaders, but I support the continuation of the religious requirement as a basic element of the program. As for girls, again I think this should be up to the COs too--I would note that allowing girls in would BY FAR lead to the biggest changes in the program, but would require essentially no changes in the values of scouting.

[campcrafter]

Hunt wrote: I would note that allowing girls in would BY FAR lead to the biggest changes in the program,

 

How so? What specific changes in program?

 

CC

[Oak Tree]

I can't speak for Hunt, but the way I interpreted his comment was that allowing girls in would make the program feel the most different. It could sure have an impact on the interpersonal dynamics. I think that allowing gays or atheists would have very little impact on what a typical unit looked like, or felt like, but allowing girls in would have lots of effects, some of them obvious, and some of them more subtle.

 

Oak Tree

[Hunt]

What Oak Tree said. I didn't mean that the elements of the program would be different, but that the group dynamics would be different.

[campcrafter]

 

"the world changes, and not always for the better"

 

I don't remeber where that quote came from - some movie?

 

I agree some of the dynamics may change How ever I don't think girls would be a change for the worse.

 

I do think it should be up to the CO to decide if co-ed or not.

 

I think it is enevitable. Look at the rest of the world we live in. Even BSA is no longer a male retreat.

 

cc