Update On Adult Leadership Standards

[Stosh]

You're insane, Stosh.

 

Why thank you for your insightful personal attack.  Now if one has something to say on the subject, we would all like to hear it.

[JoeBob]

You're insane, Stosh.

I'm crazy.  I like being crazy.

In this world, being crazy is the only way to keep my sanity.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Why thank you for your insightful personal attack.  Now if one has something to say on the subject, we would all like to hear it.

 

The subject being your paranoia?

[NJCubScouter]

Cambridgeskip,

I only just read it and it might have been an easy decision if there hadn't already been several responses (which would  mean a cascading effect of editing, etc. which could just end up causing confusion - voice of experience here). I could invite you to read other statements that I've had to read in this I&P forum and you would understand that it isn't actually the most ignorant and offensive thing available...it's just the one that you read.

I admit that I'm uncertain, short of just deleting things wholesale, how to keep a forum like this one 'moderate'. It seems to naturally spawn the sort of thing to which you've just reacted. And since I'm in a profession that values open exchange of ideas, no matter how ignorant and offensive, I try to err on the side of permissiveness.

 

My personal approach to things like this forum and for that matter to those individuals who insist on standing in public place to spew this onto students and the public, is to let them stand and be the example of ignorance and offensiveness that they are. It isn't pleasant but in a sort of way, it IS instructive. So that's the approach I try to take here in the I&P forum. To the other moderators, please feel free to jump in on this.

I endorse Packsaddle's approach to the posts in question. I do think there comes a point where the "give 'em enough rope" approach does not go far enough and stronger action must be taken. But lets face it, the idea that a change in the policy on openly gay leaders will result in an upsurge in sexual abuse is not a new thing in this forum - however many times that idea has been rejected by the BSA and refuted by many other posters over the years, including me. Scouter99 has expressed the idea more crudely and in a less Scoutlike manner than most, and has done so in a repetitive manner in this one thread, but I think several of our other members have dealt with it well in their responses.

 

I also think that some of the more recent posts in this thread are things we can do without. It is appropriate to comment about posts and their contents, and to some extent it is appropriate to comment about the way others choose to express themselves (as I did in the preceding paragraph), but it is almost never appropriate to comment on other members themselves. For example, if you believe that a particular post is incomprehensible, it's fine to say so. But it's not ok to say the other poster is "insane" or to diagnose other psychological maladies in one's fellow forum members. That needs to stop.

Edited July 17, 2015 by NJCubScouter

[packsaddle]

Yeah, I just read it too and I agree.

[Horizon]

Why thank you for your insightful personal attack.  Now if one has something to say on the subject, we would all like to hear it.

 

 

[whoops - wrote this after the request to not comment on sanity - leaving it, but if the mods want to delete - go ahead]

 

If you run a business - you are required to follow the applicable laws. That means black people get to sit at the counter, women are allowed without being escorted by men, etc. So if anyone is in a governmental identified protected class, you are not allowed to discriminate against them. If the various churches would stop allowing money changers in, then there would not be a problem. The only change has been the addition of gays and lesbians to the protected class, joining racial groups, religious groups, the disabled and certain classes of military veterans.

 

If you have a home, you can do whatever you please, as long as you are within the building code and zoning laws . This has not changed either.

 

If you have a church, you can admit whomever you please. You can also reject whomever you please. Ask the Catholics - women still cannot become Priests. If, however, your church decides to start taking government funds or running a business - you have to start following the applicable laws.

 

The 1st Amendment is still alive and going strong. You are completely free to practice your faith. The Supremes have gone so far as to allow Native American churches to use peyote, and nobody has successfully sued the Catholics to allow women to become Priests.

 

In the BSA - our Chartered Orgs can still choose the leaders. They have control.

In the USA - the only way Sharia law will come to be is if we elect Representatives and Senators who pass laws, and a President who swaps out the Supreme Court that allows for Sharia Law. I personally don't see this happening anytime soon, and anyone who predicts that it is imminent because of gay marriage needs to remember that when you make a tin foil hat - the shiny side faces out.

 

Edited July 17, 2015 by Horizon

[Scouter99]

 

 

One of the most ignorant and offensive things that I have ever read on the internet. And I've seen some shockers. I'm quite shocked that the moderators are allowing this to stand.

What's shocking about a statement of fact and why would you expect the moderators to sanction a statement of fact? I am upset about the change because I know that it places youth in direct harm.

 

What offends you is the truth. You refuse to face the truth of homosexuality because you must deny the truth to promote inclusivity—the youth are sacrificed to a political goal that has nothing to do with Scouting.

 

Do you want to know where the very first homosexual scandal happened in Scouting? It happened at the very beginning: Gilwell Park. The camp doctor, Robert Patterson, was dismissed after 14 years because he used Scouting to get at young men; they have used Scouting to get at virile young men at the zenith and height of their sexual prowess ever since; and the moment BSA votes to openly allow them, they will come in greater numbers.

And it is the youth who will pay the penalty for this starry-eyed idealism.

 

And in the twisted view of the activist, I am labeled "crude" for daring to speak the truth, but the gay man must be allowed, he is blameless.

 

A couple of weeks ago, Scouts UK and Scouts Canada chirp-chirp-chirpped about their presence at Pride parades around England and Canada.

Here are two photos, the first from Pride London, the second from Pride Toronto.

 

We are all adults, here, so let's look at what Scouts UK and Scouts Canada are doing about their gay inclusion:

Be warned: Neither of these photos is work or family safe,

Neither is Scouting appropriate and yet you will be offended that I am posting these photos here, but not that Scouts were purposefully exposed to these things in person by your enlightened, inclusive Scouting.

And what would you and the moderators like to be done about photos of Gay Pride being posted, but allow and encourage Scouts to attend?

If it's not appropriate here, it's not appropriate anywhere in Scouting, yet American Scouts have already been taken to these events by activist adults, and the pro-gay members of this forum have already expressed -zero- concern about it; they joke about it! Oh, and my favorite, if we're opposed to inclusivity, it's because we're gay.

 

Now, if you have 1 decent bone in you, scroll quick. And if you're pro-inclusion, you explain to us what business Scouts had at these events.

 

 

[Moderator Note: Second photo removed as being inappropriate for this forum - NJCubScouter]

 

If a Canadian Scout can march at the head of this parade, pass out fliers and recruit here, and Scouts Canada brag about him being there, why does this photo not belong here?

 

If these photos offend you, if you believe these photos do not belong here, and you are pro-inclusion, you explain it to us.

 

packsaddle is completely correct: Half of you think I look like a right donkey. And as the lawsuits, suicides, and destroyed lives pile up, that half will grow their muzzles, tails, and ears.

Edited July 17, 2015 by NJCubScouter
Photo inappropriate for forum

[Scouter99]

And I must note I find the most complete hilarity in a group of grown men who can't bear, as "crude," the mention of sex, gay sex, virility, pubescence, etc. but who are rah-rah homosexuality.  These same men, doubtless, would have no problem with Scouts at a pride parade, but not allow a Scout to swim in Speedos, or Arrowman to wear a loincloth.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Scouter99

[eagle77]

 First off, please tell me what tells you that these boys are scouts? All they look like are young men at a gay pride parade. There is not one single thing in those pictures that says they are scouts. Besides that who am I or any other leader to tell them what they can or can not do on their free time. Are they doing anything against the law?  Are you saying that a good SM also passes on his prejudice and bigotry? Why stop there and let's also pass on our politics too.

[David CO]

It seems that both sides like to use safety concerns to bolster their arguments. Pro-gay advocates often claim that traditional religions incite violent assaults and teen suicides. Anti-gay detractors often portray homosexuals as likely pedophiles. I think neither argument is true.

[NJCubScouter]

Scouter99, I have removed the second photo from your post. I will respond to the post itself during daylight hours. But in a few words, I don't send Scouts to gay pride parades, nor have I been to one, nor do I spend my time scouring the Internet for the most lascivious photos taken at parades. I have no responsibility for what goes on at someone's parade. I am, however, part of a team that is responsible for maintaining some minimum level of decency in this forum.

 

Please do not post photos like that again.

[David CO]

To answer Eagle 77, yes, a good Scoutmaster of a church owned unit does pass on his prejudice and bigotry, only we like to call it faith and morals.

[Scouter99]

So that you know what the national body of Scouts Canada deemed appropriate for Scouting, but some pro-inclusion guy in New Jersey finds inappropriate to Scouting, here is a censored version of what Scouts Canada exposed Duncan to, who appears to be maybe 12.

 

(Photo removed by Packsaddle)

[Edit by Packsaddle: Scouter99, this is a public forum. Boy Scouts have access to it, actually much wider access than some parade someplace, and YOU have deliberately subjected Boy Scouts to those very same images that you think are bad for them. You are entitled to your own personal views and you are entitled to communicate them within the limits of decorum expected by the forums.  But in the spirit of your own outrage, you are being moderated in order to provide the very protection you seem to want for the boys....from YOU!  In an act of evident futility another moderator asked you politely NOT to post photos like that one again and you willfully disregarded that request. I advise you to take such requests more seriously in the future]

 

This is inclusion. Now that gay marriage is settled legally, you will see the pro-gay elements of BSA demanding the ability of Scouts to march in pride parades in uniform, where, as Scouts, they will be rubbing elbows with this element.

 

At the Greek Festival, you see Greek culture: hummus, circle dancing, seafood, wine, Orthodoxy.  At the Armenian Festival you see Armenian culture. 

At the Gay Pride Parade you see homosexual culture

If it is crude to post these things, then it is because homosexuality is crude; because homosexuality is identity reduced to sex. 

 

 

 First off, please tell me what tells you that these boys are scouts? All they look like are young men at a gay pride parade. There is not one single thing in those pictures that says they are scouts. Besides that who am I or any other leader to tell them what they can or can not do on their free time. Are they doing anything against the law?  Are you saying that a good SM also passes on his prejudice and bigotry? Why stop there and let's also pass on our politics too.

You have completely misunderstood my post, in no way did I imply that the people in the photos were Scouts, though I'm sure Scouts UK would have preferred that they were.  Have a second read.

 

And yes, the good SM does pass on values, or does your troop leave out all the pesky moral language in the Oath, Law, motto, and slogan? 

We do tell Scouts what they can and cannot do in their free time, because the values of Scouting are not located on our uniform sleeves, but in our hearts, otherwise we are hypocrites.  A Scout who does not "Demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath and Scout Law in [his] everyday life" is not a Scout, he's a boy on his way to being a Scout one day, and God bless him when he makes it because that's the hardest part, which is probably why you discount it.

Edited July 17, 2015 by packsaddle

[eagle77]

To answer Eagle 77, yes, a good Scoutmaster of a church owned unit does pass on his prejudice and bigotry, only we like to call it faith and morals.

 

  Now I can agree 100% on what you say there. I have never been a leader to a troop that was owned by a church. I chose the wrong words to use there, sorry.

[eagle77]

 I'm done. This is like trying to drive a screw the a hammer.