The BSA should get tough on scouts and scouters violating inclusion policies

[fred8033]

15 hours ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

And why would the medium in which the opinion is expressed matter? Why would something be ok to say on a Zoom or online but not in person?

Disposing of those you disagree is wrong.  Some call it censorship.  I call it a form of sin.  People are no more disposable for their beliefs than their sexual orientation.  We all need to work together.  

I've always thought it should be obvious that there is a clear difference between forums like this where we discuss and exist for discussion.  In-person working with youth and new leaders is different.  That should be completely obvious.  ...  We as scouters should support all SCOUTS; period.  I've seen that happen over and over again even when we disagree or question the situation.  ...   Heck, I'd even support liberals if they ever wanted to join scouting.  

We don't purge people because of beliefs.

[fred8033]

15 hours ago, yknot said:

... verbal or physical threats weren't made against those children by other scouts or adult leaders. I don't know why people think it's OK though when it's about girls. ...

Yeah.  Either this is out there stretching the argument or I've missed some fundamental militant issue.  Women and girls have been part of scouting for decades.  I've never seen an issue or heard of such.

[Eagle94-A1]

24 minutes ago, OaklandAndy said:

The way I see it, when you register (or re-register) as an adult leader, you are agreeing to uphold the decisions and responsibilities mandated by the organization, regardless of your personal feelings. If you can't do that, then you leave the organization (like so many already have) and carry on with your life. No different from any other private membership organization. 

Please remember, the folks who pushed for the membership changes internally by your logic should have removed themselves, or been removed by BSA long before the membership changes happened.

[fred8033]

25 minutes ago, OaklandAndy said:

The way I see it, when you register (or re-register) as an adult leader, you are agreeing to uphold the decisions and responsibilities mandated by the organization, regardless of your personal feelings. If you can't do that, then you leave the organization (like so many already have) and carry on with your life. No different from any other private membership organization. 

Yes, change takes time. But getting use to the change and refusing to are completely separate feelings. And in the eyes of the organization, they are going to move on with or without you. 

 

Agreeing to uphold the decisions and responsibilities doesn't mean silencing discussion and alternative thoughts.  Aren't you advocating for a position that would have prevented BSA from ever moving toward including girls and other orientations 10 years ago?  Silencing those leaders and those discussions would have shut down the policy changes.  ... This really feels like hypocrisy.  

[OaklandAndy]

2 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Aren't you advocating for a position that would have prevented BSA from ever moving toward including girls and other orientations 10 years ago? 

No, because most of those decisions are made without actual input from it's members. Plus, advocating for others to join, which is an obvious positive, is different from suppressing the change when it would lead to a positive outcome. I'm not saying you have to agree with their identity or lifestyle, but everyone should agree that were here to serve the youth in the world. However, if you don't agree and you can't contain it, then why be that person? 

 

[fred8033]

Scouting is fundamentally about being a member of society.  Civil discourse.  Acting as part of a community.  Discussion is core to scouting.

18 minutes ago, OaklandAndy said:

No, because most of those decisions are made without actual input from it's members. 

That's not correct.  This forum debated membership changes for as long as I've been a member.  Both sides have been debated.  At least a decade if not 15+ years.

 

18 minutes ago, OaklandAndy said:

 Plus, advocating for others to join, which is an obvious positive, is different from suppressing the change when it would lead to a positive outcome. 

Ahhh.  The value in one person's eyes justifies their crimes.  The ends justify the  means.  So, it's okay for them to violate the Scout Law because they "believe" their beliefs justify breaking the agreement they signed when they agreed to be scout leaders?  ...  But, then the policies change and the original advocates now expect purging people who disagree?  This is the hypocrisy.  

 

18 minutes ago, OaklandAndy said:

I'm not saying you have to agree with their identity or lifestyle, but everyone should agree that were here to serve the youth in the world. However, if you don't agree and you can't contain it, then why be that person? 

As scouters working with scouts, we support all scouts with a smile and friendship.  Keep politics out of doing scouting. 

As for this forum and other public discussion, it's just wrong to silence people.  It's just wrong.

Edited April 9 by fred8033

[OaklandAndy]

9 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

This forum debated membership changes for as long as I've been a member. 

I have not been around as long as most, I'm sure. Having these discussions here without the "key players", those who make these kind of decisions at the National level, is not input. Just discussion among concerned members. 

I didn't think I would have to say it but when the actions and decisions made by the organization are just plain wrong, they obviously you have to speak up. It's not "eyes of the beholder" when the majority agrees. We're not talking about purging people who disagree, we're talking about purging those who take actionable steps against the mission of serving youth. 

13 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

As for this forum and other public discussion, it's just wrong to silence people.

Then clearly we're miscommunicating somewhere. 

 

[Eagle94-A1]

4 minutes ago, OaklandAndy said:

I didn't think I would have to say it but when the actions and decisions made by the organization are just plain wrong, they obviously you have to speak up.

So you do agree that those who believe that the current membership policies are wrong do have the right to speak up. Then why are you upset when they do so?

6 minutes ago, OaklandAndy said:

 It's not "eyes of the beholder" when the majority agrees.

Can you show me the results of the membership (emphasis) survey that had the majority support current membership policies, because I have been looking for years.  All I can find is the non-member results,  which did not include any BSA identifiable markers. Also why would BSA exclude a major segment of their membership from the polls? If I can find the screen capture of the poll, if you were in the Western Region, and chartered to an LDS Unit, you were not suppose to do the survey?

 

 

[fred8033]

19 minutes ago, OaklandAndy said:

I didn't think I would have to say it but when the actions and decisions made by the organization are just plain wrong, they obviously you have to speak up. It's not "eyes of the beholder" when the majority agrees. We're not talking about purging people who disagree, we're talking about purging those who take actionable steps against the mission of serving youth. 

... Ignoring the past ...  10 yeas ago it was clear what was plain wrong and members would have been silenced.  

... Misrepresenting the complaint.  ... I see no one advocating taking "actionable" steps against youth anywhere in this forum.  We support all scouts and do it with a smile and friendship.  Individuals people are not a policy issue.

... Changing the advocated request ...  So is the action requested blocking discussion on this forum or blocking people taking actions that I've yet to see people say is happening.  Earlier in this forum there was discussion of whether moderators should silence certain posters on this topic.  

Edited April 9 by fred8033

[OaklandAndy]

10 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

So you do agree that those who believe that the current membership policies are wrong do have the right to speak up. Then why are you upset when they do so?

Upset, not at all. I just don't understand why people would say they support all youth in scouting then turn around and discuss why they disagree with having those very same youth in the program. 

"Can you show me the results of the membership (emphasis) survey that had the majority support current membership policies, because I have been looking for years."

No, I can't. I assumed National did their due diligence so that's on me for thinking so. 

[OaklandAndy]

13 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

So is the action requested blocking discussion on this forum or blocking people taking actions that I've yet to see people say is happening.  Earlier in this forum there was discussion of whether moderators should silence certain posters on this topic.  

What happens on this forum is not for me to decide nor is it my place to "ask". It's a public forum. I would think the moderators would silence those who become aggressive and threatening. 

 

14 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I see no one advocating taking "actionable" steps against youth anywhere in this forum. 

Neither do I and I hope no one ever would. Outside this forum is another story. 

[fred8033]

1 hour ago, OaklandAndy said:

What happens on this forum is not for me to decide nor is it my place to "ask". It's a public forum. I would think the moderators would silence those who become aggressive and threatening. 

 

Neither do I and I hope no one ever would. Outside this forum is another story. 

Ok.  So we are raising moderator awareness for something that has not happened as part of silencing those who have different views?  And raising red flags about in-person issues that have not happened?  

This whole discussion has devolved into nonsense.  

[OaklandAndy]

26 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Ok.  So we are raising moderator awareness for something that has not happened as part of silencing those who have different views?  And raising red flags about in-person issues that have not happened?  

This whole discussion has devolved into nonsense.  

No, you are raising moderator awareness for something that has not happened. I never said anything about silencing folks on here or even referenced moderators to begin with. And when asked about silencing them, I gave an example on when I would think they would step in.

In-person issues that have not happened? They are and continue to happen. Do I point them out on here? No, I don't even know who anyone is. I address it as I encounter them IRL. 

Nonsense? No haha. But now I know where you stand. 

[skeptic]

3 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Disposing of those you disagree is wrong.  Some call it censorship.  I call it a form of sin.  People are no more disposable for their beliefs than their sexual orientation.  We all need to work together.  

I've always thought it should be obvious that there is a clear difference between forums like this where we discuss and exist for discussion.  In-person working with youth and new leaders is different.  That should be completely obvious.  ...  We as scouters should support all SCOUTS; period.  I've seen that happen over and over again even when we disagree or question the situation.  ...   Heck, I'd even support liberals if they ever wanted to join scouting.  

We don't purge people because of beliefs.

"Heck, I'd even support liberals if they ever wanted to join scouting."   Guess I will need to scan through this, but wanted to just note, perhaps already done, that being Liberal or Conservative or something between has nothing to do with someone having an interest in Scouting.  I probably know more people that would be "labeled" as that than would be labeled otherwise, all of whom support the basic ideals of Scouting and strive to grow the newer generations.  

 

[rallybug]

I'm guessing that things will change as current youth members age into Scouters if they stay involved in Scouting, but probably nowhere near as quickly as other people may want.

Every time a scout goes to a World Jamboree, they see plenty of people their age in co-ed contingents, and will have for years, with how long UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc have been co-ed in all scouting levels. At some point, I would guess, Scouts BSA will change AoL from single gender dens to co-ed, in preparation for Troops going co-ed with them as they cross over the next year.

"Can't have girls going into the same AoL den with the boy peers that they have spent the previous 5 years in the same den with".... 🙄

What a CO does at unit level is up to the CO with regards to boys and girls troops, but National should be standing behind their stance that Scouts BSA as a whole is not discriminatory and, at the very least, should be responding to posts on social media that violate Scout Law - a Scout is Kind, a Scout is Considerate, a Scout is Friendly - even if what is said doesn't fall foul of YPT or state/federal laws etc.