"Two local Boy Scout members called out the Campbell County Commissioners earlier this week for their reported fixation on LGBTQ+ material in the public library and reported attempts to meddle in the established challenge process."

[Eagledad]

13 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Whenever I hear people chime in with the BSA has never been political and always supported the Oath and Law, I remind them BSA allowed for segregated units, districts, and even Councils until 1974 when the NAACP sued them into shame and the last Council was finally ordered desegregated.

 

Really! The BSA policies was part of the culture then as much as gays and girls are part of the culture now. 

Using the Oath and Law in a broad brush is a two edge sword. One has to respect the Oath and Law in their personal character to have any integrity for using them to attack whole organizations out of context.

Barry

[CynicalScouter]

11 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

The BSA policies was part of the culture then

I see. So, it is OK when BSA bends to the culture to allow for segregation and discrimination based on race. But otherwise it is

1 hour ago, FormerCubmaster said:

social activism

or would you prefer "political correctness"?

[Eagledad]

19 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I see. So, it is OK when BSA bends to the culture to allow for segregation and discrimination based on race. But otherwise it is

or would you prefer "political correctness"?

My posts aren't being posted, so who knows what we will see.

Bending to culture will always be social activism to somebody.

The Oath and Law are moral principles to guide right decisions. Using Oath and Law as a weapon is not a right decision.

Barry

[skeptic]

As often seems to occur, some post poorly supported historical comments, often having little or no understanding of the evolution of the program over time.  As someone noted, much of the past history of Scouting is intwined in the larger societal norms of the time and locations.  In the case of Blacks, it became an issue for decades, discussed and bounced around at biennial conferences of Exectutives, and at National offices as early as the early 20th century.  That the focus was more on the South at the time is to be expected.  Yet, in many instances local councils found ways to work with the problem, while struggling to not butt heads too hard with local cultural norms of the time.  Meanwhile, we can find historical references of the youth simply being scouts together while adults played the political games.  As with most changes in community standards, it is a slow evolution to a place where it is mostly part of the norm.  

It is unfortunate that we live in a time when some feel the need to somehow change history by dragging things into today from an earlier time, then addressing it with today's standards(?).    In occasional movies that play with the idea of time transport we see how some picture such things, and the difficulties it makes when out of the original time segments.  Sometimes these movies are just comedic, but some actually attempt to deal with the possible confusions and so on.

To me, in this case, though I would suggest the young women should have perhaps not worn uniforms if they planned ahead of time to breach their discussion, they did a great job.  That is what learning rights and responsibilities means in the early requirements, and why there are Citizenship requirements that ask them to be involved in some manner.  It is often  fine line. 

[skeptic]

Just now, skeptic said:

As often seems to occur, some post poorly supported historical comments, often having little or no understanding of the evolution of the program over time.  As someone noted, much of the past history of Scouting is intwined in the larger societal norms of the time and locations.  In the case of Blacks, it became an issue for decades, discussed and bounced around at biennial conferences of Exectutives, and at National offices as early as the early 20th century.  That the focus was more on the South at the time is to be expected.  Yet, in many instances local councils found ways to work with the problem, while struggling to not butt heads too hard with local cultural norms of the time.  Meanwhile, we can find historical references of the youth simply being scouts together while adults played the political games.  As with most changes in community standards, it is a slow evolution to a place where it is mostly part of the norm.  

It is unfortunate that we live in a time when some feel the need to somehow change history by dragging things into today from an earlier time, then addressing it with today's standards(?).    In occasional movies that play with the idea of time transport we see how some picture such things, and the difficulties it makes when out of the original time segments.  Sometimes these movies are just comedic, but some actually attempt to deal with the possible confusions and so on.

To me, in this case, though I would suggest the young women should have perhaps not worn uniforms if they planned ahead of time to breach their discussion, they did a great job.  That is what learning rights and responsibilities means in the early requirements, and why there are Citizenship requirements that ask them to be involved in some manner.  It is often  fine line. 

As a tangential discussion, I am reminded of BP trying to put Scouting forward as an international way of reaching other cultures without the often caustic political issues adults too often bring to the table.  He used the term "Peace Scouts" on occasion.  And we can find many stories from international Scouting events and just occasional meetings from other Scout groups that support the idea.  We are often far too centered on BSA and pay little attention, other than at World Jamborees, to other groups.  We were fortunate in 1979, while on a trek at Philmont, to run into a full crew of South African scouts.  They had come to Philmont in lieu of the cancelled Iranian Jambo.  We had a great interchange of Scouting.  But what I found most telling was that there were twelve of them, senior scouts who were all white.  But their adult leader was Black, and the White youth showed him seemingly absolute respect.  This was when Apartheid was still in place.    Of course we have also heard the stories, whether true or not we do not know, of foes meeting in the World Wars and discovering Scouting as a shared element, choosing to not become enemies in the moment.

But, from my observations over time, I too often have found myself not giving enough credit to youth for things, or allowing them to figure it out.  Yet that is a major part of the program.  We adults need to not take our youth more seriously and actually "listen"; that is not just hearing, but understanding with interchange if needed.  

[HelpfulTracks]

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Except that whole part about seperate-but-equal units, districts, and councils. That wasn't held in common, not for a LONG time.

No, it was not held in common by all. 

But, enough good people opposed segregation that BSA was pushing for desegregation as early as the 1910's.

Fortunately, good people persisted and eventually, segregation was overcome. 

Hate, Hate, Hate was defeated. But it is clear we still have work to do. 

[HelpfulTracks]

3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Whenever I hear people chime in with the BSA has never been political and always supported the Oath and Law, I remind them BSA allowed for segregated units, districts, and even Councils until 1974 when the NAACP sued them into shame and the last Council was finally ordered desegregated.

https://aaregistry.org/story/the-african-american-boy-scout-movement-a-story/

https://finding-aids.lib.unc.edu/04688/

https://www.nytimes.com/1974/07/28/archives/naacp-plans-suit-against-boy-scouts.html

The BSA has often lagged behind in terms of cultural change. 

Segregation isn't really one of them. From 1911 there have been black troops. In some areas BSA predated the military in desegregation. 

Yes, the South was a tough nut to crack but there were black Troops there as early as 1911. BSA kept forging forward even though segregation was the law in many states in the South. 

The last article there, is a lawsuit from NAACP to get Boy Scouts of America to force the LDS Church to change its doctrine on who could become priest. I think that lawsuit was dismissed, but I may be wrong. 

It is unfortunate that history refuses to abide by the timeline and modern day standards we think it should, but then again I guess it would cease to be history. 

But we continue to march forward to stamp out hate, hate, hate. 

Edited October 8, 2021 by HelpfulTracks

[skeptic]

31 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

The BSA has often lagged behind in terms of cultural change. 

Segregation isn't really one of them. From 1911 there have been black troops. In some areas BSA predated the military in desegregation. 

Yes, the South was a tough nut to crack but there were black Troops there as early as 1911. BSA kept forging forward even though segregation was the law in many states in the South. 

The last article there, is a lawsuit from NAACP to get Boy Scouts of America to force the LDS Church to change its doctrine on who could become priest. I think that lawsuit was dismissed, but I may be wrong. 

It is unfortunate that history refuses to abide by the timeline and modern day standards we think it should, but then again I guess it would cease to be history. 

But we continue to march forward to stamp out hate, hate, hate. 

Yep; it was my point in the nineties with the Gay issue and others that followed.  The wheels were moving in that direction, but some felt the need to stigmatize BSA and others for PC reasons.  We would likely have gotten to where we are anyway, but maybe on our own terms and with far less turmoil.  

[CynicalScouter]

18 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Yep; it was my point in the nineties with the Gay issue and others that followed.  The wheels were moving in that direction, but some felt the need to stigmatize BSA and others for PC reasons.

Talk about revisionist history. The BSA literally went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in Dale to defend its right to deny membership/leadership to openly gay scouters.

The wheels most certainly were NOT "moving in that direction".

BSA had to be dragged their kicking and screaming.

This very message board in its earlier forum posts is a testament to the fact that the wheels were not even CLOSE to moving in that direction.

Revisionist history.

Edited October 8, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[yknot]

I feel like I've entered some kind of alternate reality with some of these comments. Yes, there are examples of places in BSA where it was true to it's own oath and law. However, Boy Scouts in general is not regarded by people outside of it as an example of a tolerant or inclusive organization. Over the years it has generally excluded or segregated people by race, gender, orientation, and religion. It has a history of being behind the curve on almost every important social issue. It allows this by unit to this day when it comes to religion and orientation. It also has a significant current issue with Native American appropriation that is embarrassingly behind the times. Look at the tourist trap level, wince worthy nonsense it sells online in its scout shop under Native American crafts and the regalia and activities of groups like Mic O Say. 

 

[elitts]

6 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Per BSA Rules & Regulations

Policy Concerning Political Questions The Boy Scouts of America must not, through its governing body or through any of its officers, chartered councils, Scouters, or members, involve Scouting in political matters. However, this must not be interpreted to prevent the teaching of ideals of patriotism and good citizenship as required to fulfill the Boy Scouts of America’s purpose. Faith-based teachings incorporated into the Scouting program by religious chartered organizations in a manner consistent with the Bylaws are not considered political matters. This policy does not prohibit the Boy Scouts of America from expressing its opinion upon matters of governmental concern when considered in its best interest by the governing body of the Boy Scouts of America. This policy does not limit the freedom of thought or action of any Scouter or member as an individual in a manner not directly or indirectly implying a connection to Scouting.

I think it is great they participated; however, I do not believe they should have associated scouting (by wearing their uniform) on their stance.

I don't see any issue with it at all.  Two individual scouts wearing their uniform to a meeting like that isn't "being involved in political matters".  First because there's a difference between two individuals doing something and a whole troop or a council; and second because the issue wasn't so much about politics as it was about censorship and religion.  Plus, they weren't wearing the uniform to try and create some association between Scouts and their viewpoint, they were wearing the uniform in an attempt to be taken more seriously.

[CynicalScouter]

4 minutes ago, yknot said:

Over the years it has generally excluded or segregated people by race, gender, orientation, and religion. It has a history of being behind the curve on almost every important social issue.

Oh, but you know the "wheels were moving in that direction" don't ya know. Sure they were.

• Race: only after the NAACP started filing suit in 1974 to finally get BSA to stop its last segregated units and even COUNCILS (it blows my mind: a segregated COUNCIL)
• Gender: only took until 2019.
• Orientation: Dale anyone? BSA had to be dragged there kicking and screaming.
• Religion: I will note that B-P original Scout Oath NEVER included outright references to God and there are writing indicating he was horrified about how scouting in the U.S. was so tied to churches, a result of the intertwining from the start with the LDS and the YMCA movements.

 

[skeptic]

10 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Talk about revisionist history. The BSA literally went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in Dale to defend its right to deny membership/leadership to openly gay scouters.

The wheels most certainly were NOT "moving in that direction".

BSA had to be dragged their kicking and screaming.

This very message board in its earlier forum posts is a testament to the fact that the wheels were not even CLOSE to moving in that direction.

Revisionist history.

Again, you are so focused on your own vision of things that you do not look beyond the immediate event.  Reality if that Scouting, on the unit and many council levels was moving towards that.  But, as too often occurred then, and still does, not just in Scouting, some less than aware people overstepped and made a mess.  Mr. Dale's own unit had no issue with him, and so stated.  But somebody decided, out side the local council and unit, to make a scene and then National put the stupidity in motion.  If, it had been allowed to play out on its own, it would have moved towards the changes.  Once outside forces intruded, it was headed to the wreck it became.  This of course is an example of top down not having a clue, and often has been subject in various ways of discussions on this forum.  Forcing things rarely works out for the best.  

[PeterHopkins]

9 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

I think it is great they participated; however, I do not believe they should have associated scouting (by wearing their uniform) on their stance.

I respectfully disagree that this is a political activity as the BSA's rules contemplate. I would regard a political activity as one that supports a candidate or a party in an election. Perhaps I would also include supporting a yes or no vote in a referendum.

If the girls were meeting with a public official to try and et a traffic light installed at a busy intersection, would that be a political activity? I would say it isn't.

Similarly, I don't think that helping people register to vote or encouraging people to vote is a political activity. It becomes one when you advise them about what party to join or for whom to vote.

Just because this issue is controversial, and we can predict which of the two major parties might be in favor of removing books from the library and which would prefer to keep them on the shelves doesn't make this a political activity. There are certainly LGBTQ+ Republicans. The requests are likely coming primarily from folks based on religious beliefs. Well, there are Democrats devoted to their faiths as well.

The girls are trying to improve a process of government, and they're interacting with a public official in doing so. That's all they're doing.

[PeterHopkins]

7 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Was it "social activism" when BSA allowed for race segregated troops, districts, even COUNCIL until 1971?

Don't we still have segregated districts and simply call them Scoutreach now?