The DRP debate club, Round WHAT??

[John-in-KC]

2 years ago, I was out helping Mom and Dad through some tough times. Went to District RT in their neck of the woods. Their home turf is heavily LDS.

 

I found it very interesting. Mom and Dad live in the shadow of the Sierra Nevada range. Out there, LDS Scouting looks far more like traditional Scouting than some traditional units look like out here in Flyover Country. Of course, with millions of acres of wildnerness and trails to choose from, those young men have an outdoor opportunity beyond what many of us can only dream of.

 

LDS units are like any Scout unit; they depend on the quality of leadership provided at the top. When the layers of leadership mandate that those charged with Scouting support must complete Wood Badge in the first 24 months of their tenure, well, there's a push on to do training.(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[acco40]

The BSA grants the right to the Morman (LDS) church to modify the Scouting program to meet the needs of the their church. I'm not aware that they do this for any other organization. All organizations have the right to be more selective in their membership requirements (i.e a Troop chartered by the Knights of Columbus may require all youth in their troop to be members of the Catholic Church for example). Scouting is the male youth organization of the Church. No other organization has this to my knowledge.

 

Ask the boys in an LDS troop how their patrol leader is selected.

 

Ask youth members if they can switch troops/units.

 

Ask what their age requirements are.

 

Now, I think it is great what the LDS Church has done for Scouting and for their youth. I have no qualms with the "rights" that the BSA has granted the Mormons. But the BSA program within the LDS church is different in some respects.

 

 

 

 

[Bob White]

Minor program adaptations only. The Aims, Methods, Mission, and policies are no different.

 

Individual charter organizations are free to adapt the program within national limits as well and many do. The only thing unique about the LDS church is that they decided to employ these adaptations on a national scale. Others are able to do so as well.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Bob White]

acco40 asks

"Bobwhite - were you insulted when the BSA change the minimum age requirement to join? Where you insulted when they allowed females to become Cubmasters, Scoutmasters and Assistant Scoutmasters? Do you find any change (i.e. going away from traditional) insulting?"

 

Not at all and why should I, the BSA can change what they want it is their program. Besides the things you mention are not value based.

 

But people demanding that the BSA lower its standards so that they can join is self defeating. The BSA exists to instill the values that they want removed. They would reduce the BSA to a craft and camping club and that was never its purpose for existing.

 

 

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Bob White writes:

The BSA has never made of secret of what those values were.

 

Sure they do, Bob. When Cambridge-Isanti High School had a Venture Crew and had all sorts of extracurricular activities conducted through that Crew, I asked the school principal (who was a longtime BSA member and had also been the chairman of the Three Rivers District) if atheists could join that Venture Crew, and he said yes. The Indianhead council that it was chartered to could never give me a straight answer when I asked them if atheists could join, and neither could the head of the Venturing program at the national BSA. I was finally connected to David Park at the national BSA's legal department, who said no, atheists couldn't join that Venture Crew.

 

Doesn't sound like their policy of excluding atheists is exactly clear; you seem pretty fuzzy on that concept yourself.

[acco40]

Some see allowing females to be a Scoutmaster as a value change; others understandably do not. Same with the DRP. If the BSA removed the DRP as a membership criteria, I don't see that as a lowering of values - just a change.

 

Would it greatly alter the way unit's operate? I'm sure some would say yes, others no. For myself, I'm not demanding anything. But I wouldn't say the BSA would be lowering it's values if it allowed gays, girls or the removal of the DRP. I look at it this way, if an agnostic, gay, 11 year old boy wanted to join the BSA I think it would benefit the boy. Now, I would not want this Scout "preaching" to the other Scouts, just like I don't want a Catholic Scout "preaching" to the other Scouts but as long as we all agree to live by the Scout Oath and Law I think that would be great. Now I know some see an impossibility in living by the Scout Oath and Law if one is gay or an atheist but I do not. If Quakers can do their duty to country, and atheist can do their duty to God.(This message has been edited by acco40)

[Gonzo1]

You know what's fuzzy? After being told a gajillion times that atheists cannot join the BSA, Merlyn still wants to try.

 

Kinda like a democrat, what you can't have at the ballot box, ya try to achieve through the courts.

 

Atheists can't join the BSA. It's time to stop trying.

 

Edited part:

Acco, an atheist by definition cannot do his duty to God, he doesn't believe in Gad in the first place. The BSA is in fact non-sectarian. I for one do not want to send my son out into the woods camping (or on any other scout activity) with a known or avowed homosexual.

(This message has been edited by Gonzo1)

[packsaddle]

I tend to agree with Acco40 on the DRP. There was a time when the DRP didn't exist and everything was fine. In fact, unless I've missed something along the way, I have not yet signed it because I joined prior to its wording being placed in the application.

If it was removed, I see no evidence that things would not be just as fine as they were before. No big deal. At least I know for a fact that THIS Methodist church would not care in the least. Nor likely would any of the others in this community.

 

The problem of trying to repress thought is that, in reality, only its expression can be repressed. So while BSA policy excludes gays and atheists, I know that gays and atheists ARE members of BSA and that BSA will do nothing about it as long as those members do not express their thoughts openly (that thing about 'avowing', I suppose). This is, for the umpteenth time, an unavoidable outcome of BSA policy.

Anyone who thinks BSA policy is achieving some kind of status of 'purity' among the membership is engaging in fantasy. On the other hand, fantasy seems good enough for many and I suppose the repression of honest and open expression could be the key to maintaining the community.

 

Edited part: pesky typos(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Gonzo1]

Packsaddle,

My friend, to paraphrase Beavah's way of typing, da rules is da rules, eh? (though not actually paraphrasing Beavah's comments or beliefs)

 

Whether you signed an original application before the DRP comment was on it or not, you still agreed to live by the Scout Oath and Law.

 

I will concede that closeted homosexuals and atheists are in deed members of the BSA. I believe thse folks are not being honest and forthright in their membership BECAUSE they joined fraudulently.

 

In the military, before the days of "dont ask, don't tell", service members were discharged for "Fradulent Enlistment" under the Uniform code of Military Justice if it was discovered that a servicemember was gay.

 

We're a private group, with our own rules. No homosexuals, no atheists and no girls (except for Venturing), it really seems simple.

 

Packsaddle, check PM.

JG

[OldGreyEagle]

Just to be clear, or to muddy the waters. whatever, but, homosexuality does not equal pedaphilia any more than heterosexuality determines that a person cannot be a pedaphiliac.

[Bob White]

WOW Merlyn...what a horrible example of the BSA keeping things secret. All you proved was that an untrained scouter has been around the program toolong and doesn't know an Ash from a hole in the ground.

You didn't prove the BSA kept secrets all you proved was that some schmuck you tallked to was clueless.

 

Afer all YOU know that the BSA would not accept an avowed athiest as a member and you aren't even in the BSA. You even know where to find the passages to prove it.

 

So if you aren't a member and you know where the documentation is then you really have no grounds to say it's kept secret.

 

Here's a challenge for you. You and I you know places where the membership conditions are readily available for anyone to see.

So tell us anyplace where the BSA tells ANYONE to keep that information a secret.

 

I'll wait here. Hurry back, but do not come empty handed this time.

 

 

[GernBlansten]

Imagine there's no DRP

It's easy if you try

No ACLU hounding us

Above us only sky

Imagine all the Boy Scouts

Living for today

 

Imagine there's no exclusions

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to argue about

And no expulsions too

Imagine all the Boy Scouts

Living life in peace

 

You may say that I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will be as one

 

[packsaddle]

Muddy Waters was a pretty fair blues singer. (Just testing that thing about music references and censorship ) Oops, I see that Gern has gone way beyond my meager attempt. Talk about rapid-fire posts....

 

Gonzo1, PM acknowledged, thanks. Yes rules are rules. There is no rule against dissent, at least so far there isn't. I'm just trying to point to reality while some of us are preoccupied with some fantasy world that will never exist.

 

Bob White, Every year or so, usually during some larger meeting like a COH or something, I hear someone among the parents mention one of the controversies. I listen carefully. Almost NONE of the new parents and families who have joined since the last year EVER know about these membership requirements. They just sign the paper and don't even read it. There are two ways to approach this: 1) let the process remain as is, or 2) make sure that the membership rules are clearly explained during the signing process.

I'm not sure which is the better way. The first option keeps these things more in the closet and I'm getting the idea that BSA would like it remain that way. The second option gives them the full monty (so-to-speak). But it seems to be a secret to them prior to those meetings.

 

Edited part: all sorts of things this time.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Gonzo1]

Packsaddle,

Indeed, dissent is acceptable, for conversation, debate, but not to admit atheists since the rules are clear, but the discussion is fine. I don't agree with other rules BSA has, but I'll support them. Of course, I hope you know that I wasn't trying to 'argue' with you. Thanks for the PM.

 

Gern,

I didn't say that homosexuals are more likely to be pedaphiles, I said I'm not sending my kid camping with a homosexual or to any scout activity.

 

In another thread, I mentioned that a "big wig" from national had spoke to out commissioners college and said that rather than admit girls, homosexuals or atheists, the BSA would shut down, that the BSA felt that strongly about it. Sorry, but that was about 7 years ago, I don't remember who it was.

 

I wish the uniform was a little more accomodating to the neckerchief, but other than that, I'm happy.

 

[packsaddle]

Gonzo1, yeah I remember the neckerchief being quite different when I was a boy. I'm thinking I may have put on weight or something since then.