Scouts get pwned
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303280,00.html
Philadelphia Raises Boy Scouts' Rent $199,999 Over Gay Ba
PHILADELPHIA — The city has decided that the Boy Scouts chapter here must pay fair-market rent of $200,000 a year for its city-owned headquarters because it refuses to permit gay Scouts.
The organization's Cradle of Liberty Council, which currently pays $1 a year in rent, must pay the increased amount to remain in its downtown building past May 31, Fairmount Park Commission president Robert N.C. Nix said Wednesday.
City officials say they cannot legally rent taxpayer-owned property for a nominal sum to a private organization that discriminates. The city owns the land on which the council's 1928 Beaux Arts building sits.
Scouting officials will ask the city solicitor for details on the appraisals that yielded the $200,000 figure, said Jeff Jubelirer, spokesman for the Cradle of Liberty Council.
The higher rent money "would have to come from programs. That's 30 new Cub Scout packs, or 800 needy kids going to our summer camp," Jubelirer said. "It's disappointing, and it's certainly a threat."
The Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that Scouts, as a private group, have a First Amendment right to bar gays from membership.
The council adopted a nondiscrimination policy in 2003 but was ordered to revoke it by the National Council, which said local chapters cannot deviate from national rules barring participation by anyone who is openly gay.
The Cradle of Liberty Council serves about 64,000 scouts in Philadelphia and its suburbs.
You wanna' be private & discriminate... BE private.
I SO hope this catches on!
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?
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
Mormons control a significant percentage of all Boy Scout troops; if policies change to treat gays and atheists equally, the Mormons will walk - taking all of their money with them.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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:
The Latter-day Saints constitute less than 2% of the U.S. population but 21% of the boys in the core Boy Scouts program, more than any other group...
The Latter-day Saints have been instrumental in helping defeat pro-gay initiatives in at least three states...
Today nearly 10% of the members of the Boy Scouts Advisory Council live in Salt Lake City, Utah...
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:
The [local] council adopted a nondiscrimination policy in 2003 but was ordered to revoke it by the National Council, which said local chapters cannot deviate from national rules barring participation by anyone who is openly gay.
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.
No, that's how much local control they'll exact. The national council will still have some, which is why I said "near zero".
If National ever finds out about it. 12% is not very impressive.
They did find out about it, and 12% is very impressive when they make a threat to pick up and leave.
If I told you my history with them you would not believe me
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?
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?
The mormons took over the scouts?
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’
"Perversion files" kept for decades by the Boy Scouts of America
are scheduled to be released for public inspection Thursday by a Portland attorney.
The thousands of pages of documents contained in 1200 files dated from 1965 to 1985,
show how the Boy Scouts dealt with men who were accused of molesting children.
<snip>
The man who sexually abused Kerry Lewis over a two year period,
Assistant Scoutmaster Timur Dykes, confessed in 1983 to a Scouting leader,
a Mormon bishop, that he had molested 17 boys in his troop.
According to testimony at trial, instead of warning parents or calling police,
the bishop slowly allowed Dykes back into Scouting.
The next year Dykes began molesting Kerry Lewis when the Scout was 13.
Dykes was convicted of the crimes and served prison time in Oregon.
He is currently a Portland resident and a registered sex offender
[COLOR="DarkRed"]A jury awarded Lewis $18.5 million in 2010, concluding that the
Boy Scouts knew about the problem and failed to protect him.
[/COLOR]
The files to be released Thursday were presented to the jury by plaintiff attorneys
as proof that the organization had collected so many records on child molesters
that they had an obligation to warn parents and Scout leaders that pedophiles
were accessing victims through Scouting.
<snip>
The Boy Scouts waged a five-year legal battle to keep the documents away
from public view which led ultimately to an Oregon Supreme Court ruling.
The Court ruled that since the files were admitted into evidence in open court
in the Lewis case, the records belonged to the public and should be produced for public inspection.
<snip>
[COLOR="DarkRed"]In 2008 they instituted background checks for all volunteers
and after the Lewis case in 2010, Scout policy changed to require all suspected abuse
be reported to law enforcement.[/COLOR]
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.
Mormons control a significant percentage of all Boy Scout troops; if policies change to treat gays and atheists equally, the Mormons will walk - taking all of their money with them.
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.
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?
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
Seeking an elusive middle ground on an issue that has divided
its ranks and drawn heated national debate, the Boy Scouts of America on Friday
[COLOR="DarkRed"]proposed ending its longstanding ban on openly gay scouts
but continuing to bar gay adults from serving as leaders[/COLOR].
The decision must be approved by the roughly 1,400 voting members
of the Scouts’ National Council at a meeting in Texas the week of May 20.
<snip>
“The Boy Scouts have missed an opportunity to exercise leadership and
usher the organization back to relevancy,” said Richard Ferraro,
the vice president of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination.
“What this resolution appears to be doing is reinforcing the outrageous idea
that gay people somehow pose a threat to kids, which experts like the
American Psychological Association have dismissed for more than a decade.”
<snip>
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.
But Martez Moore, chief operating officer of the Scouts’ Middle Tennessee Council,
said he supported the proposal, especially the continued barring of gay leaders.
In surveys, he said, local parents were “overwhelmingly in support of banning gay Scout leaders.”
He said he did not expect that a decision to admit openly gay boys as scouts would have a major effect.
“Scouts who are gay usually decide with their own families whether they want to stay in a troop,”
he said. “It is a decision made within a family, not usually within the Scouts.”
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.
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.
When did this come about? This was not true back in the dark ages of my youth.
So, a gay boy is allowed to join, but his gay father or mother are not allowed to participate ?
Of all the scouts in the country, damn few parents want to be, or have the skills, to be scout leaders.
Separating boys from their parent(s) as a matter of policy does not seem like the very good idea to me.
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.
•
Two-deep leadership.
Two registered adult
leaders or one registered adult leader and a
parent of a participant, one of whom must be
21 years of age or older, are required on all
trips and outings. The chartered organization
is responsible for ensuring that sufficient
leadership is provided for all activities. This
requirement applies to all the activities of
the Order of the Arrow as well as
provisional unit activities.
•
No one-on-one contact.
One on one contact
between adults and youth members is not
permitted. In situations that require personal
conferences, such as a Scoutmasters
conference, the meeting is to be conducted
in view of other adults and youths.
Respect of privacy.
Adult leadership needs to
respect the privacy of youth members in situations
such as changing into swimming suits or taking
showers at camp and intrude only to the extent
that health and safety requires. They also need to
protect their own privacy in similar situations.
•
Separate accommodations.
When camping, no youth is permitted to sleep in the tent of an adult
other than his own parent or guardian. Councils
are strongly encouraged to have separate shower
and latrine facilities for females and when separate
facilities are not available, times for male and
female use should be scheduled and posted for
showers.
•
Proper preparation for High-adventure
activities.
Activities with elements of risk should
never be undertaken without proper preparation,
equipment, clothing, supervision, and safety
measures.
•
No secret organizations.
There are no “secret”
organizations recognized by the Boy Scouts of
America. All aspects of the scouting program are
open to observation by parents and leaders.
•
Appropriate attire.
Proper clothing for activities
is required- for example, skinny-dipping is not
appropriate as part of Scouting.
•
Constructive discipline.
Discipline used in
Scouting should be constructive and reflect
Scouting’s values. Corporal punishment is never
permitted.
•
Hazing prohibited.
Physical hazing and
initiations are prohibited and may not be included
as part of any Scouting activity
•
Junior leader training and supervision.
Adult leaders must monitor and guide the
leadership techniques used by junior leaders
and see that BSA policies are followed.
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.
Assuming it had an "exceptional reputation across the US". I've often heard Boy Scout as derogatory term.
I think you've even used it as a derogatory term ;)
I've often heard Boy Scout as 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.
While the BSA does not proactively inquire about sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.
From V's link above...
...No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America
on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.
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.
I got the survey
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:
But seriously, folks, this video by Todd Bieber, Eagle Scout and film maker, is perspective from someone who's been there, done that.
[YOUTUBE]VJpWbN2hanw[/YOUTUBE]
What you can do to encourage the Boy Scouts of America to end their policy of discrimination:
Join your local Boy Scout Council
Contact your local Boy Scouts of America Council
Sign a petition
Share the video posted above
Some recommended websites:
ScoutsForEquality.com
Change.org
Scouting.org
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.
.... 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.
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
A Scout is
trustworthy,
loyal,
helpful,
friendly,
courteous,
kind,
obedient,
cheerful,
thrifty,
brave,
clean, and
reverent.
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.
Still doesn't work, isn't ... likely to happen in our troop. We have a boy-led troop. Now.
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.
What you can do to encourage the Boy Scouts of America to end their policy of discrimination:
Well, somebody was able to do it...
USA Today
[COLOR="Red"]The Boy Scouts of America will accept openly gay youths starting on New Year's Day[/COLOR],
a historic change that has prompted the BSA to ponder a host of potential complications
— ranging from policies on tentmates and showers to whether Scouts can march in gay pride parades.
<snip>
"My hope is there will be the same effect this Jan. 1 as the Y2K scare," said Brad Haddock,
a BSA national executive board member who chairs the policy implementation committee.
"It's business as usual, nothing happens and we move forward."
Some churches are dropping their sponsorship of Scout units because of the new policy
and some families are switching to a new conservative alternative called Trail Life USA.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]But massive defections haven't materialized and most major sponsors,
including the Roman Catholic and Mormon churches, are maintaining ties.[/COLOR]
<snip>
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.
You didn't include the part about openly gay adult leaders still being banned....
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
Taking the first step toward a possible face-off over the Boy Scouts of America’s ban on openly gay adult members or employees,
the organization’s New York affiliate said on Thursday that it had hired a gay Eagle Scout to work in a scout camp this summer.
The New York group, the Boy Scouts’ Greater New York Councils, announced the hiring of Pascal Tessier, an 18-year-old Eagle Scout
who grew up in Kensington, Md., and is now a student at the College of Wooster in Wooster, Ohio.
He became a prominent figure among those speaking out against the ban on gay people over 18 in scouting.
“We’ve had an antidiscrimination policy for a very, very long time,” said Richard G. Mason, a board member of the Greater New York Councils,
the local umbrella group for Boy Scouts in the city’s five boroughs.
[QUOTE]“This young man applied for a job. We judged his application on the merits.
He’s highly qualified. We said yes to him irrespective of his sexual orientation.”
<snip>[/QUOTE]
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. 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.
That's been our experience too. There's even a troop near us that has a girl in it, because as she quite rightfully points out, "Girl scouts are dumb and I want to be a boy scout."
Boy Scouts president calls for end to ban on gay troop leaders (+video)
Christian Science Monitor Cristina Maza - May 21, 2015
The move could be a step toward ending a policy against gay leaders that has increasingly divided the Boy Scouts.
The days of the Boy Scouts long-standing ban on gay troop leaders may be numbered.
Boy Scouts of America president, Robert Gates, called for an end to the controversial ban
while addressing the organization's annual meeting.
The move could be a step toward ending a policy that has divided members
of one of the largest youth organizations in the country, advocates say.
In 2013 the organization revoked its ban on the membership of gay youth.
Nevertheless, openly gay adults are still prohibited from serving in the organization.
The 2014 selection of Mr. Gates, who as United States secretary of Defense
helped end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that barred openly gay individuals
from serving in the military, was seen by some as an opportunity to revisit the debate
over the organization’s policy.
<snip>
Isn't there some irony in this announcement being delivered by former Sec of Defense,
Robert Gates, who did almost everything he could to avoid/delay the end of DADT in the military.
Maybe he has changed his mind ... ya think ?
So, today may yet be another day...
Boy Scouts Are Poised to End Ban on Gay Leaders
NY Times - ERIK ECKHOLMJULY 26, 2015
The Boy Scouts of America is expected on Monday to end its blanket ban on gay leaders
— a turning point for an organization that has been in turmoil over the issue.
But some scouting groups will still be able to limit leadership jobs to heterosexuals.
But...
To gain the acquiescence of conservative religious groups that sponsor many packs and troops,
like the Mormon and Roman Catholic Churches, the policy will allow church-run units to pick leaders
who agree with their moral precepts.
Here in Oregon, and I suspect elsewhere too, these exclusion policies of the BSA
resulted all local Scouting groups to be excluded from the United Way fund-raising network.
I had hoped that if the Scouts formally changed their ways, they would get back into United Way.
But this hanging on to "exceptions" may still be reason enough to keep them out.
Simply put, these religious groups need to get over their bad selves and
come out of the dark ages when it comes to public organizations like the BSA.
How do packs/troops choose leaders? Eons ago in small town New England, the Den Mother/Scoutmaster job was left to any [strike]sucker[/strike] person who would take it.
In practice, that's my experience too. However, on paper, the charter organization approves all leadership. So theoretically, the church running the troop could require the leader to be straight. All the packs/troops I've been involved in have basically just rubber stamped what the troop parents came up with.
That's still the case, for the most part, as far as I know.
OF COURSE the chartering organization will
"... allow church-run units to pick leaders who agree with their moral precepts."
duh. The only change I see is that the decision to NOT permit / choose an adult who is gay cannot now be laid at the feet of the national organization "Sorry, rules are rules". The policy doesn't say homosexuality is a qualifying characteristic, only that it is no longer a disqualifying characteristic. I'm ok with that. I think it's still possible that bigots who are homophobes will object to a gay candidate for leadership on the grounds that they don't like gays.
I'm not sure how that's different than some vague "Thanks for your application, we don't see a good fit here, no thank you." y'know? I may well be speaking from a position of a white cis male, but it's the only one I have. But I don't think that a troop should be obligated to accept all applications for leadership positions.
I have been involved with Scouting for about 20 years as an adult and for a little while as a kid. I know gay scouts, I know gay adults. I know gay scouts who've turned 18 and been disqualified to transition into junior adult leadership positions *because of this rule*, which was a stupid rule. Now that's not a problem anymore. Though I know they exist, I haven't met any publicly vocal homophobes. For our Troop and Crew, it means that the choices we've been making all along no longer illustrate the stupidity of the national policy.
I readily admit I don't know shit about the scouts, but I don't understand the term "Church Run". Does the church sponsor the troop, provide meeting space, pay for activities/expenses? I thought a troop was self operating, chartered by, and only answering to a regional council... and of course helicopter parents. ;)
I know gay scouts who've turned 18 and been disqualified to transition into junior adult leadership positions *because of this rule*, which was a stupid rule.
Who enforces this, the regional council? How to they even know? Does someone complain? Do they scan facebook looking for signs of the gay? I mean there's rules against jaywalking, but in most places you'd have to be run over for it to become an issue.
...Who enforces this, the regional council? How to they even know? Does someone complain? Do they scan facebook looking for signs of the gay? I mean there's rules against jaywalking, but in most places you'd have to be run over for it to become an issue.
The courts pay attention when someone files a suit alleging discrimination.
Parents of gay children paid attention when their child was blocked from joining.
Other non-profit organizations that are competing for contributions
via United Way
really pay attention when $ is distributed.
Donors to organizations like United Way pay attention when they decide
how much and to which organizations they want to contribute to United Way
United Way officials pay attention when contributions drop for these reasons.
I readily admit I don't know shit about the scouts, but I don't understand the term "Church Run". Does the church sponsor the troop, provide meeting space, pay for activities/expenses? I thought a troop was self operating, chartered by, and only answering to a regional council... and of course helicopter parents. ;)
Each unit (troop/pack.etc.) has a charter organization, which is usually a local church. The charter organization "owns" the unit. Is the legal owner of the bank account and all equipment and approves all leaders. Often provides meeting and storage space. Does not usually fund the unit. In my experience, the charter organization is usually pretty hands off. But if it wants to flex its muscle, it has a lot of muscle to flex.
The district, council, and national scout organizations help to administer the program, do training, plan regional events, run camps, etc.
Here's what I cribbed from
BSA's website about chartering organizations:
The Boy Scouts of America makes Scouting available to our nation’s youth by chartering community organizations to organize and operate Cub Scout packs, Boy Scout troops, Varsity Scout teams, Venturing crews and Sea Scout ships for boys and young men and women. These chartered organizations manage the units and control the program of activities to support their goals and objectives. When community organizations establish a new unit, they must take these two important actions to ensure a quality Scouting program:
1. Select leadership.
The head of the chartered organization appoints a chartered organization representative to provide leadership in the selection of a unit committee of parents and organization members that will provide overall supervision for
the unit’s program. The committee selects the adult unit leaders who will work with the youth. The chartered organization representative also is a voting member of the local council and may serve as a member of the district committee.
2. Provide a meeting place and promote a good program.
The chartered organization arranges for appropriate meeting facilities for the unit and promotes through its committee the full use of the program, including outdoor experiences, advancement, recognitions, and, in particular, Scouting’s values.
OUR unit, Troop and Crew 100, is chartered by "The Parents Club" (I might be missing the name a little bit, sorry). Basically, the parents of the scouts in the troop have come together and created the charter them/ourselves. We have a Chartered Organization Representative, and that person is key in creating the other moving pieces as the quote describes. In practice, it is the parents that organize the business end of the troop and the troop's activities like rent on a meeting space, planning fundraisers, etc. As for the operation of the troop, that falls to the scouting leadership and to the boys and girls themselves.
Your question about how is a rule like the one recently reversed enforced is a good one and your instincts are correct. It's impossible to enforce unless both sides get publicly dug in about their respective positions.
Here in Seattle, there was a church that chartered a troop that refused to dismiss an openly gay scout leader last year. The BSA revoked the church's charter, effectively ending the troop. Some key facts in this ugly episode was the public knowledge of the leader's sexuality, the church's refusal to dismiss him, and some unknown (to me) butthurt parent that complained. I find it difficult to express clearly how the rule is stupid beyond "homophobia is stupid". In an explicitly declared situation like the one linked to above, it's easy to see how the (stupid) wheels would turn. But absent such a declaration by a gay leader, enforcement would seem to fall into the witch hunt/spanish inquisition territory. That's bullshit.
glatt and Happy Monkey's remarks about accepting help from those willing to give it are true in my experience too. And I sincerely believe that "the gay" has fuckall to do with the quality of a youth leader. Homosexuality isn't taught, it's not contagious, it's not an indicator of pedophilia, none of that bullshit. Being gay doesn't make or break a good leader, it's irrelevant, just as heterosexuality is irrelevant. The rule was irrelevant, except when it interfered with units trying to provide a quality program for young people and stupid people invoked this stupid rule.
Thanks you guys. I'm getting an edumacation and beginning to understand the back story of the changes going on in the BSA and the laws. I think I'm getting a handle on the roots of how politics got so fucked up. :haha:
Each unit (troop/pack.etc.) has a charter organization, which is usually a local church. The charter organization "owns" the unit. Is the legal owner of the bank account and all equipment and approves all leaders. Often provides meeting and storage space. Does not usually fund the unit. In my experience, the charter organization is usually pretty hands off. But if it wants to flex its muscle, it has a lot of muscle to flex.
The district, council, and national scout organizations help to administer the program, do training, plan regional events, run camps, etc.
This was the basis for the BSA denying any responsibility for leaders who abused kids up until the mid 80's. They argued that it was the chartered partner's responsibility to vet leaders. The problem was that the BSA national HQ would keep records on leaders accused of abuse but not step up to disqualify or report them to authorities which left the abusers free to move to another unit when they need to. There were many lawsuits against the BSA in the 20 years or so leading up to the change of position on leadership. The BSA instituted new training called "Youth Protection" to help units, partners and other leaders protect kids from abuse and cull out abusive leaders. There is a book called "Scout's Honor" which details the history of abuse in the BSA.
I was a very involved volunteer in the BSA from 1980 to about 2000 when I pretty much quit. I started as a Tiger Cub leader when my oldest son wanted to join at age 7. I held just about every position in his and his brother's pack and then later in the troop where I was an assistant SM. I was on the District Committee and earned the District Award of Merit. I was on Council committees and was awarded the council's highest award, the Silver Beaver. I think when I left I had 10 or 11 square knots which are the BSA awards for various things. I even attended the World Jamboree in Chile in 1998 where I was on the international staff as one of the photographers. 2 of my 3 sons are Eagle Scouts.
I got tired of the BS. BSA was always preaching that they were just there for materials and training but in the end it kept coming down to increasing the number of units, membership and selling subscriptions to Boys Life. As District Chairman I saw many instances of our District Executive (the paid guy with BSA) making up numbers for "ghost units" that really did not exist. I saw a lot of behind the scenes stuff that turned me off.
At the World Jamboree I saw how other Scouts from around the world were more inclusive. They allowed co-ed units and a great variety of members with no prohibitions on anyone. The US BSA is one of the few that still uses the church sponsored model which I think has been part of the problems.
After the SCOTUS ruling in BSA vs Dale I just decided to put my energy elsewhere.
Although it is a step in the right direction, the "new" policy of the BSA with regards to religious groups
will be continue to be a stumbling point across the breadth of Scouting in the USA.
... not just a policy issue, but a legal issue and a financial issue.
The following article is a pretty good discussion, starting with the LDS church,
and continuing with other legal, religious, and social leaders.
Mormons hint they may bolt Boy Scouts
CBS/AP July 28, 2015, 4:08 AM
<snip>
The Mormon church, which sponsors more Scout units that any other organization,
said it was "deeply troubled" by the decision. Church officials suggested they
would look into the possibility of forming their own organization to replace the Boy Scouts.
Several denominations that collectively sponsor close to half of all Scout units
- including the Roman Catholic Church, the Mormon church and the Southern Baptist Convention -
have been apprehensive about ending the ban on gay adults.
The BSA's top leaders have pledged to defend the right of any church-sponsored units
to continue excluding gays as adult volunteers.
But that assurance has not satisfied some conservative church leaders.
But...
"It's hard for me to believe, in the long term, that the Boy Scouts will allow religious groups
to have the freedom to choose their own leaders," said the Rev. Russell Moore,
president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.<snip>
Stuart Upton, a lawyer for the LGBT-rights group Lambda Legal, questioned whether
the BSA's new policy to let church-sponsored units continue to exclude gay adults would be sustainable.
And over the past few years...
The BSA faced potential lawsuits in New York and other states if it continued to enforce its ban,
which had been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000.
Since then, the exclusionary policy has prompted numerous major corporations
to suspend charitable donations to the Scouts, and has strained relations
with some municipalities that cover gays in their non-discrimination codes.
Like several other major youth organizations, the Boy Scouts have experienced
a membership decline in recent decades. Current membership, according to the BSA,
is about 2.4 million boys
<snip>
.
The Mormon church, which sponsors more Scout units that any other organization,
said it was "deeply troubled" by the decision. Church officials suggested they
would look into the possibility of forming their own organization to replace the Boy Scouts.
With merit badges in corporate raiding, labor abuse, buying elections, and baptizing long dead people.
After the SCOTUS ruling in BSA vs Dale I just decided to put my energy elsewhere.
That is when BSA membership dropped significantly. Even some more 'religious' churches (such as Anglicans) discontinued their BSA association.
BSA recently decided that religion and BSA rules should not be imposed on anyone's sexual beliefs. That makes righteous (which also means hateful) religious leaders (who also ignored pedophilia) to become resentful.
I actually know a (former) gay scout leader who was dismissed.
I will ask him to comment. Hope he is willing. I think his input would be relevant here.
This topic came up once or twice around the adult campsite at Scout camp over the last couple days. The consensus seemed to be that everyone was relieved that the controversy is behind us and that it won't change anything about what we do.
Sexuality was never a part of Scouting in our troop before and it still won't be going forward. But we added on our to-do list talking to the church that is our charter organization to see if they care one way or another what kind of leaders we get. We suspect they are fairly liberal and won't have objections to bringing on any one of the thousands of gay adults banging on the door offering to take on volunteer work for the troop. ;)
Gay adults bang doors? :confused:
This topic came up once or twice around the adult campsite at Scout camp over the last couple days.
The consensus seemed to be that everyone was relieved that the controversy is behind us
and that it won't change anything about what we do.
Sexuality was never a part of Scouting in our troop before and it still won't be going forward.
But we added on our to-do list talking to the church that is our charter organization
to see if they care one way or another what kind of leaders we get.
We suspect they are fairly liberal and won't have objections to bringing on
any one of the thousands of gay adults banging on the door offering to take on volunteer work for the troop. ;)
@Glatt, I understand your immediate focus is on your own particular troop.
But saying the issue behind you seems a dubious notion.
You then say your to-do list is to contact the church to see how they feel.
What will you do if they are not as “liberal” as you may hope ?
The problem is that religious tenets are the domain of a church, but differ among various churches.
But if Scouting's leadership and/or volunteers must conform to the tenets of the sponsoring church,
it loses the open-to-all perspective. And to hope this is not important to each specific church,
look to the response and recent political actions of the LDS Church.
I do understand the necessity of screening volunteers and leaders.
But IMO… if rejecting all openly GBLT adults from Scouting in local units is based on the religious tenets of it’s sponsor,
then Scouting can no longer legitimately claim to be meeting it’s other important goals.
On the other hand, when it comes to “protection of youth”, I think Scouting has recently tried to deal with the issue.
I’ve read the policies about arrangements for sleeping, toilets, showers, cameras, smart phones, etc.
And all of this seems to me to be genuine efforts to set appropriate standards.
But at this point, I doubt anyone can document that gay men are
any more likely to molest or sexually abuse than heterosexual men…
whatever definitions are used for the men or inappropriate sexual activity.
The research data on this seems very complex and limited, often being criticized
based on it’s assumptions, it’s political orientations or religious beliefs, or study design.
So statistical rigor seems to be lacking…
To Wit:
Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
What will you do if they are not as “liberal” as you may hope ?
Well, I'll be very surprised and disappointed and I don't know what I'll do. I was using sarcasm before to point out the there are very few potential leaders stepping forward to take on the work of of being a volunteer. There have been exactly zero gay leaders kicked out or blocked by our troop in the past and I expect that number to remain zero. But I'd be very disappointed in this church if they took that position against gay leaders. I don't know if I'd be disappointed enough to take my boy away from his friends here and for me to leave my friends too. I'll report back. I probably won't know for a month or two. I seriously doubt they will ban gays though.
Well, I'll be very surprised and disappointed and I don't know what I'll do.
Don't tell the you're gay. :lol2:
...
The problem is that religious tenets are the domain of a church, but differ among various churches.
But if Scouting's leadership and/or volunteers must conform to the tenets of the sponsoring church,
it loses the open-to-all perspective. And to hope this is not important to each specific church,
look to the response and recent political actions of the LDS Church.
...]
First they won't conform... then they will ... but really, they won't ....
Mormon Church Will Keep Ties With Boy Scouts Despite Objecting to Gay Leaders
NY Times - ERIK ECKHOLM - AUG. 26, 2015
The Mormon Church announced Wednesday that it would continue
its close association with the Boy Scouts for now, ending speculation that
it would sever ties because of the Scouts’s decision last month
to let openly gay men and women serve as leaders.…
[QUOTE]“At this time, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will go forward
as a chartering organization of B.S.A. and, as in the past, will appoint scout leaders and volunteers
who uphold and exemplify church doctrine, values and standards,”
It [the statement] was issued on behalf of the church’s top leadership groups,
the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.…
For decades, the Mormon Church has used the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts
as its main
nonreligious programs for boys. Every ward sponsors Scout units,
and boys are automatically enrolled.
The Boy Scouts in turn expressed their appreciation for the contributions
of the Mormon Church and reiterated the policy of local control over volunteer leaders.
…
Zach Wahls, the executive director of Scouts for Equality,
which has campaigned to end discrimination against gay scouts and leaders,
said Wednesday that he was pleased with the Mormons’ decision to remain in the fold for now.
“Gay adults will have options of troops to serve in,” he said,
even if Mormon-sponsored groups will not accept them.
“We want to see less discrimination in scouting,
but also to make sure scouting is available for America’s youth.”[/QUOTE]