Deseret News: Editorial On Scouting

[Eagledad]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865598084/Building-responsible-men.html

 

""Unfortunately, the overwhelming good in the Scouting program is being drowned out by narrow political agendas. That is a shame, because no other program or organization has matched the record of the Boy Scouts in helping boys grow to become responsible men and fathers.""

 

[Old_OX_Eagle83]

Fantastic write up. We're being made a battle ground for special interest groups; and it's being done because it gets those special interests media attention. Neither side of this battle gives a darn about scouting, or what they destroy to get in the spotlight. I view everyone who has poured fuel on this fire as an enemy of scouting, regardless of what side they're on.

 

We scouts don't have a side, we're here to help youth realize their potential, and become strong citizens that not only succeed, but make this world a better place as they do so ... partisan politics has no place in this program. If we can rise above all the muck being slung, stay the course, and resist reacting to goading, our quality will be there for all to see, and none to question.

[eaglewolfdad]

Bravo

[fred johnson]

Great article and well said.

 

Not trying to re-open debate. BSA needs out of the political positioning battle. And it should be very easy. Just let each charter org choose their leaders and their members. And then move on. USA is not a homogeneous population. We are a nation of many beliefs and values. Let BSA provide the program and structure and then let the charter orgs run their units. And if a value / belief difference affects specific charter org membership, that's a decision of the specific charter org. Then, let the market drive which charter orgs people join.

[skeptic]

Great article and well said.

 

Not trying to re-open debate. BSA needs out of the political positioning battle. And it should be very easy. Just let each charter org choose their leaders and their members. And then move on. USA is not a homogeneous population. We are a nation of many beliefs and values. Let BSA provide the program and structure and then let the charter orgs run their units. And if a value / belief difference affects specific charter org membership, that's a decision of the specific charter org. Then, let the market drive which charter orgs people join.

Oh come on Fred; that is just too much common sense. Funny thing, it seems to me that was pretty much the way it was until the Dale case got pushed into the political area and for some reason National felt the need to respond.

 

If BSA is supposed to be apolitical, then it should be, period. CO's have always had the final say, and still do. The difference is only seen for the most part on the National level when the PC police latch onto something and push it into that arena. Have never understood the rationale behind these actions, other than politics and notoriety. They certainly do not have much concern for the damage they do in comparison to any improvement. The real irony, to me, is that the history of BSA shows them evolving to accommodate cultural and social issues over time. And I suspect this too would have worked its way through without all the drama if just allowed to do so.

 

But, what do I know; I have only worked on the troop and district levels for the past 40 years or so?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Great article and well said.

 

Not trying to re-open debate. BSA needs out of the political positioning battle. And it should be very easy. Just let each charter org choose their leaders and their members. And then move on. USA is not a homogeneous population. We are a nation of many beliefs and values. Let BSA provide the program and structure and then let the charter orgs run their units. And if a value / belief difference affects specific charter org membership, that's a decision of the specific charter org. Then, let the market drive which charter orgs people join.

The CO didn't throw out Dale, that was done at the council level. If it had been left up to the CO, Dale wouldn't have been kicked out.

 

BTW, here's another perspective:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2014/03/the-boy-scouts-image-problem.html

[Huzzar]

Great article and well said.

 

Not trying to re-open debate. BSA needs out of the political positioning battle. And it should be very easy. Just let each charter org choose their leaders and their members. And then move on. USA is not a homogeneous population. We are a nation of many beliefs and values. Let BSA provide the program and structure and then let the charter orgs run their units. And if a value / belief difference affects specific charter org membership, that's a decision of the specific charter org. Then, let the market drive which charter orgs people join.

All well and good until you go to District, Council or National events.

 

The reality is that the old "don't ask, don't tell but you're out if we find out" was the best system.

[skeptic]

Merlyn; My point exactly.

 

Thanks for the other link. While it is a fair discussion, I find it interesting that the few responses in the comments are not particularly supportive of the continued political attacks on BSA. And the last comment (currently) also takes Disney to task to some extent.

 

"

 

mootv20 hours ago

 

It's good that big business is publicly affirming gay rights. A lot has been said about blue chips influencing Arizona's recent anti-gay brouhaha toward the right conclusion. This strategy is a plus for the cause and brandishes these business' images, but I don't find anything particularly courageous about Disney dumping the BSA. I'm an Eagle Scout. I am, like many current and former members of the Boy Scouts, embarrassed by its lumbering and short sighted policy vis-a-vis gay participation. But scouting also gave me a lot, and has benefited countless American men. Disney, a multi-zillion dollar for-profit company with a patchy record of their own, in a public dialogue they are rather late to, using the BSA (finances detailed above) as a convenient foil strikes me as the height of hypocrisy. Shape up, yes, BSA, but look to the mote in your own eye Disney. "

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Merlyn; My point exactly.

 

Thanks for the other link. While it is a fair discussion, I find it interesting that the few responses in the comments are not particularly supportive of the continued political attacks on BSA. And the last comment (currently) also takes Disney to task to some extent.

 

"

 

mootv20 hours ago

 

It's good that big business is publicly affirming gay rights. A lot has been said about blue chips influencing Arizona's recent anti-gay brouhaha toward the right conclusion. This strategy is a plus for the cause and brandishes these business' images, but I don't find anything particularly courageous about Disney dumping the BSA. I'm an Eagle Scout. I am, like many current and former members of the Boy Scouts, embarrassed by its lumbering and short sighted policy vis-a-vis gay participation. But scouting also gave me a lot, and has benefited countless American men. Disney, a multi-zillion dollar for-profit company with a patchy record of their own, in a public dialogue they are rather late to, using the BSA (finances detailed above) as a convenient foil strikes me as the height of hypocrisy. Shape up, yes, BSA, but look to the mote in your own eye Disney. "

 

 

The continued political attacks are fallout from the BSA's original decision to keep certain people out. It wasn't particularly popular back then, and even less popular now.

[Engineer61]

I was thinking the other day that it is too bad that the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's didn't encompass ALL the groups that need the changes to occur...would have been a lot more efficient.

[AZMike]

I was thinking the other day that it is too bad that the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's didn't encompass ALL the groups that need the changes to occur...would have been a lot more efficient.

Given the feelings of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King about homosexuality, that would have been unlikely.

[AZMike]

I was thinking the other day that it is too bad that the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's didn't encompass ALL the groups that need the changes to occur...would have been a lot more efficient.

There were, in fact, members of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s who supported a platform of homosexual rights, but it is probably a good thing from our point of view that their demands weren't met, as many of those supporting homosexual rights during that period in our history also supported the decriminalizing of "consensual" sexual encounters between adult homosexuals and minors. That was a demand that was wisely (mostly) dropped from the manifestos of the later gay rights movement that began with the Stonewall movement.

[Huzzar]

I was thinking the other day that it is too bad that the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's didn't encompass ALL the groups that need the changes to occur...would have been a lot more efficient.

The Labour party in the UK is in the middle of a brouhaha about just that AZMike. Now that gay rights has traction in the UK they want to pretend that they were "confused" when they were advocating 10 being the age of consent for homosexual acts.

[Engineer61]

I liked one of the comments to the article:

 

"I don't think that being a Boy Scout had a darn thing to do with me becoming a responsible adult. Sure was fun, though."

 

I tend to agree with that.

[Sentinel947]

I liked one of the comments to the article:

 

"I don't think that being a Boy Scout had a darn thing to do with me becoming a responsible adult. Sure was fun, though."

 

I tend to agree with that.

Course you do, considering you hate the BSA and think Scouting is a waste of time.