Is your troop/pack in danger?

[NJCubScouter]

I didn't mean to imply that we should not be friendly, courteous, or kind to everyone.... but we should be reverent as well.

 

What I mean packsaddle, is that Boy Scout used to mean something, and still does.... call it Duddly Do Right, Call it whatever you want.

But as soon as the BSA bows to the pressures of this issue, it means far less.

 

IMO, Scouting should not be teaching boys about this issue at all, from either perspective. This issue has no place at all in a youth program.

So, why are we letting it have a place?

blw2 says:

 

I didn't mean to imply that we should not be friendly, courteous, or kind to everyone.... but we should be reverent as well.

 

"Reverent" does not require excluding gay people, in fact, for many religious people, "reverent" would prohibit excluding gay people. That's really one of the reasons why this is such a contentious issue. If everybody agreed on what God wanted mankind (including the BSA) to do regarding this issue, and agreed on which policy is the moral one, there wouldn't be a debate.

 

What I mean packsaddle, is that Boy Scout used to mean something, and still does.... call it Duddly Do Right, Call it whatever you want. But as soon as the BSA bows to the pressures of this issue, it means far less.

 

One could say that the BSA bowed to the pressures of this issue years ago, in one direction, and now it may be bowing to different pressures, in a different direction. In years past the BSA bowed to pressures on racially segregated units and female leaders. There's always pressure of one kind or another, whether you're the BSA or just a person. Sometimes it is pressure to do the right thing, sometimes the wrong thing. The trick is knowing which is which.

 

IMO, Scouting should not be teaching boys about this issue at all, from either perspective. This issue has no place at all in a youth program. So, why are we letting it have a place?

 

Yeah, well, you might want to talk to the BSA about that. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court described the BSA's legal position as follows: " The Boy Scouts asserts that it 'teach[es] that homosexual conduct is not morally straight,' Brief for Petitioners 39, and that it does 'not want to promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior,' Reply Brief for Petitioners 5." Now, I don't know who the BSA "teaches" that. When I was a Boy Scout in the 60s and 70s, they never taught me that. But they told the Supreme Court that is what they "teach." In any event, the impetus to change the policy is not about "teaching", though its probably unavoidable that no matter what the BSA does (including what they are already doing), there are "lessons" for the boys, whether intentionally or not. That's not the purpose of the policy (whether the current one or the proposed one), though it is one of the results. There's no way to avoid that. The ship sailed a long time ago on keeping this a "non issue", the issue is here, and it isn't going away. It's going to be decided one way or the other, and if a change is not made now, the decision is going to keep being made, over and over again.

[Peregrinator]

Blw2, Please explain. What IS the "moral experience" that is being "watered down"?

How does the exclusionary membership policy qualify as some kind of experience? What does that policy teach boys?

What does the BSA's apparent willingness to change that policy teach the boys in their charge?

[Oak Tree]

Eagle92, what I am hearing is just the opposite.

 

I suspect that this has something to do with the fact that I live in New Jersey, and you live in North Carolina. Across the country, there are a number of states that are more like New Jersey on this issue, and a number that are more like North Carolina. So how does the BSA deal with this issue and continue to be a nationwide organization?

North Carolina is far from homogeneous on this issue. County votes on the gay marriage amendment ("Amendment 1") ranged from roughly 80% in favor to 80% opposed. The bigger cities all voted against banning gay marriage and the rural counties voted in favor. The map looks overwhelmingly against gay marriage, but the large urban areas and biggest college campuses were all against the amendment (Charlotte, Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, Asheville, Boone). See the island phenomenon here: http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2012/05/nc-results-map.html

[SequoiaWDL]

Yes. Actually I believe that our troop and pack are beyond the danger threshold . Without any discussion with the church/ CO, we were sent a certified letter (via the council, I understand) that our 36-year relationship was ending.

My post seemed clear to me (in my own head) when I wrote it. My sincerest apologies. Yes, the Chartering Organization sent a letter to the CO rep or Committee Chair (heck, maybe to both, that wasn't disclosed) terminating the 36-year relationship with the troop. The letter was e-forwarded to committee members this afternoon, and was filled with vague non-sequitous explanations. Will we be better off with a new CO? When we find a place for an active, vibrant and well-equipped troop to meet regularly and stow our gear, I'll let you know. Is it the end of the world? No. The leaders and parents who want the program to continue will find a way to make it happen.

 

BadenP : Since you assumed correctly that my perspective was from that of a leader, then the phrase "we were sent a certified letter' should clearly indicate who was the sender and who was the receiver. Basic English. On top of that comprehension blunder, your response was unscout-like.

[BadenP]

Sequoia

 

Premature rash actions usually lead to poor decisions and ends with disasterous results! IMO that is exactly what your CO did. I find it hard to believe your leaders had no input to this decision. Now as a result you are no longer a scouter, nor are your youth scouts, what a sterling performance, what have you really accomplished, and who are the ones who are truly hurt? The BSA decision hasn't even been made yet and you all have torpedoed scouting for your youth, so I ask you who is the one really being unscoutlike. I hope other CO's will take a much more rational approach before deciding the future of scouting in their organizations.

[packsaddle]

Or it could be that the CO was just 'waiting for some reason' to do this anyway, for that matter. But regardless, it's done. They will hopefully find a supportive CO. From the sound of things, the unit itself and the leaders are going to make a 'go' of it one way or another.

 

As far as 'teaching' goes, I need to defend blw2 on that because I was the one who brought up the idea of 'teaching'. It was the way I naturally interpret what happens as a result of experiences and the idea of a 'moral experience' was not clear to me. It still isn't, at least not as it relates to the topic of membership policy. But I certainly did NOT have in my mind that anyone was going to be 'taught' about sexuality. Rather it was about morality.

So my confusion of the idea of a 'moral experience' is where all that came from. And that's ok because I'm often confused about a lot of things. Sigh, I'm used to it.

[AZMike]

An interesting (older) article from the LDS perspective from sci-fi author Orson Scott Card (whose book "Ender's Game" is recommended for scouts and scouters alike - the movie version is coming out in November), and why the loss of scouting if the LDS pulls its charters for moral issues would be a bad thing for a lot of LDS youth:

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2000/05/What-Will-The-Church-Do-After-Scouting.aspx

[bnelon44]

AZMike, the chances of the BSA doing something that would cause the LDS church to pull their charters is ZERO

 

Your talking about the elimination of Scouting in Nevada, UT, AZ and NM and the closing of Philmont. Ain't gonna happen.

[skeptic]

Since, as I understand it, Philmont belongs to ALL BSA members (as stipulated in the donation to deter selling), what does the LDS group have to do with it? Just curious where that is coming from.