Current BSA Policy Vs local option poll

[Rick_in_CA]

This weekend another scouter asked me “why do you want the conservatives to leave scouting?â€Â. I answered that I don’t, I just want them to give others the same respect they wish to receive. Why does it have to be about the other side leaving?

 

I really feel strongly about this. Ever since I was a youth in scouting, I believed one of the great things about it was that people of every faith and stripe could sit down together as welcome members of the same scouting family. I want my scouts to be able to see people of other faiths and beliefs as good and reasonable people who happen to have different beliefs, not as bad people who are wrong. And one of the best ways to accomplish that, I believe, is to have them encounter such people in positive settings. I don’t know, maybe go to camp with them? It’s much harder to think of a group of people as simple caricatures if you know some of them personally and realize that they are not idiots, or morally bankrupt, or out to destroy X, but decent people with some different opinions or beliefs.

 

I want my scouts to be able to say or think the next time they hear something of the form: “You know all those X people think that ...â€Â, they can reply “Actually, that’s not true. I went to camp with an X, and he was a decent kid and didn’t say anything like that.†That is part of growing up to be a decent citizen and human being. That is why I want my scouts to get an opportunity to meet and interact with people of a wide range of faiths, political views, nationalities, personality types, physical and mental abilities, etc. - and to learn to see them as human beings, not cartoon characters. To learn that what make someone a decent, or not decent person has very little to do with which faith, or nationality, etc. they are.

 

In my life I have been privileged to get to know and be friends with people that are deeply conservative, strongly liberal, straight, gay, Catholic, Jewish, Unitarian, Protestant, Sikh, Atheist, Agnostic and Wiccan. And to know them as good and decent people. Some are very thoughtful, some are a bit flighty, some are gentle some are rambunctious. But they are all people that it is an honor for me to be able to call them friend. Yes, some of are discussions can be filled with strong opinions and sometimes generate some heat. But we usually end with a smile and sometimes a hug, but always as friends.

 

Yet I do know people that say things like: “all republicans are jack booted thugsâ€Â, or “all democrats are socialists that hate America†or use phrases like: “liberal scum†or “#@#& conservativesâ€Â; and I say: “have you actually got to know any?â€Â

 

So when I hear scouters say things like: “I don’t want my scouts associating with Xâ€Â, “X won’t be happy until they destroy scoutingâ€Â, or “why don’t they just leave and form their own group?â€Â, it make me sad. Because if they get their way, scouting will be a poorer place, and the youth will loose one of the great parts of scouting.

[DigitalScout]

Perhaps each group will get a new uniform change' date=' or maybe just a change in their epillet colors, so you will know who to avoid if they are wearing their class A uniforms.[/quote']

 

I don't like the sound of that at all: making people wear some symbol so you can keep track of them.

 

I hope these comments about the separating conservative and progressive scouts/scouters are meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Do you really believe there exists conservative people who are so anti-gay that they won't attend a camp where there *might* be gay people? Really? How do they live like that? Seriously, how to they leave their homes, shop for groceries, stay in a hotel, tour a museum, attend a concert or visit an amusement park where there might be gay people?

[dkurtenbach]

This weekend another scouter asked me “why do you want the conservatives to leave scouting?â€Â. I answered that I don’t, I just want them to give others the same respect they wish to receive. Why does it have to be about the other side leaving?

 

I really feel strongly about this. Ever since I was a youth in scouting, I believed one of the great things about it was that people of every faith and stripe could sit down together as welcome members of the same scouting family. I want my scouts to be able to see people of other faiths and beliefs as good and reasonable people who happen to have different beliefs, not as bad people who are wrong. And one of the best ways to accomplish that, I believe, is to have them encounter such people in positive settings. I don’t know, maybe go to camp with them? It’s much harder to think of a group of people as simple caricatures if you know some of them personally and realize that they are not idiots, or morally bankrupt, or out to destroy X, but decent people with some different opinions or beliefs.

 

I want my scouts to be able to say or think the next time they hear something of the form: “You know all those X people think that ...â€Â, they can reply “Actually, that’s not true. I went to camp with an X, and he was a decent kid and didn’t say anything like that.†That is part of growing up to be a decent citizen and human being. That is why I want my scouts to get an opportunity to meet and interact with people of a wide range of faiths, political views, nationalities, personality types, physical and mental abilities, etc. - and to learn to see them as human beings, not cartoon characters. To learn that what make someone a decent, or not decent person has very little to do with which faith, or nationality, etc. they are.

 

In my life I have been privileged to get to know and be friends with people that are deeply conservative, strongly liberal, straight, gay, Catholic, Jewish, Unitarian, Protestant, Sikh, Atheist, Agnostic and Wiccan. And to know them as good and decent people. Some are very thoughtful, some are a bit flighty, some are gentle some are rambunctious. But they are all people that it is an honor for me to be able to call them friend. Yes, some of are discussions can be filled with strong opinions and sometimes generate some heat. But we usually end with a smile and sometimes a hug, but always as friends.

 

Yet I do know people that say things like: “all republicans are jack booted thugsâ€Â, or “all democrats are socialists that hate America†or use phrases like: “liberal scum†or “#@#& conservativesâ€Â; and I say: “have you actually got to know any?â€Â

 

So when I hear scouters say things like: “I don’t want my scouts associating with Xâ€Â, “X won’t be happy until they destroy scoutingâ€Â, or “why don’t they just leave and form their own group?â€Â, it make me sad. Because if they get their way, scouting will be a poorer place, and the youth will loose one of the great parts of scouting.

Rick, well said. Unfortunately, while you're saying, "I just want them [opponents of a policy change] to give others the same respect they wish to receive," they are also saying "I just want them [advocates of a policy change] to give others the same respect they wish to receive." Both sides see themselves as injured parties. The anti-discrimination side sees this as a matter of justice and equality for a minority group denied rights based on a physical characteristic. The anti-gay side sees this as matter of decades-old, well-established, private rights of association and conscience being attacked simply out of dislike for their moral code. This is not a matter where either side can be persuaded to change its views. Any solution, to be effective, has to affirmatively respect both sides. It can't be formula in which one side is the winner but agrees to tolerate the loser (at least for a little while).

 

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

[dkurtenbach]

Perhaps each group will get a new uniform change' date=' or maybe just a change in their epillet colors, so you will know who to avoid if they are wearing their class A uniforms.[/quote']

 

I don't like the sound of that at all: making people wear some symbol so you can keep track of them.

 

I hope these comments about the separating conservative and progressive scouts/scouters are meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Do you really believe there exists conservative people who are so anti-gay that they won't attend a camp where there *might* be gay people? Really? How do they live like that? Seriously, how to they leave their homes, shop for groceries, stay in a hotel, tour a museum, attend a concert or visit an amusement park where there might be gay people?

There is a big difference between (a) living in the world that you have to live in and you don't have any choice about who else is there, and (b) voluntarily joining and participating in an organization because you want to associate with certain kinds of people. A lot of the wistful comments from progressives express a desire to have the conservatives be exposed to people they don't want to be exposed to, because it will be good for them -- they will learn that their conservative views are, well, wrong. And that is the sort of thing that gets the conservatives upset. And the progressives can't understand why.

 

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

[Rick_in_CA]

dkurtenback wrote: “There is a big difference between (a) living in the world that you have to live in and you don't have any choice about who else is there, and (b) voluntarily joining and participating in an organization because you want to associate with certain kinds of people. A lot of the wistful comments from progressives express a desire to have the conservatives be exposed to people they don't want to be exposed to, because it will be good for them -- they will learn that their conservative views are, well, wrong. And that is the sort of thing that gets the conservatives upset. And the progressives can't understand why.â€Â

 

Not that their conservative views are wrong, but that just because people disagree with them, that they aren’t worth associating with. Unless the conservative view you are talking about is the view “progressives are morally bankrupt people and have no ethicsâ€Â, then yes - you are wrong!

 

What it sounds like you are saying (correct me if I am wrong) is: conservatives really only want to hang out with fellow conservatives, and they want all the non-conservatives too leave scouting and leave them alone? And you wonder why progressive feel upset about that?

 

I love scouting. It was a huge positive influence in my youth, and still is today. That is why I care so much, and am fighting for BSA national to make it’s policies match what I believe scouting values to be (you can’t be non-sectarian and then tell half the faiths “ignore your tenets, use theirs insteadâ€Â).

[dkurtenbach]

What it sounds like you are saying (correct me if I am wrong) is: conservatives really only want to hang out with fellow conservatives' date=' and they want all the non-conservatives too leave scouting and leave them alone? And you wonder why progressive feel upset about that? I love scouting. It was a huge positive influence in my youth, and still is today. That is why I care so much, and am fighting for BSA national to make it’s policies match what I believe scouting values to be (you can’t be non-sectarian and then tell half the faiths “ignore your tenets, use theirs insteadâ€Â).[/quote']

 

 

 

 

Well, it isn't that conservatives (and I use that word as shorthand for 'folks who want to keep the current policy that excludes open or avowed homosexuals') really only want to hang out with fellow conservatives and want everyone else to leave Scouting. We're talking about a very specific situation here: the conservatives don't want to hang out with open or avowed homosexuals. Most of them are perfectly happy to hang out with other folks who have a common interest in Scouting. Well, unless they are atheists.

 

 

 

 

 

Reading many discussions in many forums, there seems to be a disconnect. You love Scouting. It is a huge positive influence. But they love Scouting too. It is a huge positive influence. That is why you care so much, and that's why they care so much. You are fighting for BSA National to make its policies match what you believe Scouting values to be. They are fighting for BSA National to make its policies match what they believe Scouting values to be. It's sorta like a math problem, I guess -- the identical values on each side of the equal sign cancel each other out, leaving just the values that are different from each other. But this is not a math problem, it is a people problem; and the solution would benefit from considering all of the values that are alike as well as those that are different.

 

 

 

 

 

Dan Kurtenbach

 

 

Fairfax, VA

 

[Rick_in_CA]

dkurtenback wrote: “But this is not a math problem, it is a people problem; and the solution would benefit from considering all of the values that are alike as well as those that are different.â€Â

 

But isn’t that the whole point of local control? Everyone gets to apply their values to their unit? This is the problem I keep running up against - there is a group of conservatives (obviously not all conservatives) that are defining “respecting my values†as unit A being able to force their values on unit B over there even though they agree with them. That is NOT respecting the values of unit B.

 

Is that the conservative definition of “Respect� I get my way, and you don’t? I hope not.

[Rick_in_CA]

That should have been: "force their values on unit B over there even though they DON"T agree with them."

 

I wish we could edit our posts.

[AZMike]

To Rick's point, if we consider Dan's Plan as the Czechoslovakia Option - a velvet divorce, with each side going their merry way - the Local Option appears to be the Yugoslavia Option, with the level of infighting, disputes, hurt feelings, ruptured friendships, and boys pulled out of troops skyrocketing under the Local Option. Like Yugoslavia, disorder and chaos will rise as the central authority of the old regime - however disliked it might be - gives way to individual disputes. Instead of the Czech and Slovak Republics, we may be left with Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, and Herzegovina as our new models. We will see old troops torn apart because COs, parents, committee members, scouters, community members, and outside activists will disagree on how "their" troop will be run. Basementdweller has written on how his troop may collapse solely because of an individual with whom he disagrees. (I will point out with charity that it takes two to have a disagreement.) Multiply that by the number of troops in the country that contain strong-willed people with their own standards of morality, and which they believe to be uncompromisable.

 

If the local option passes, expect the Balkanization of the BSA to begin quickly.

 

The Czechoslovakian Option certainly isn't optimal, but it's still better than the Local Option.

 

 

 

[Kahuna]

Separate but equal... Wasn't that tried once before....How did that work out?? anyone anyone.

 

1. The first prerequisite is that there has to be "equal" as well as separate -- which was never the case in the example you mention. I think the conservative churches and other organizations who remain in the traditional programs will have the resources to keep up with LFL Scouting.

2. The separation would be totally voluntary, and doesn't force anyone to be separated if they don't want to be -- which was never the case in the example you mention. If gays or lesbians want to remain in the traditional program, they can, under the same conditions as exist now. If someone who doesn't care for homosexuals wants to join an LFL Scouting unit (for example, to meet girls), no problem.

3. The Venturing/Exploring split seems to have worked out.

 

The difference between the result we would have with this proposed split, and the result we would have with either a local option or a complete disavowal of discrimination by BSA is this: Instead of the conservative churches leaving BSA and establishing their own exclusionary programs, they would still be within BSA.

 

I realize that on each side, there are folks who think that the other side is wrong, illegitimate, has no right to assert their fundamentally evil position, and thus deserve no concessions and no consideration. These hardliners on the anti-homosexual side do not favor the local option or any option that would offer anything to the anti-discrimination side. The hardliners on the anti-discrimination side would prefer a complete rejection of the exclusionary policy, but realize that the local option is a foot in the door and their ultimate goal is just a few years away (after local option proves unworkable); and they would not at all mind if the anti-homosexual crowd left BSA entirely (and good riddance). And so this proposed split is offensive to hardliners on both sides, precisely because it recognizes that each side has sincere and legitimate arguments and concerns.

 

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

The Venturing/Exploring split was not comparable to this in any way. That was designed to liberate Explorer groups only interested in careers, primarily police and fire, from more traditional Scout programs. It did not present anything like the complexities of trying some kind of gay/atheist/traditional split in Scouting overall. I won't say it couldn't be done, but I can't see how it would work.

[Kahuna]

Why would an atheist be a member of a religion? Because atheist doesn't mean: "doesn't believe in religion" (though I am sure there are plenty of atheists that don't), but "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of deities." There are plenty of religions that can fit that description. Of course, now you have to define what the word "Deity" or "Deities" refer too.

For the record, as a practicing Buddhist, Buddhism does not require belief in a Supreme Being. However, there are Buddhists, like myself, who do so believe. BTW, The Buddha was not a deity nor is he "worshipped" as such by Buddhists. The question for a sincere Buddhist Scout or Scouter would be whether you can accept the DRP and recite the Scout Oath and Law without compromising your beliefs. I and many others can, as can people who are members of no religion. Don't forget, one does not have to be a member of any religion to be a member of the BSA. And then, there's always the Universal Life Church (Google it).

[dkurtenbach]

That should have been: "force their values on unit B over there even though they DON"T agree with them."

 

I wish we could edit our posts.

I think the problem is more along these lines: The conservatives feel that BSA has been going along just fine as it is. They can feel comfortable using Scouting as a character-building tool for their children, with character-building expressly including faith and morals. Everyone who joins Scouting -- the millions of youth and adult in Scouting now and everyone who has participated in Scouting over at least the last few decades -- understands this and has agreed to it. Now there are forces that want to come in and significantly change that environment by allowing members whose beliefs contradict the views of faith and morality -- character -- that Scouting has been living by and promoting for a long, long, time. That is, the "liberals" are trying to come into their house (Scouting) and force their values on the conservatives; but the values the conservatives espouse have been Scouting's values -- that is, the conservatives were there first. And their rights were reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. What right do the liberals have to come in and change things? What right do the liberals have to come in and force us to either associate with people who do not share our values OR retreat into our own units and no longer participate in all of the broader and multi-unit events and activities that Scouting offers. What right do the liberals have to -- against our will -- make us members of an organization that promotes practices that we believe to be immoral and an evil influence on children?

 

And that is a good point. By what right is this being done when the rights and expectations of members and the nature of the program have been settled for decades? Now of course we know all the arguments about why this change would be a good thing. But we also need to be clear in our minds that we have some justification for coming in and making these changes, something more than "right of conquest," that is, something more than "we can do it because we have the raw power to force our will on Scouting." After all, America is built on BOTH majority rule AND protecting the rights of the minority -- that is what the Bill of Rights is all about. So even if the conservatives are in the minority right now, we can't just kick down the door, march in, and start ordering them around. The local option does preserve some of their rights, but not all of them. As suggested above, the local option either forces conservatives to associate with gays and lesbians at broader or multi-unit events, such as camporees and Roundtable, OR if they don't want to associate, then they have to retreat into their own units or a collection of conservative units. And that only deals with the units, not with the individual conservatives found in every unit, who don't have a local option. If their unit decides to admit gays, they either have to cooperate or leave the unit. That is a big change being forced on them by liberals. Their rights as a minority are not being protected at all. And that is being done all in the interest of promoting the rights of another minority. See the problem here?

 

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I seem to have gone back in time a week and a half.

[DigitalScout]

I seem to have gone back in time a week and a half.

It's the BSA: we are stuck in the past. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[eaglewolfdad]

Interesting article regarding this topic. The last line in the article is the sad part. "the meetings have ceased"

 

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/public-school-boots-cub-scouts.html