Mr. Gates Address At National Meeting

[BadenP]

If the BSA comes out and allows gay leaders and scouts as a National policy but allows a CO to discriminate based on their own religious/political beliefs then we have two separate groups of scouts part of the same organization, which is inconsistent and will definitely lead to future lawsuits, as well as being just plain poor business practice. A National Policy has to be the same for all membership or it is weak and lacks any credibility. The BSA can NOT have their cake and eat it too. They have to either have the courage to say all are welcome or allow the discrimination that the local option gives the CO's. A separate but equal policy is NOT the answer, the BSA has to face the reality of todays world or be lost as a relic of the past. Either way it is time for National to take a stand one way or the other because you can not have it both ways.

[numbersnerd]

That is a ridiculous statement. Nobody in this forum is advocating that child molesters be allowed to be members or leaders of the Boy Scouts.

 

How you reached that conclusion is beyond comprehension. 

[numbersnerd]

I really wish the BSA would move away from United Way and corporate funding, for more than the obvious reasons.  For one, this would remove a lot of the financial leverage these organizations are exerting on the program. Secondly, it would also eliminate the ability to sustain the bureacracy, both in complexity and size, that is fumbling and stumbling its way though this mess. 

 

It's becoming obvious that there are a lot of players involved in influencing BSA policy and management that were never involved in Scouting as a youth nor in a volunteer capacity. Their interests are only for self-sustenance, disregarding the tenets of the program. Right-size the staffing and get competent management that is committed to the program, not ones that are only interested in preserving their career path.

[NJCubScouter]

If the BSA comes out and allows gay leaders and scouts as a National policy but allows a CO to discriminate based on their own religious/political beliefs then we have two separate groups of scouts part of the same organization, which is inconsistent and will definitely lead to future lawsuits, as well as being just plain poor business practice. A National Policy has to be the same for all membership or it is weak and lacks any credibility. The BSA can NOT have their cake and eat it too. They have to either have the courage to say all are welcome or allow the discrimination that the local option gives the CO's. A separate but equal policy is NOT the answer, the BSA has to face the reality of todays world or be lost as a relic of the past. Either way it is time for National to take a stand one way or the other because you can not have it both ways.

It seems to me that unless you made a typo, your first and second sentences contradict your fourth sentence, in which you seem to say that the local option is a viable option. As for "poor business practice" and the idea that the "membership policy" has to be uniform, that sounds logical but it is inconsistent with the unique way in which the BSA operates, in having units owned by CO's rather than through a central organization. In fact, "local option" is in effect right now, for almost all adult membership criteria. A CO can decide it is not going to have female Scoutmasters, and it is my understanding that the LDS church does exactly that. A CO can decide it is not going to have a leader who is "living in sin" (heterosexually), or is grossly overweight, or is often seen exiting the corner bar (on non-meeting nights of course) and on and on with my usual list of examples. Local option is the norm. The BSA makes an exception to this norm when it requires units to exclude openly gay leaders.

Edited May 26, 2015 by NJCubScouter

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

To add to NJCubScouter's list, church units can limit membership to only members of that church/denomination if they want to.  The only limitation from the national BSA I've ever heard of is that they won't allow units to exclude members based on race.

[packsaddle]

NOTICE. In case you missed seeing Merlyn's post in the 'recent posts' panel, the moderators unanimously decided that it would be good to de-emphasize this forum because it tends to detract from...you know...Scouting and could make a bad first impression on newcomers to the forums.

This was my original suggestion and if anyone doesn't like it, you can take it up with me. I suggested it as a compromise between those us who tend to allow most anything in I&P and those who wanted to kill the forum altogether for its lack of Scoutlike qualities. We'll try it for a while.

[ghjim]

Pack,

 

Just curious what you mean by "de-emphasize"

 

Jim

[packsaddle]

At times, multiple threads in I&P would head up the 'recent posts' and guests might think that scouter.com is all about that stuff mostly and that scouting was secondary.

By removing I&P from any mention in 'recent posts' guests will tend to focus on the good stuff instead.

That's what was intended by this change. We can still do all the squabbling we want but it won't be 'out there' quite as prominently as it has been in the past.

Edit: If you like you can think of the I&P forum as being 'in the closet', and not an 'avowed' part of what we like to think of as scouting forums.

Edited May 26, 2015 by packsaddle

[BadenP]

NJ

 

The CO does not own the BSA program  otherwise National would not be able to revoke their charter, or memberships of its members, they rather charter to have the right to use the BSA program with their youth. My point was you can not have two different sets of membership rules within the same organization and still be considered credible. In other words if a CO denies a boy joining their troop with his friend solely because he is gay that is blatant discrimination and the so called "local option" is nothing more than a crock because the BSA is too afraid of taking a stand one way or the other. The National Policy can not be we will accept gay scouts/leaders but the CO can choose to on their own to discriminate against gays from joining their unit. That is a slippery slope no win and indefensible policy that will cause the BSA to lose most of their corporate sponsors in the long run.

[NJCubScouter]

My point was you can not have two different sets of membership rules within the same organization and still be considered credible.

In effect, there are hundreds if not thousands of different sets of membership rules already. They extend to almost every parameter except avowed sexual orientation and belief in God. Local option exists. It is the rule, not the exception. This would just reduce the number of exceptions.

 

That is a slippery slope no win and indefensible policy that will cause the BSA to lose most of their corporate sponsors in the long run.

You mean, as opposed to the slippery slope the BSA is already on right now, with a no-win and indefensible policy that has already caused the loss of some corporate sponsors and some donors?

 

By the way, I am not (as you seem to suggest) advocating the local option for Scouts, only for leaders. I was advocating it for both, until the BSA changed the policy to prohibit exclusion of Scouts from any unit. (But I'll bet you that the number of openly gay Scouts in units that would have exercised a local option to keep them can be counted on the fingers of no hands.) I don't think it would be a good idea to go back on that. I also don't think that forcing units that think that openly gay people are poor role models to accept gay adult leaders is any better of an idea than requiring units who want to be inclusive to exclude them. (Not the best sentence I've ever written, but I'm too tired to fix it.)

Edited May 26, 2015 by NJCubScouter

[NJCubScouter]

At times, multiple threads in I&P would head up the 'recent posts' and guests might think that new.scouter.com is all about that stuff mostly and that scouting was secondary.

By removing I&P from any mention in 'recent posts' guests will tend to focus on the good stuff instead.

That's what was intended by this change. We can still do all the squabbling we want but it won't be 'out there' quite as prominently as it has been in the past.

I think that sums it up pretty well.

 

One of the other things we considered was charging a fee to post in Issues and Politics. Well, no, we didn't consider that at all. I just made it up. But, now that I've made it up... Maybe we'll put it on the agenda for the next Moderators' Annual Meeting.

[packsaddle]

Stosh will go bankrupt. Moosetracker will take pity and lend him some $$$ with low interest. AZMike will scoff at the newly-formed relationship. Eamonn will express confusion...and the forums will continue to provide the source of pleasure and enjoyment that we all have come to expect and appreciate.

Edited May 26, 2015 by packsaddle

[AZMike]

Stosh will go bankrupt. Moosetracker will take pity and lend him some $$$ with low interest. AZMike will scoff at the newly-formed relationship. Eamonn will express confusion...and the forums will continue to provide the source of pleasure and enjoyment that we all have come to expect and appreciate.

 

I have the strangest sensation that, like a dust bunny, those who disagree with what seems to be the new position of BSA headquarters are beginning to be swept under the rug...

[NJCubScouter]

I have the strangest sensation that, like a dust bunny, those who disagree with what seems to be the new position of BSA headquarters are beginning to be swept under the rug...

I hope you realize you are responding to a series of jokes.

[Stosh]

Whew!  I thought for a moment there I was going to have to pay for the privilege of being sarcastic instead of being able to give it away free like I always have done in the past.