Scouts get pwned
 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303280,00.html

You wanna' be private & discriminate... BE private.
I SO hope this catches on!

Hmmm...interesting.

Good. I loved being a Scout, but the organization needs to shake off the Mormon takeover.

The mormons took over the scouts?

Yeah, that kinda' threw me too.

How did that happen? Is it just thatthey have a lot of people working as scout masters, or are they in control of the organisation at a national level?

Perhaps Scouts get their own planet after they die?

Here's a blurb on it:

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/043769.htm

I read that too and seriously question it, whatever church is in your area is where your local troop will be.
So in an area with a lot of Mormons, there will be a lot of LDS control, where there are a lot of Lutherans, the same.
It just depends on where you live and the church demographic of that area.
I was active in leadership for a while and attended several Jamborees... this is what I saw and what is logical.
You are not going to have Mormon troops without Mormons, not possible.

Certainly when I was in the Brownies (pre-Guides in the UK) I knew other Brownies in an all-Catholic pack. They held their meetings in the Catholic church hall and drew most of their girls from two Catholics schools. We lived ad went to school over the other side of town, so we just went to the local vaguely C of E pack.

It's true that local troops and councils will have varying (down to near-zero) amounts of Mormon control, and for the most part they are relatively independent, but the Mormons have great control of the national organization and 12% of the total Scout population.

If a local council, as in the example in the original post, does something that the National Council doesn't like, they can be smacked down.

It's spelled out pretty clearly right here

I'm pretty sure I went to high school with the guy that wrote that... definitely know him from somewhere... that's gonna bug me...

If there are 0% or 5% Mormons in the area where the council is then the council is going to have 0 Mormons on the ruling committee and that is exactly how much control the Mormons are going to exact.
I live in Central Florida, Gulf Ridge Council, and I promise you there may be two Mormon churches with one VERY small troop with no seated representation on the Council.
The same is true of any sect.
If National ever finds out about it. 12% is not very impressive.
But, the Scouts are corrupt, I agree. If I told you my history with them you would not believe me and I am not because some will just use it anyway.

Yes, many local councils will be completely Mormon-free. However, from Happy Monkey's link:

Mormons have sway in the policies of National Council, and the National Council can overturn local council decisions, as they did in this recent Philly case:

No, that's how much local control they'll exact. The national council will still have some, which is why I said "near zero".They did find out about it, and 12% is very impressive when they make a threat to pick up and leave.I probably would. I worked for them one summer.

I like it when hypocrites get pwned.

Does it strike anyone else as funny that this comes in the City of Brotherly Love?

City of Brotherly Love...
Gay Scouts...
The Scouts have a "Homosexual Incest" badge?

Maybe they ran out of choirboys?

First, I know there is a lot of good to be found in the Boy Scouts of America.
Second, I know there is a lot of good to be found in the Boy Scouts of America.
Third, I know there is a lot of good to be found in the Boy Scouts of America.

BUT... I have been bothered for years by their policies regarding:
... exclusion of gays
... keeping secret lists of names of men accused of molesting scouts.

Finally, an Oregon case has tackled the second issue.

NWCN.com
by SUSANNAH FRAME / KING 5 News
October 17, 2012

Public to get access to Boy Scouts’ ‘perversion files’

An on-line database is now available at the following link...

http://spreadsheets.latimes.com/boyscouts-cases/

I did a simple search for Oregon, and the thing that impressed me
most was that so many different cities were listed.
I mean, I might have expected a larger number of listings for the bigger cities,
but it so many different towns and cities were listed.

My thought was that the parents of most kids involved in scouting
probably have no idea how widespread is the problem.

Well, if the Mormons do decide that the Boy Scouts have become too inclusive of gays and need to find a youth organization to take over that has a better track record of anti-gay leanings, they could always bring back the Hitler Youth.

Heck they could save money that way by being able to keep the brown shirts.:right:

What is it about old(er) men and young(er) boys? You've got the Catholic priesthood (most famously at least), school locker rooms and male-centric organizations, like Boy Scouts. And prison, to an extent.

Do nuns just never attempt to diddle little girls? Do they just get away with it better? I was a Girl Scout back in the day and I don't ever remember any Girl Scout-focused tales floating around like the one about tying a shoestring to your bits while camping as a "TAKE ME!" signal to the authoritative figure. Did those stories manage to miss me? I also don't remember any scandals involving female coaches 'showing their athletes how to shower'. Sure, you hear about she-teachers bedding a male students, but you don't hear about them bedding female ones. Is there just more discretion between both parties?

I think it is a power thing wolf.

I hate the scouts they act like they own the federal/state parks.

Boy Scouts of America banned gay scout leaders because emotions (and not facts) were behind their logic. We are now learning that the Boy Scouts knew of thousands of pedophile scout leaders and did nothing. Just like the Catholic Church.

Sexual predators come mostly from one group. Not women. Not gays. Most sexual predators are otherwise called heterosexual males. How this plays out in research remains unknown. But pedophiles are often a same sexual subgroup that most aggressively mocks or condemns homosexuals.

Mitt Romney is responsible for this madness.

The BSA is finally making a decision, but I seriously question if this one is for the better or worse.

NY Times
By ERIK ECKHOLM
April 19, 2013

Boy Scouts Move to Lift Ban on Gay Youth Members
First, understand that to be a volunteer leader in the BSA,
a person MUST be the parent of a boy who has joined the Scouts.
So, a gay boy is allowed to join, but his gay father or mother are not allowed to participate ?

Separating boys from their parent(s) as a matter of policy does not seem like the very good idea to me.

So, let them join... and then drive them out. :mad:

Makes sense to me. Most gay male adults aren't interested in little boys sexually, it's usually the straight males with families.

So the predators will be allowed to remain, and will have more sheep in their flocks.

Sort of a win-win-lose situation. They probably should have just gone with DADT.

When did this come about? This was not true back in the dark ages of my youth.
Of all the scouts in the country, damn few parents want to be, or have the skills, to be scout leaders.
I thought the idea of the scouts was to get them out of the comfort zone of family, and teach them to be self reliant. Teach them to work with other kids, who have different skills and perspectives.

While not ideal, I see this as a workable compromise for the millions of parents that don't want their sons to catch the gays. If their boy doesn't catch it from a queer scout, it'll ease their fears of queer leaders.

Baby steps. I can see this working and I support it as a step in the right direction.

But it's wrong on its face. If the fear is that somebody who is attracted to men might also be attracted to boys, and therefore shouldn't be allowed to be a leader, then why are women allowed to be leaders? Most women are attracted to men. If being attracted to men means you are also attracted to boys, then aren't moms also a huge risk to the organization? It's nonsense.

Besides, they have a tough policy that's been in place for years that says that no adults can be alone with a scout unless they are a parent. Following that policy means that nobody has a chance to molest a scout.

If there is a concern with having gays in scouts it would be that a gay scout gets to sleep side by side in a 2 man tent with a straight scout. Or even 2 gay scouts together. We probably wouldn't put a 17 year old girl in a tent next to a 17 year old boy without a chaperone. When openly gay scouts are admitted into a troop, I think leaders need to be aware of the situation and pay attention to sleeping arrangements. I'm not sure how to handle that. If there's only one gay scout, it's not fair to make them sleep by themselves. Maybe three in a tent is best. I'm not sure about that.

Here is the current policy for youth protection in scouts.

For my post above, I did not go into "unforeseen consequences" or "hidden agendas".

The first "unforseen" that came to my mind was a drifting segregation
into troops/packs of straight and gay boys, with all the negatives that can generate.

The "hiddens" are hidden, but I strongly suspect the the religious organizations
their support of BSA will be quite opposed to activities or literature
demonstrating that gay (adoptive) parents can be as good role models as straight parents,
and how will a boy explain to others and himself that his Dad is not good enough to be a leader or volunteer ?

Over the past few days, I've come to the opinion this "new" policy
of the BSA reeks of old and new pathways to discrimination, belittling, and harm.

Agreed. Lamp puts it much more insightfully than my cynical, sarcastic reply.

I need to work on my sincerity.

Segregation is already happening along race. I'm not sure it's a bad thing though. There was one black kid in my son's Cub Scout den. Only child of a single mom. He was treated well in that den, but always had more problems than many of the other boys staying focused and on task, so he was often singled out for "hey, pay attention" type reminders. He wasn't the only one getting those reminders, but he got them consistently. He seemed to mostly have a good time though.

When it came time to join a Boy Scout troop, he found an all black one on the south side of town. At first I was almost offended, like he thought the troops in his neighborhood weren't good enough for him, but then I figured it was probably really good for him to be getting a whole bunch of positive male role models he could identify with. It would be good for him to see people who looks like him succeeding at all the stuff scouts are supposed to learn.

I think it's very similar to the idea of an all woman's college where a woman can go and learn without being distracted or feeling like they need to compete with the men in the classroom. It's not for everybody, but it can be a good fit for some.

But all that was an example of just one specific boy, and not BSA policy.
Yet it is a sad example of my meanings above along the lines of
intentional or unintentional consequences which "...drive them out... "

I'm sorry to disagree, but separate but equal is not.

In the 1980's, BSA received $ from United Way of Multnomah County (OR), and very influential on $ grants.
We, as competing social service non-profit organizations, challenged UWMC
on this funding of BSA with their policy of discrimination towards gays.
BSA threatened to withdraw and take with them their funding resources.
Today, BSA does not receive $ from UWMC and time has shown that fund-raising
has not been negatively affected for remaining social service organizations.

It is not ironic that BSA's "Learning for Life" program
does not have such discriminatory policies. As so often is true, follow the $.

The issues are complex, but BSA will have to reconsider policies
if it wishes to maintain it's exceptional reputation across the US.

Assuming it had an "exceptional reputation across the US". I've often heard Boy Scout as derogatory term.

Sorry, I didn't mean it that way at all.
I believe BSA has a well-deserved GOOD reputation.

I think you've even used it as a derogatory term ;)

Absolutely. Just like "goody two shoes" is a derogatory term. And I think it's something to aspire to, to be called that.

Oh, so now you're casting aspersions on amputees. Well I never... :haha:

Thanks Bruce. All this time I thought Glatt liked me.

I got the survey, I indicated that the policy of considering a participant's sexuality in any way was a ridiculous waste of time, adults or children.

I also indicated on the survey that regardless of the outcome of their decision, I'd continue to ignore the sexuality of my fellow scouts--not my fucking business--and carry on with my scouting regardless. I believe this will happen in many places.

It is a STUPID policy, especially given that many of our youngest leaders are themselves recently matriculated/graduated/aged-out scouts. So now it's "ok" to be a gay scout and get your Eagle. Then when the scout turns eighteen, goodbye, BECAUSE HE'S GAY. Whereas a straight scout in the same situation can be recruited as a junior scoutmaster... What bullshit.

I have no idea how such a policy can even be enforced? How is it determined? How is it measured? How? I don't remember any question like that on my application. glatt's right, it is a baby step in the right direction and the ultimate result will be to repeal the policy prohibition against sexual orientation being a factor at all for adult membership.

...

I searched and found this from the BSA Membership Standards Resolution. Sounds like DADT, and we all know how effective and useful and what a positive effect *that* policy had on another highly regimented organization.

From V's link above...

Might this wording remove not 1, but 2 of the 3 G's of the BSA discriminations (gays, girls, and godless)

... another unintended consequence ?

;)

nope. still have to be a boy to be a boy scout.

that's not the case for the venturing program, which is co-ed.

"co-ed"... as are the Learning for Life and Career Awareness Explorling programs.

Again, unfortunately, follow the $
What I am trying to say is that this whole business of homophobia in the BSA
is not an absolute (religious) value, it is being bought for the organization's ($) profit.

As such, it's not worth maintaining in order for BSA to continue providing
the community service and good works that come from scouting.
It is harming the reputation of BSA and sending a wrong message about being gay,
and therein excluding potentially valuable members and leaders unnecessarily.

Which one?

I got two. Lots of similar questions between the two, but one asked specifically about forcing a straight scout to sleep in a tent with a gay scout, and the other didn't.

Yeah, but then you get boys wearing dresses. :haha:

http://cellar.org/2013/scout mag.jpg

But seriously, folks, this video by Todd Bieber, Eagle Scout and film maker, is perspective from someone who's been there, done that.

What you can do to encourage the Boy Scouts of America to end their policy of discrimination:

.... hard to say, but I'm sure I didn't get the one with that question. I would have remembered it.

My answer would have been to let the boys work it out for themselves. What a frightened, ignorant question in the first place. wtf. Who would force any kid to sleep in a tent with any other kid? "Force"? That's the operative word here. If the kid's in the troop, there's already plenty of social contact with other members of the troop. I can't imagine a situation where such "force" would be necessary. It's like that joke with the punchline "The doctor says you're gonna die." Such a situation won't ever come up ffs. What a loaded stupid question.

Replace force with assign.

Ok.

Still doesn't work, isn't ... likely to happen in our troop. We have a boy-led troop. Now.

If the whole troop, all the boys are pathological homophobes, then what? We have to buddy up, right? Well, according to the Scout Law

I can't see how it would have to come to that. There's no surprise here, the scouts all interact with each other outside a tent, ... I don't see a situation where it would come to that.

As imaginary Scoutmaster, I'd speak to the SPL (Senior Patrol Leader), and possibly to the Patrol Leaders. Ask them what are the sleeping arrangements? Does everyone have a tentmate? For that matter, there have been situations where there have been individual scouts sleeping by themselves in a tent, single occupancy. I know I've sidestepped your question, but it's a stupid made up loaded question. If things have deteriorated to the point where I'm "forcing a straight scout to sleep with a gay scout"... things got off the rails a ways back.

Or. I'm just an asshole leader bent on making trouble.

The question pissed me off too. It's the only one I remember. They may have said "make" instead of "force" but the meaning was the same. Assign an unwilling scout to sleep with the gay one.

I'm not sure how sleeping arrangements should be made though. As they get older, it matters more. Hopefully the boys are all mature about it and just work it out.

People making statements of what is right and wrong for the BSA, for the USA, and everyone in both, are proclaiming their position on what life and society should be. Fine, that's cool, sometimes it starts dialogs.

You did the same, then got down to where the rubber meets the road with glatt's questions, and drew on your experience in your local area troop when discussing implementation. That's what most people do, because if you discuss hypothetical situations, a shitload of them (majority?) will never happen in a million years.

I think you'll agree, if you take the position of what would happen in your troop, then you sort of have to accept someone else's position on what would happen in their troop in another state/region. So glatt's specific examples will get different responses from different areas.

That's why rules, like laws, can be too specific. First, to cover everything, there wouldn't be enough paper to write them down. Second, it will invariably create unintended consequences.

So now I've come full circle and say the BSA rules/code, have to reflect the general attitude, the spirit of the BSA. But that comes with the realization there are some big divides in this country. Everything you are fer, there's someone agin, and vise versa.

Maybe there can't be a national BSA, maybe if it was broken up by states, each state could come to consensus on rules. Nah, even at that level, most states have a philosophical spread. Maybe the BSA should be dissolved and put them all in the army? Nah, the Navy fathers would have a fit, and the Marines would start a damn war.

So I guess the BSA can't be fixed until society is fixed... may take awhile. :neutral:

There will always be bad troops. One of my college boyfriends detailed to me how he was actively discriminated against and harassed by both the scouts and the adult leaders in his first troop, because he was ("openly") Jewish. As in, the nicest boy in the group would say things like, "I feel so bad for you, that you're going to burn in hell," while the mean ones would refuse to sit near him and call him disgusting because he wasn't "washed clean" by Jesus. The adults who overheard would shrug at him like, "What can you do? They're right after all..."

I'm sure the issue of who had to share a tent with him would have come up, if he'd stayed long enough to experience a camping trip with them. Instead, he quickly left the troop and joined a better one. And that's really all it takes, is for good people to leave the discriminatory troops and join (or form, if necessary) better ones.

I've been thinking about the phrasing of that hypothetical situation. I'd like to extend and modify my answer.

I *can* imagine a situation where sleeping arrangements could be "assigned". Assuming there are no volunteers to buddy-up with teh gay scout; assuming there had to be a match, I can imagine having to make an executive decision to make such an assignment.

Then I think, "so what?".

It comes down to the idea glatt presented, getting a scout to do something they're unwilling to do. It isn't about "making a straight scout to sleep with a gay scout". oooOOOOOoooo scandalous. That's what that kind of baiting hypothetical is supposed to engender. To getcha all riled up. But, pfffft. I have to get scouts and other scout aged youngsters to do stuff they're unwilling to do all the time. That's part of being a grown up around children. It's possible to do everything using "because I'm the Dad, that's why!" method but fuck that sounds exhausting just saying it here. There are lots of other tools in the kit, aren't there? Lots.

The question's a trick. It's a fig leaf, a smoke screen to obscure the vision of the old bigoted homophobes in positions of authority so they don't have to acknowledge the reality that their attitudes will die with them. More and more younger people, scouts and adults, are becoming less and less apoplectic about homosexuality. This dumb, unmeasurable, unenforceable (insert giant eyeroll here) policy is just a thumb sucking security blanket for ignorant micromanagers. Let them have it, let them choke on it. It won't last.

---

Y'know, the BSA is a private organization. Let them control who they want to associate with and who they want to exclude. I'm fine with that. But, of course, I don't want my support to go to outfits that don't reflect my values. MOSTLY, the BSA does reflect my values, this stupid psychic contortion to avoid catching the gay is the most prominent exception. That's ok. DADT, fine, I have no intention of lifting a fucking pinkie to support, much less enforce this idiocy.

Well, somebody was able to do it...


USA Today
GOOD ON THEM ... the BSA and the 2 churches !!!

You didn't include the part about openly gay adult leaders still being banned.

Which is amusing to me, that the idea of a gay scoutmaster sleeping a couple tents away from innocent Tommy is scarier than the idea of little Tommy actually sharing a tent alone with gay 17 year old Bobby.

Slow down, Grasshopper.

For 20 years I've been despising the BSA for it's anti-gay policies.
I need to give them at least 24 hours celebration for this decision.

Next year...

It makes sense to me--not the "gay scoutmasters are dangerous" bit, just the "gay scoutmasters are scarier than gay scouts" hierarchy. An adult is going to be much more experienced in interpersonal relationships, and may be quite skilled at grooming their victim, including pretending to be straight in order to label any questionable contact "okay" in the mind of the victim.

On the other hand, think about how terrified most straight teen boys are to flirt with girls their age. Gay teen boys are just as terrified, plus more so, because they know the object of their affections might get extremely angry if they are not also gay. They're not just risking rejection from their crush, they're risking rejection from the entire social group for making an unfair pass at a straight friend.

Now, if little Tommy and little Bobby are gay, then yeah, you'd best make sure they stay in different tents, because otherwise there's going to be some hot action going on in those woods...

Aha! I've just worked out what JBKlyde's problem with homosexuality is.
He can't work out which partner is supposed to be loved and which one respected, because presumably they can both smash eachother in the face.

When they're not doing their nails that is.

This looks like either finally a court case, or finally some sanity in the BSofA


With Hire, Boy Scouts Affiliate in New York Defies Ban on Gays
NY Times - JAMES BARRONAPRIL 2, 2015

With hundreds of thousands of members across all regions of the country, there are lots of different points of view within scouting. At the national level, they make these rules, but as you get down to the individual level, you don't have uniform agreement with those rules, and in my experience, people sometimes look the other way when it comes to some of the more ridiculous ones.

It's great that this Council level group is openly defying the national level rules instead of just looking the other way to achieve the same thing. I hope it brings change to the national level.

The downside of individuals looking the other way on some of the ridiculous rules is that you get individuals who look the other way on the good rules and do shit like destroy geological features in protected parks.