A scout parent asked me

[Basementdweller]

So the old gay atheist eagle scout denial hits me locally.......

 

One of potential webelos parents asks me what I think about it.....they went on to state their position....which was based on less than half the information.

 

Well I pulled up the news report and highlighted that there is more than just the young man who was gay. The god/higher power and the social media page......

 

The parent went from really agressive and negative to understanding.

 

Folks just need all the info to form an opinion.(This message has been edited by Basementdweller)

[Twocubdad]

Yeah, the very few rational conversations I've had with folks usually end up with them at least understanding there are two sides of the story, even if they don't agree.

 

Unfortunately, most folks don't want to have a conversation -- rational or otherwise -- they just want to vent and walk away.

[SeattlePioneer]

Personally I find that most people understand the concept of a private organization having control over its membership. Most people seem to understand that better than Federal Courts.

[Eamonn]

I'm willing to accept the fact (Fact in my mind!)

That we (The BSA) Are a very long way off from ever pleasing everyone.

The easy answer to the gay thing might be to allow the local option?

But I tend to think that some people might be still unhappy.

If for some reason it was ruled that discrimination on lifestyle was wrong and gays were not allowed to discriminated against.

Then the people who are unhappy about having God in the Oath might want to make a fuss. Then if we went with something like the Outlander Promise, the people who want the BSA to go co-ed and allow girls in to Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts might want to make a fuss.

Maybe if all that was sorted the people who see Scouts and Scouting as some kind of military organization might want to take a stand.

The list of unhappy people could go on and on.

I do believe that some change is needed and change will come.

I have no idea when it will come.

But the idea that everyone will be happy?

Just ain't going to happen. -Ever!!

Ea.

[Brewmeister]

"Most" being the operative word, but the vocal minority is very vocal. And homosexuality is the cause du celebre these days.

[DeanRx]

Eamonn-

 

I find it funny:

 

1) Gays allowed - Most all European, Scouts Canada, and I believe Mexico - this is a non issue... they already allow for either gays or local option.

 

2) God in the oath... well most of the European scouting organizations are already much more progressive on this front.

 

3) Co-ed - YUP, have a scout fair day every year here in San Diego that has Mexican units showup. All co-ed, down to the 1st graders. I believe the same is true for Canada and many of the European countries as well.

 

I agree the change will come.

I agree that no matter what level the change is, some will be happy, some will be unhappy, and some will never be happy.

 

Just thought I'd point out that as a part of a WORLD-WIDE movement that BEGAN outside the United States (hence it was not "our" invention), we are in the minority on all three counts with regards to addimission policy. Some think this is good, others, not so much... but we ARE a data point outlier in the world wide Boy Scout bell curve. Few within BSA realize this, or choose to ignore it, because what happens outside the US with scouting is not any concern to American scouters.

 

As a post script - most folk's issue with a "private" organization determining its membership policy is NOT the issue. It becomes an issue when said organization has its national charter with the U.S. congress (Although I'd argue we could do better as an organizaiton at finding a more trustworthy CO than the a-holes in Washington). And even moreso when the "private" organization gets a good chunk of funding from public sources... thats the real (and IMHO very valid) rub most people make with the membership policies.

 

Dean

[Basementdweller]

Had another parent ask about it last night.....

 

Gave them the same response as the first one........this one brought up how nice it was that the one company gave the boy a scholarship.....

 

I responded ya it was nice but he didn't need it because his dad owns a huge property management company......so nice but misguided.

 

I added I hoped the boy would donate the check to someone more needy.

 

 

 

 

Dean.....Public funds......While many scouting units rely heavily on the military for equipment to borrow or land to camp on......My district doesn't have access to this sort of govermental support, official or unofficial.

 

We pay to camp everywhere we go....We, I, own or rent everything we use, there is no borrowing a huge tent or water buffalo for a camporee.

 

 

[Peregrinator]

I find it funny:

 

3) Co-ed - YUP, have a scout fair day every year here in San Diego that has Mexican units showup. All co-ed, down to the 1st graders. I believe the same is true for Canada and many of the European countries as well.

 

Yes, Scouts Canada forced co-education on local groups, even those who did not want it. Is that one of the things you find funny?

 

http://www.scoutscan.com/resources/coedqa.html

[PABill]

"And even moreso when the "private" organization gets a good chunk of funding from public sources... thats the real (and IMHO very valid) rub most people make with the membership policies."

 

I would like to see some sources on the trough of public money the BSA is feeding on, care to share this info? It sure would be helpful for my troop. Maybe we should be submitting bills for scout projects that benefit the public?

 

Basementdweller, can you be more specific as to how you responded to the inquisitive parents? I usually get so angry at the misinformation people start out with, I like to make sure I present my facts in a calm cool manner.

 

I think we will be dealing with BSA infiltrating "activists" more and more.

 

 

[skeptic]

As for the continued bandying of "public money statements", you will find if you actually look that in the large majority of the cases the government entity is getting free maintenance of property and much of the time improvements that pass to it should the BSA use lapse. That was the reason the court sided with BSA in Philly, even with all the PC screaming. Same should occur should the San Diego case ever be resolved. The city has gotten far more benefit than they would be receiving should it be in city hands, especially in the current economic atmosphere. Military facilities aid groups other than the BSA with minor support activities and some use of properties. In the larger cases, such as AP Hill, not only did BSA pay tens of millions of dollars to the government, and leave many on site improvements, but the base got training opportunities seldom available outside actual emergencies or war.

 

Then, of course, as just noted; service given by the BSA, especially through Eagle projects, saves the governments of communities all over the country many dollars and often contributes long term benefits that would be absent should they not be done. In our small council, with only around 200 Eagles a year, the average amount of project hours is 30,000 plus per year; much of that goes to public benefit in schools, parks, and the forests.

 

But, as one of our "favorite" posters likes to say; "so what". They should be shunned and cut off from because they have some beliefs with which not everyone publicly believes. So we do not want their benefits to our communities. His right, but highly misguided as most fanatical adherents to things tend to be. JMHO of course.

 

 

[Eamonn]

Dean,

You will I hope note that I never said if I agreed or didn't agree with any of the things that I pointed out.

I kinda think that you might also have noted that I was born in the UK, earned my Queen's Scout in the UK and was a Scout Leader there for almost 12 years.

 

Someone a lot wiser than I once said that "Money Talks"

When it comes to finance and financial support the BSA and the USA is where just about everybody turns to when they need money.

Back in the very early days of Scouting it is a well known fact that BP and James E. West didn't get on, didn't see eye to eye and BP wasn't very happy with what the Americans were up to.

There are a few Forum Members who have looked at this and some of the reasons for it.

I of course welcome any input that they might have.

 

I tend to think that as far as the end user (The youth members) are concerned, the basics in just about every country I've visited remain the same.

Kids join to have fun, go camping and with a bit of luck come away having learned something.

I really don't think that any country needs to look at what's happening somewhere else and feel that they need to change just because they are doing something different. Sure it's OK to look at something and maybe see if it's better than what is on offer here?

But people are different from country to country. Attitudes vary a lot.

I don't know what the mindset of the powers that be in the BSA is?

My thinking is that having stood it's ground for as long as it has and having spent a great deal of money, lost a lot of income because of their stand. They are not going to rush into any change anytime soon.

Then of course there is the way things are set up. America and the BSA uses the charter partners, where as most other places don't.

Does anyone really think that the BSA is going to do anything that might upset these CO's?

I don't have a list of who sits on the National Board. But my guess is that there are a fair number of people who represent organizations who don't take very kindly to homosexuality. I of course might be very wrong.

Ea.

[CalicoPenn]

PABill - I'm with you - it's great to have facts. Just make sure that what you get really is fact.

 

Basement insists that what he saw on the lads social media page is enough to convince him the Scout was unscoutlike - of course, you can't see the page anymore since it's been taken down but you or I might very well have had a completely different opinion.

 

Basement has decided that the father is wealthy because he owns a property management firm in San Francisco - one that manages 2,500 apartment units and about 1 million sq. ft. of retail and commercial space but he has no idea how much the company earns every year, what the company's margins are, what the owner of the company takes home every year. Apparently anyone who owns a company must be rich. Maybe the company is worth a few million, maybe the father has socked away a couple of million - or maybe the company has been struggling with the economy as much as everyone else has over the past few years and he's put a lot of money back into the company to keep it going - maybe he has two mortgages on his house - we don't know, but I suppose we must take Basement's opinion as fact.

 

Basement has decided that the family must be wealthy because they have a fireplace in their house with stuff on the mantles (yes, Basement, I looked at it - I saw a lot of family photos framed in Hallmark frames, a couple of sconces worth maybe 30 bucks each, a big vase that looks like it came from Cost Plus for 150 bucks), and a rather cheaply done fireplace too - when a fireplace mantle is painted white to look like Marble, it's not expensive, and the infill tiles look like something you can buy at Lowes. Why, there's even a Baby Grand Piano - which may have been inherited from a relative, but no, we need to assume that they must be rich because they have one and have the room for it. It's not unusual for modern suburban houses to have a family room and a living room - heck, most of the solidly middle class houses in my town have both - but no, they just must be rich (why, they're so rich that they jumped right into the wood floor craze and changed out the cheap vinyl tiles in the room when they had the chance - oh, wait - no they didn't - they have the same tiles in the room from the time the lad was a Cub Scout to when he was a Life Scout).

 

But hey, don't think that what I'm saying is all fact either - it's just an alternative view of what might really going on - just an opinion like Basements, just without jumping to conclusions without thinking through all the possibilities and giving complete strangers I know nothing about the benefit of the doubt.

 

So yes, make sure you have the facts - just make sure you're repeating facts and not someones biased opinion - and do understand, Basement has shown time and again he's got a real chip on his shoulder about class issues. Given his statements in past forum posts that gay boys should never get Eagle because they shouldn't be in the Scouts, and given the question he's now asking, it really makes me wonder if he would be beating up on this kid and his parents if the kid was from the projects.

[Basementdweller]

Well it went Something Like this

 

Mr. B isn't it horrible the kicked out that boy in california for being gay. How aweful cause he worked all those years to get his eagle.

 

 

Betty that isn't the entire story.....It seems the young man also said he doesn't believe in god as well....I showed her the story on my phone from NPR. The BSA says you need to believe in a higher power, Not what or who we as Christians think as God.

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/10/05/162371701/teenage-boy-scout-denied-organizations-top-rank-because-hes-gay

 

Well it is still horrible.

 

 

I showed her the fox news story that said the SM had said they would get thru his coming out several months before his not signing the application. But that article is no longer available.

 

 

So the SM was willing to work with him but the boy notified the duty to god issue. It seems to me the boy was out to prove a point.

 

Interestingly I came accrossed this story...

 

My information was incorrect.....turns out the SM never refused to sign the application and never had the discussion with Ryan. from this link.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/for-gods-sake/post/ryan-andresen-gay-scout-good-scout/2012/10/15/c248e984-16f0-11e2-9855-71f2b202721b_blog.html

 

 

 

 

[Eagle732]

Interesting article.

The scout states "Andresen has said that he is definitely not an atheist, and does believe in a higher power,"

Any yet on his social webpage he currently lists himself as "Agnostic".

 

So which is it, he can't have it both ways. Or can he?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kahuna]

Eamonn writes: "Back in the very early days of Scouting it is a well known fact that BP and James E. West didn't get on, didn't see eye to eye and BP wasn't very happy with what the Americans were up to."

 

Not exactly right, but pretty close. Actually, B-P thought the BSA was hiring too many people to organize Scouting and do leader training (Professional Scouters). He certainly regarded West and the other professionals as "hired men," which galled West no end. And, of course, no one really got on with James E. West.

 

What B-P failed to see was that, given the size of this country and the number of small, remote communities, it was probably the only way that the BSA could have done it. In Britain, much of the organizing and training on the national (and Empire) level was done by volunteers simply because Britain had a class of people who didn't work and had relatively a lot of money. Also, there was a work ethic in the UK that men worked hard for a number of years, earned lots of money, which, in the tax structure of the time, they got to keep most of. They then retired at an early age and devoted the rest of their lives to doing whatever they enjoyed.

 

The US never had a class of nobility and the work ethic here was that even the rich worked until they died were too feeble to do anything. Most people worked long hours and didn't travel far beyond their own community.

 

West's vision was of a nationwide movement under the banner of the BSA. The only way to accomplish that was exactly what he did: hire and train men to do the job.

 

Of course, what happened was not unlike Lenin's vision of "the withering away of the state." (And I'm not comparing West to Lenin here, although he was a pretty autocratic man. ) The professionals never diminished in the structure of the BSA and, in fact, became the dominant figures in the structure. And, I suspect, that is exactly what West would have wanted.

 

Whatever we think of the BSA today, it is mainly the policies of the professionals that shape it. I think Eamonn is correct that there are many on the National Executive Board who oppose gay Scouts or atheist Scouts, but there are some who think that view is wrong. The same is true at the local level.

 

I think there will come a time when the "gay thing" will become local option or go away entirely, but it will be entirely guided by decisions from the professionals in Irving.