Boy Scout leader says he was forced out because he is gay

[packsaddle]

OK, I guess it's true that if any 'hack' wants to make their stupid ideas sound reasonable, they can hang the term 'science' on it. But when political figures apply the term I view it pretty much the same way as when I used to hear about 'scientific' wrestling, another thing that depended a lot on deception.

 

Edit: oops, if I just offended someone who fervently believes that championship wrestling is 'real', I apologize. It's real, every bit of it. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[frankpalazzi]

Just to review: (If I've left anything out/added anything, please correct!)

 

1. BSA prohibits gays.

2. Leader writes letter stating he is gay.

3. BSA removes leader.

 

What am I missing here? Why is this a news story?

[Lisabob]

What are you missing? The last bit:

 

Sadly, BSA loses another dedicated and highly regarded volunteer, because of its myopic and self-defeating policies, which the BSA just re-committed itself to within the last month.

 

(that's what makes it a news story)

[NJCubScouter]

Who was that directed at, BSA24?

 

You know, maybe I am being silly, but perhaps we might consider cooling it with the "colorful metaphors" (credit: Star Trek III), whether expressed by way of gesture or otherwise, unless they are really relevant to the discussion. Role model for Scouts reading the forum, and all that. Just being silly, like I said.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

[frankpalazzi]

"Sadly, BSA loses another dedicated and highly regarded volunteer, because of its myopic and self-defeating policies, which the BSA just re-committed itself to within the last month."

 

Really? So this is BSA's fault? Who wrote the letter? I believe the leader did.

 

[acco40]

So, FrankScout, suppose you are a gay Scout leader who loves Scouting and has been a member in the BSA since the late 70s (before their was a known "gay policy). You don't agree with the current policy on the issue. What is one to do? Grin an bear it? Quietly resign? Send a letter to national?

 

What would you do in that situation?

[Lisabob]

Yes Frankscout, it is the BSA's fault because it is the BSA's policy (and recent re-affirmation of that policy) that causes all of this upset.

 

If the BSA didn't have this myopic policy, then we wouldn't be twisting ourselves into knots discussing the policy. We'd just be scouting.

 

BSA has total control over this. They can choose to continue spitting into the wind, and accept the logical outcome. Or they can change their policy, reduce the drama, and trust COs to decide for themselves whether a person like the guy in this article are appropriate leaders for a particular unit.

 

 

[packsaddle]

Lisa, at its base I think the issue is one of 'control'. BSA top leaders may feel threatened or perhaps fear the incremental loss of 'control' which translates into a perception of weak leadership. While I recognize that such feelings ARE weak leadership, I guess that's what I think about top BSA leaders. They feel like they must 'show hard' on this and similar issues and they're willing to allow the membership to use 'moral' or 'economic' rationalizations for their decisions - because while those are neither strong rationalizations and in spite of being intellectually bankrupt, those rationalizations do successfully serve as surrogates or diversions from their fundamental leadership weakness.

[johnponz]

The leadership is probably doing what the chartered organizations with the most authority want them to do. These COs are LDS, and the Catholic Church among other religious groups. This policy provides cover for the COs. They do not have to exclude gays as the "local option" would allow. Instead they can point to a National Policy. This is part of what a National organization does. It provides cover for those on the ground.

 

These organizations have a lot of power within BSA. Indeed more than the volunteers and that is the reason the Executive Board will not overturn the policy. They are reflecting the wishes of the COs.

 

You could try to change the mind of the COs, but that will not happen because their stance is faith based, and any attempt to change it based on reason (this is not saying that faith based groups are not reasonable. It is only saying that secular arguments based on reason will not change their minds) will not work.

 

As long as the majority of COs (by majority I mean each unit's individual CO), believe that gays should be prohibited by policy they will be.

 

[Peregrinator]

Yes Frankscout, it is the BSA's fault because it is the BSA's policy (and recent re-affirmation of that policy) that causes all of this upset.

 

So the man in question's becoming/staying a Scout leader despite knowing the policy -- that wasn't a cause? Why isn't he at fault? He wasn't innocently ignorant of the policy.

[frankpalazzi]

Acco40: Yes, I would grin and bear it. Second option: If conscience were an issue, quietly resign, citing personal reasons. No one deserves any further explanation than that. If I am that determined to attract attention to myself, I'll do it through service to youth, and it will come naturally.