Petitions delivered by Eagle Scout over Anti-Gay Policy

[BDPT00]

I find it interesting how quickly the subject changes from how the message was delivered to what the subject matter of the petition was about. I like the discussion regarding the delivery method, but grow tired very quickly of comments that say Scouting's leadership will eventually come around or see the light. My question to something like that is, will Scouting's leadership eventually take "honor" and "God" out of the oath, because they're a bit old fashioned?

Actually, I don't want an answer to that. Just demonstrating how quickly the subject dissolves and becomes polarizing. I think the kid did the right thing, and he did it at the right time. I don't like it, but if he's trying to raise public awareness of something he doesn't agree with, what better time and place is there? The annual gay celebration was also going on just a few miles down the road from the annual meeting. This could have caught fire, but went out before it ever got started. I think both sides in this current round performed will.

BDPT00

[Beavah]

Nah, Lisabob, Gandhi was an effective lobbyist. He was very cognizant of the decision-making structure of his opponent and how to influence it, and he did take very careful aim at it. If yeh understand that decisions in a democracy are in the end made by the people, then Gandhi's strategy is genius, eh? Because it all turns around appealing to those people. Make salt. Who can object to some people makin' salt from the sea? Who can fail to be outraged over people being beaten and imprisoned over somethin' as silly as making salt? He also was wise enough to take the long view.

 

Now, if da decisionmaker is Bashar Assad and da structure is not a democracy, then perhaps creative non-violent opposition is not the proper approach, eh? Because in such a case, it may well be that he can just shoot enough people to eliminate da opposition.

 

That's the point, eh? To choose an approach that recognizes the interests and decision-making structure of the person or group yeh want to influence, rather than the approach that pleases the group that already agrees with yeh. As can be seen in this thread, the lad chose an approach that pleases the group that already agreed with him. That's not the smart way to proceed.

 

Beavah

 

 

[RememberSchiff]

I can't fault Zach's efforts. I do wonder if his next step is to approach the VFW and the American Legion. That should be interesting. Small steps.

 

My $0.02

[NJCubScouter]

Beavah, let me ask you a couple of questions:

 

One, apart from vague statements about choosing "an approach that recognizes the interests and decision-making structure of the person or group yeh want to influence", what exactly do you think this young man should have done, that would have brought about a change in the BSA policy in question?

 

Two, if he had done what you suggest, how long do you believe it would have been before the BSA changed the policy?

[Scoutfish]

Thinking about the American Revolution.....I cannot think of anything that was

an approach that recognized the interests and decision-making structure of the person or group we wanted to influence

 

Apparently we failed in our attempt?

 

Just saying, it seems like there is confudion between " his way of doing it" and "wether we agree with what he was trying to do".

 

Eve if you don't like what he was trying to bring about doesn't actually have anything to do with what he's trying to bring about.

 

In this particular case, is there ANYTHING he could do to change BSA's policyt? Anything at all?

 

Kinda like trying to convince the Pope to become athiest. There isn't any argument or methood that will make the Pope change his mind, but that doesn't mean somebody won't go about it the right way.

 

Sometimes, you can do everythiung just right, but it still doesn't work out the way you want.

[Eagledad]

Boy Scouts to keep ban on gay leaders

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-06/boy-scouts-ban-gay-leaders/55432602/1(This message has been edited by Eagledad)

[RememberSchiff]

Boy Scouts review controversial anti-gay policy

 

"...Boy Scouts of America spokesman Deron Smith said a resolution to amend the national policy to allow each Scoutings chartered group to set its own standards regarding gay members was turned in by a Scout leader from the Northeast before April 30, the deadline for submitting resolutions to the meeting. He said the resolution was read at the May 31 meeting."

 

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/06/12086046-boy-scouts-review-controversial-anti-gay-policy?lite

[perdidochas]

Related to that, the Facebook feed from BSA today had the following link:

 

 

http://www.scouting.org/media/PressReleases/2012/20120607.aspx

 

The BSA policy is: While the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.

[emb021]

Also on the Scouting Mag blog:

 

http://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2012/06/07/boy-scouts-of-america-clarifies-its-membership-policy/?goback=%2Egmp_44601%2Egde_44601_member_122384682

[Papadaddy]

BSA just posted on Facebook, words to the effect of: "just because a resolution was submitted, doesn't mean we're reviewing or changing anything." SOunds like damage control to assuage the large supporting religious organizations.

[OldGreyEagle]

At least they are talking about it. it would be fun to identify and follow the scouting career of the leader who prompted the resolution to see what happends to him. If he is "Left Alone" perhaps others will make the same proposal. It would be interesting to see where the majority of volunteers sit on the God/Gay issue and how important an issue these are.

 

No organization makes such a change overnight, its done incrementally. Then again, maybe its a smoke screen. I do like the comment from another thread that its hard to expect the issues of the BSA can be predominantly solved by becomming less Godly and more Gay

[moosetracker]

Only depends on the church you attend if you see that siding with Equality for all, and learning to love your neighbor whoever he/she may be, is less Godly..

 

Sorry OGE, you comment could not go unchecked.

[Trevorum]

So the clarification says they do not gant membership to individuals who engage in behavior which distracts from the mission . That is pretty broad, sort of gives them leave to kick out anyone who they don't like. I wonder if they would kick me out if I marched as a private citizen in a gay rights parade and my DE saw me on the news.

[OldGreyEagle]

Well, does marching in a Gay rights parade make you an avowed homosexual or just expressing first amendment rights?

 

Not that The First Amendment keeps private organizations from having membershi policies

[NJCubScouter]

OGE, at this point I don't think anyone is saying that the First Amendment (or any other law) "keeps private organizations from having membership policies." What an increasing number of people are saying is that, having the right to choose among different policies on "avowed homosexual" leaders, the BSA has chosen the wrong policy. So this is not a legal issue, it's a "moral" issue if you will - the "immorality" being the continued exclusion of people simply because of their avowed orientation. In other words, it's not a question of whether the BSA "has the right", it's a question of "is the BSA right."

 

I found a couple of other things interesting in this thread:

 

The article that RememberSchiff linked to, from MSNBC, is the first time (that I can recall) that I have ever seen a major media outlet emphasize the "local option" issue, which to most of us on "this side", is the real issue. The vast majority of media articles present the issue as a black-and-white question of "should the Boy Scouts allow openly gay leaders", without acknowledging that no unit would be required to appoint an openly gay person as a leader if they did not want to do so. It is nice to see an article from a major web site that says what the issue really is, and they have it right up at the beginning of the second paragraph and then repeat it later.

 

In perdidochas' post, I see the BSA using a phrase to describe the persons in question as "open or avowed homosexuals." That is slightly different than in the past. For many years, the term the BSA has used is "avowed homosexuals." Now they have added "open" to the "list", though that is what I think they really meant all along. There have been some debates in this forum over what "avowed homosexual" means. I have always thought it was the same as someone who is "openly gay," which is the more common expression these days. So I interpret this change to mean that I was correct, and that the BSA is merely updating its terminology. I don't think it changes the meaning of the "policy".