How do you respond to people who challenge BSA membership policy?

[Kudu]

 

That's what the epaulettes are for: So you can wear a chip on your shoulder.

[Oak Tree]

I suspect that we may be challenged by some folk about BSA's recent re-statement of their discriminatory membership policy.

 

What form do you anticipate that this challenge might take? People protesting? Holding up signs? Shouting you down? Or just showing up to ask more heartfelt questions about why they should support such a discriminatory organization?

 

I'm looking for suggestions for an appropriate response that is professional and informatory, perhaps with references to BSA literature and such.

 

So, the professional part I get. I like the idea of saying that "Today's event is in support of Mr. Green. We can discuss national policies some other day."

 

You say you'd like to make a response be "informatory". Why? What type of information would you provide? Is anyone who challenges you really going to be looking for information? Here's the official press release: http://www.scouting.org/Media/PressReleases/2012/20120717.aspx

[Jeffrey H]

If somone asks you for your personal opinion, just tell them how you feel. Be honest. You can do that and still speak well for the BSA organization and your local Troop. Focus your answer on the mission of your Troop and the role it plays in your community and within the BSA organization. Avoid arguments because no one wins and you will waste time and energy. If they need further information, tell them to visit www.scouting.org.

 

Many of us, if not all, belong to organizations where we don't agree with every policy or belief of that organization. We belong to them because we agree with their overall mission.

 

I don't presume to know what your position is on this matter. Whatever your opinion is, my advice is the same.

 

 

[Bando]

"As adult volunteers, we are not asked what our opinions are on the BSA membership."

 

Yet isn't that exactly what Nationals is claiming they did?

[HICO_Eagle]

I'm with bacchus on HOW to respond to them but I've got another question for them:

 

Why don't these people put half the energy they use in defaming and harassing Scouting toward creating their own youth group that does what they claim they want?

[WAKWIB]

This would be an anectdotal,"for-what-it's-worth" comment on my part. I reignited my Scouting career as an adult leader shortly after BSA vs. Dale in 2000 and I heard just a few comments at that time from those outside of Scouting and they seemed affirming of BSA's policy. It was still somewhat "in the news" at the time. I didn't hear then, nor have I heard recently anyone personally, face-to-face, speak against the policy. Maybe I just don't get out much. I think this topic gets a lot more traction on internet discussion groups or in the comment section under an online article that it does in regular personal conversation.

As others have advised, CA Scouter, simply focus on the mission of this event. I wouldn't anticipate a lot of challenges about policy when the emphasis for your fundraiser is to help a person in serious need.

[SR540Beaver]

I believe I've said it before, but I'll say it again. My best friend is gay. My sister is a lesbian. I love both of them dearly and have no issue with their sexual orientation. Now, that being said, I fully support BSA's position based on my on personal experience. A man I loved and trusted as my minister of youth from 7th grade thru college was a closeted gay married to a woman. He wasn't a pedophile, he was gay. He kept everything legal by waiting until the kids in his charge turned 18 before making a move on them. I know because I was one of them. For the record, nothing happened because I moved his hand and told him no. It happened at church camp my freshman year of college. Since then, I know other guys it happened to. While I am fully aware that the actions of this one gay man do not necessarily represent the actions of all gay men, it puts me on the defensive of putting the youth in my charge in a similar situation. I support the ban and always will.

[AZMike]

SR540Beaver speaks the truth.

 

Many men who self-identify as heterosexual have sex with female minors aged 14, 15, 16, or 17 who are sexually mature (physically, at least) without considering themselves as "pedophiles" or "child molesters" or even "ephebophiles," if they even know what that means. That is why we have rules limiting contact between adult males and teenage females within other youth programs, schools, sporting programs, and religious ministries. It doesn't always work, of course (read the newspaper of any mid-sized town for a week), but we have to take the precautions we can.

 

The same risks are present in men who self-identify as "gay," as SR540Beaver has noted. Many will and do take risks to have sex with teen-age boys. The research certainly shows that a substantial number of men who identify as gay report having a significant number of sexual acts with adult males when they were minors. Are we to to believe that all these contacts were with the people described as "pedophiles" (or even "heterosexual pedophiles," as one poster claimed), or were they with males who self-identify as gay? The literature within the gay community, which often describes adult/teenage sexual contact as "coming out" is not always as disapproving of such sexual contacts as it should be.

 

The Center for Disease Control's research on risky behaviors among LGBT youths shows a highly disproportionate level of such behaviors in gay and bisexual youths in almost every category, and a proportional lack of healthy behaviors in almost every category:

 

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6007a1.htm?s_cid=ss6007a1_w

 

It's a lengthy but extremely well-researched meta-study, and if you work with youths, you owe it to yourself and them to read it. If you have been posting on any of the threads relating to the BSA and gays, you really need to read it.

 

It raises the questions of whether LGBT youths indulge in so many risk-seeking behaviors out of feelings of lowered self-esteem due to societal disapproval; whether the feelings of low self-worth derive instead from the culture and lifestyle, and the lack of unitive contact with the opposite sex, which I would argue is essential for feelings of self-worth; or whether the homosexual or bisexual behavior is yet another form of risk-taking in what is a globally dysfunctional and self-destructive personality in many (probably not all) cases?

 

As youths who describe themselves as gay are four times more likely to report having sex as a pre-teen, and as a substantial proportion of those contacts are with adult males, it needs to be asked, as the writer of this article did:

 

"When a child begins acting out with age-inappropriate heterosexual behavior, the first suspicion is molestation. When a youth begins calling him or herself "gay" and reveals early sexual experience, why are we not asking that same question?"

 

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/boy_assault_is_a_crime_not_a_sexual_debut.html#ixzz21tHs0yYD

 

Out of compassion, I would like to see better programs for society to help such children; whether societal affirmation of such behavior is ultimately positive or negative remains to be seen and is probably more influenced by political considerations than actual concern for the individual boy. There may well be many boys who self-identify strongly as gay from an early age; others, especially those who are unsure of their orientation and prone to risky behavior, may be forced into a premature self-identification by society that is inappropriate for a developing, pre-teen personality.

 

Whether Scouting is the appropriate program to reduce the incidence of the identified self-destructive behaviors associated with gay and bisexual youth; whether the involvement and association with self-identified "gay" scout leaders promotes greater or lesser safety to the youths involved; and whether the risks of association of boys with a much higher reported level of risky, unhealthy, and dangerous behaviors is appropriate and fair to the heterosexual children in scouting, are questions BSA and scouters have to face.

 

Again, I would argue that before any considerations of "fairness" or "diversity" or inclusion, before any desire to appease the chattering classes of popular culture or Hollywood or the media, before any desires to avoid loss of memberships or funding or societal disapproval or worrying that an Eagle Scout award may be less advantageous on your child's college application than it once was, the first and most important question we have to ask, is whether this contemplated change in the policy will make scouts more or less safe than before? Nothing else matters.(This message has been edited by AZMike)(This message has been edited by AZMike)

[Peregrinator]

Why don't these people put half the energy they use in defaming and harassing Scouting toward creating their own youth group that does what they claim they want?

 

Because it's hard and it takes serious effort on the part of the leaders and parents.

[moosetracker]

SR540Beaver - I am sorry that that happened to you, and I can understand your personal bias, but I you can not convince me.. Even with AZMike chiming in "Yes, Yes! They are all pedophiles..! " Nope..

 

Your story though slanting it to Gays, also has traction for another popular belief.. All preists are sexual preditors.. Especially the Catholic priests who promote and protect pedophiles..

 

Every time Catholics make some sort of statement.. Look at the comments.. 90% in disagreement, have maybe 10% a comment about the stupid thing they said this time, 90% are about the fact they are all pedophiles.. Why should you listen to a bunch of pedophiles? They first have to clean up their own morals and stop raping young boys before trying to dictate to me how I should live my life..

 

Can I go with these beliefs?. Sure I could. There was some poll conducted years back, even before the Catholic debacle that stated that religious leaders of all faiths were the group most likely to have sexual transgressions.. From pedophiles to being adulterous.. Do not ask me to find the study, as stated it was years ago. I believed it without question at the time, due to personal history.

 

My father, being a protestant minister cheated on my mother with the wife of a family in his parish.. I have some half sister I never met from the affair, but it broke up my home and the other family which also had 2 or 3 children..

 

So if I still held onto this belief, would I be right.. Are those who believe the Catholic priests are all pedophiles, that the church is still harboring and protecting these pedophiles correct?..

 

If this statement is true, then for the safety of our children, we should remove our charters away from any connection with any churches.. Why would we want our children anywhere near these morally corrupt sinners?

[SMT224]

A father and son stand on a hill and look down on a vast forest.

 

The son looks at the forest and imagines adventure! He knows his friends are in there, and he wants to join them. He sees himself climbing trees and rocks. He sees himself exploring streams, and camping in beautiful meadows with his friends. He looks at the forest and sees himself sitting around a fire, talking about adventures, staring into the flames and embers, and then looking up at starry expanse silhouetted by the trees. He likes what sees and wants to go into the forest.

 

The father sees something entirely different. He knows who owns the forest, and he doesnt like him. Hes heard the Forest owner wont let certain people eat in his Forest Restaurant. Even though its only a few people, he hates the idea that anyone would be excluded from the wonderful Forest food. Because of this, he wont eat in the restaurant, and insists his family not go there either.

 

The son looks up and says, Can I go Dad? Can I go into the forest?

 

The father looks down at his son and shakes his head. No. I dont like the owner of this Forest, so well have nothing to do with it. Now lets go home. With sadness the son follows his father home, looking over his shoulder at the forest and thinking of his friends having adventures without him.

 

When they get home, the son grabs a bag of chips and plops down in front of the TV, as usual. His father turns on his computer and logs into the anti-Forest collation web forum and post a long rant on intolerance. Later, he wakes his son up and sends him off to bed. As he closes his eyes that night, the father feels content that he is doing the right thing fighting intolerance. After all, if this goes unchecked, who knows who will be excluded next?

 

[AZMike]

moosetracker:" SR540Beaver - I am sorry that that happened to you, and I can understand your personal bias, but I you can not convince me."

 

Obviously.

 

"Even with AZMike chiming in "Yes, Yes! They are all pedophiles..! " Nope.. "

 

A Scout is honest, moosetracker. Don't lie. You know I did not say that.

 

I would be interested to see if you can find the study you cite, as statistically, religious clergy are less likely to be child molesters than you are, if you are a parent. They also are less likely to be child molesters than educators (the single largest percentage by profession of molesters), medical professionals, or civil youth leaders (ahem).

 

The Catholic church abuse scandal clearly happened because of the actions of evil men who acted in violation of the teachings of the Church.

 

The John Jay College Study on the abuse scandal, which is the definitive study with the best research base, shows that the vast majority of offenders came out of the seminaries during the period from 1950 to 1979 - a period when those with an admitted same-sex attraction were admitted with the proviso that they remain celibate, and the faith-formation (both tehologically and in matters of sexuality) in most American seminaries was predominated by a very liberal ethos. This short-sighted policy, as shown by the fact that the vast majority of victims were male, was responsible for the abuse.

 

In response, Pope Benedict ordered that no individuals with an admitted same-sex attraction could be admitted to a seminary, and other youth protection issues (mandatory training for all lay and clerical personnel, mandatory reporting policies, etc.,) has caused a dramatic drop in the number of recent cases. The cases that are reported largely are the residue of cases from 10 to 20 years ago.

 

The Pope has taken flack from the gay lobby and the left wing of his Church for banning gays from active ministry. The liberal Protestant denominations are actively ordaining gays as ministers and bishops, and not unsurprisingly, the number of abuse cases there are rising even as they are falling in Catholic churches.

 

The Associated Press reported that that the three major insurance companies for Protestant Churches in America say they receive approximately 260 reports each year of minors who were sexually abused by Protestant clergy, staff, or other church-related relationships.

 

The Catholic Church has reported that since 1950, 13,000 credible accusations have been brought against Catholic clerics (about 228 per year.) The fact that this number includes all credible accusations, not just those that have involved insurance companies, and still is less than the number of cases in Protestant churches reported by just three insurance companies, is shocking, especially as many Protestant churches are store-front or home churches that aren't insured and so aren't included in the stats.

 

The fact that sexual abuse cases are skyrocketing in Protestant churches (as shown by insurance company payouts in civil cases, which now exceeds that of Catholic churches ) is a tragedy, but not surprising. The number of reported cases in Catholic churches has dropped dramatically as a result of the new policies.

 

This is not to argue that Catholics are more or less moral, nor that they contain any more or less abusers than any other Christian denomination. It is about the safety measures that must be put in place in any youth group to protect children from the wolves in the fold. What the Catholics are doing now (which parallels current BSA policies in many respects) works, including the current exclusion of homosexuals as youth leaders, works. Why should the BSA change this?

 

Again, this is not to say, as with moosetracker's strawman argument, that "all gays are pedophiles." Most gay men and women do not have a sexual interest in children. Neither do most heterosexual men or women, and it is a calumny to say otherwise for either group. But we place appropriate safeguards in place to prevent access to children, especially in the particular environment of the Scouts.

 

It is about placing appropriate safeguards in place for children, based on the lessons we have learned, and respecting the rights of parents who wish to place their children in an environment with such safeguards. Those parents who are comfortable with placing their children in an environment without such safeguards can easily find other options for youth programs, and if such programs will be as popular as backers of gay leaders claim, will quickly outstrip the popularity of the BSA among parents.(This message has been edited by AZMike)

[skeptic]

MONITORS; Should we possibly move this to the Issues forum? Seems to have edged into another arm of that on going discussion and argument.

 

 

AZMike; Thanks for the link on the above article. It surely raises some additional questions. That is certainly one of my responses to many statements here and on occasional other forums. Why would we say a Gay individual would be in complete control of themselves when in contact with possibly physically mature children, while hetero's are expected to be less in control?

 

Of course, part of the whole issue is where the dividing line is between emotional maturity and physical maturity. Even in this country, very young teen marriages or arrangements when official marriage overseers such as ministers were not available, were common. My great-grandmother was married at 14 to the 15 year old neighbor, arranged to push them both out due to family size; my grandmother was born a year later. No one even blinked an eye back then, as it was normal. Whether or not they actually were ready to be out on their own is speculative at best, but there is no indication that they had any real problems beyond the norm of the late 19th century. And we constantly have examples of mid teen youth functioning well beyond their expected level of proficiency in numerous areas. Now how much "real" research is being done, or has been done, on the realities of physical maturation and physical relationships is unclear. We tend to be overly protective or defensive in some ways, yet completely naive or accepting in other ways. Look at the growth of so called little miss contests and such, or the continued sexualization of children's clothing, especially girls.

 

While one can scream and holler about how bigoted BSA is with this position, we still cannot deny that it is at least a response that recognizes "some possibility" of a connection either ignored or not understood. Why would it be okay to overreach on safety from climbing or hiking, but not in adult youth interaction?

 

Still, I would far prefer National put it back into the unit's hands and let them deal with it. Proper youth protection and screening, especially by the CO, go a long way towards avoiding most risk in these areas. Nothing will eliminate it totally of course, just like we cannot absolutely eliminate risk in outdoor activities, or driving, or whatever.

 

Just some observations and maybe points for thought.

 

 

[qwazse]

So skeptic, are you suggesting that national should turn YPT guidance over to the CO?

 

Because the bigotry against us (presumably heterosexual) male advisors comes to the fore every time the girls in the crew want us to take them in the big woods overnight. Because of strong prejudices against us, they require us to have a female adult along! It doesn't matter how much the CO trusts me and the other great dads in my unit to treat the ladies like they were our very own daughters. National policies must be followed. Just wait until the media gets a hold of this one ...

 

I did use the gist of the above paragraph in a response today. I let you know if the counter to it is any good.

[skeptic]

Not sure where you got that idea; YP serves a very useful purpose and works if followed for the most part. While we all know that people with records generally do not apply for membership, at least not under known names; but screening and 2 deep are two very good barriers just the same. If you only catch one with proper review and background you have done the intent of the rule. And, unless the two deep are in cahoots, it is likely to make most questionable activity fairly rare.

 

Leader ship though should be a local choice, as long as the basic screening and so on does not turn up problems.