I'm sick and tired of Boy Scout bashing.

[SpaceGhostofArrakis]

Having lived in the SF Bay area when the whole Gays in Boy Scouts "Controversy" blew up, I know a bit about Boy Scout bashing. Now living in the Washington DC area, I was more than a little disappointed when I saw This Article , once more with anti-Boy Scout overtones.

Tha Article seems to do 2 things:

1. Disapprove (quite rightly) of a Confederate Emblem on a Scout Patch.
Problem: It is not an official patch, I got one at the last Boy Scout Jamboree in 1997. It makes no identification with any Boy Scout councils or OA Lodges, but the best the Washington Post on-line story (IIRC, the print version DOES say "Scout Leaders aren't sure if it's an official patch")does is it doesn't officially say it's a Boy Scout badge, but the implication seems clear.

2. Comment that the Scouts have very little minorities (Bullshit, when I was in San Francisco there were entire troops that were Asian, especially the Drum and Bugle Corps troop which had one, count 'em, one active white scout.)
This is not to say that Boy Scouts SHOULDN'T have ethnic minorities, on the contrary, the BSA should make every effort to recruit minorities. But this saddened me all the same that the Washington Post would even bring this up.

This article (and this one ) show an increasing dislike for Boy Scouts. It seems to me that the good things that the BSA does, community service, enviromental awareness, keeping kids in shape, is increasingly being pushed into the background while the "Bad" things (I favor the BSA's stance on Gays in the oirginization, incidently) are pushed into the open.

I am sick and tired of the media, both "Liberal" and "Conservative", spending their time covering the "bad" things about the BSA. It seems to me that these controversies are just personal vendettas of a few going "I'm right, and by The-God-that-frowns-on-my-life-style, I'm going to force you to legally except me!". One wonders if if these people that profess to love the BSA realise that some of the primary sponsors of the BSA would happily withdraw their support from the orginization if it starts admiting Gays...

Hmm...This started out a rant, and now its a ...don't know, If it's on the wrong board, please move it. Thanks.

[Opengrave]

Originally posted by SpaceGhostofArrakis
1. Disapprove (quite rightly) of a Confederate Emblem on a Scout Patch. Problem: It is not an official patch

2. Comment that the Scouts have very little minorities.

I'll agree.

1. The problem here is that anyone can go to any embrodery shop and have any patch made and sew it on to anything. The (reprehensible) actions of a few shouldn't be taken to represent the views of the whole.

2. Saying the scouts have few minorities is complete BS! When I was in college in Dallas I worked as a Junior Assistant Scoutmaster for an inner-city troup. The only caucasian scouts in the troop were the scoutmaster's sons. That is to say the caucasian scoutmasters that drove 30 minutes from their upper class neighborhood to work with a bunch of inner city youth trying to make a difference in those kids lives. The same scoutmaster that gave up their weekends and vacation time trying to give these kids experences and knowledge they would never get otherwise.

In all my years of scouting I have never, repeat never, seen anything that approaches racism or discrimination.

[dropzone]

Newsweek has a nice column by Paul Theroux remembering his days as a scout. Like my troop, some of the guys in his troop were gay, some confused, and some straight. What held them together was an acceptance of difference because what they had in common--outsiderness and a desire to do the cool things (thinking they were cool automatically made you an outsider )--was stronger.

I, too, regret the bashing of scouting. But I also regret that the BSA has brought some of it upon themselves. Considering the rather fascinating (though hard to verify) relationship between Lord and Lady Baden Powell and Juliet Low, the founder of the Girl Scouts, the current attitude is ironic.

[Ike Witt]

Originally posted by SpaceGhostofArrakis
The Article seems to do 2 things:

1. Disapprove (quite rightly) of a Confederate Emblem on a Scout Patch.
Problem: It is not an official patch, I got one at the last Boy Scout Jamboree in 1997. It makes no identification with any Boy Scout councils or OA Lodges, but the best the Washington Post on-line story (IIRC, the print version DOES say "Scout Leaders aren't sure if it's an official patch")does is it doesn't officially say it's a Boy Scout badge, but the implication seems clear.

2. Comment that the Scouts have very little minorities (Bullshit, when I was in San Francisco there were entire troops that were Asian, especially the Drum and Bugle Corps troop which had one, count 'em, one active white scout.)
This is not to say that Boy Scouts SHOULDN'T have ethnic minorities, on the contrary, the BSA should make every effort to recruit minorities. But this saddened me all the same that the Washington Post would even bring this up.

Face it, the Boy Scouts bring most it upon them selves. Yes, the Confederate patch doesn't seem to be an official BS patch. However, I think that the point is that the BS higher ups displayed poor judgement in letting it be used. The stars and bars is a lightning rod issue regardless of its intention.

I am sick and tired of the media, both "Liberal" and "Conservative", spending their time covering the "bad" things about the BSA. It seems to me that these controversies are just personal vendettas of a few going "I'm right, and by The-God-that-frowns-on-my-life-style, I'm going to force you to legally except me!". One wonders if if these people that profess to love the BSA realise that some of the primary sponsors of the BSA would happily withdraw their support from the orginization if it starts admiting Gays...

IMHO, the BS stand against gays is anchronistic and misguided. The scouts decided to re-interpret their oath so that morally straight means sexually "straight". The Boy Scouts want the world to be some perfect Leave it to Beaver idealized 1950's place. It isn't, the times have changed and instead of moving forward, the scouts seem to be moving backwards.
Much of the problem stems from the fact that they are able to get away with things that other organizations cannot. What good are they doing if they are not preparing the kids for the real world? The real world is full of non-Christians and gays and other sorts that make the BS uncomfortable. Sticking your head in the sand or up your ass will never change that.

[ultrafilter]

Originally posted by Opengrave
In all my years of scouting I have never, repeat never, seen anything that approaches racism or discrimination.

Well, not allowing gays or atheists into your organization sounds like pretty blatant discrimination. And yes, I realize that any given troop can disregard this, but their policies aren't the ones that make the news. The BSA is rather unfortunate in that it's going against the cause du jour; give it a few years, and we probably won't hear about it.

I recognize that the boy scouts do a lot of good, both for their members and the community. I do respect them for that. Unfortunately, the taint of discrimination tampers that quite a bit.

[Otto]

The first article hardly qualifies as "bashing." It strikes me as a fairly well-balanced piece, discussing that BSA is perceived by some as "whites-only" and using the hot-button issue of the Confederate flag patch as a jump point.

The second article also failed to strike me as "bashing" the BSA. It's a follow-up on a story which has affected many communities.

It sounds like you're being overly sensitive because the news media has dared to cover the BSA's demand that its (and your) brand of bigotry be legal and the aftermath of that demand. Too bad. The BSA could have avoided it entirely if they hadn't insisted on clinging to their "right" to discriminate for no rational reason. They have no one to blame for media stories, favorable, critical or neutral, but themselves.

[tiny ham]

Great OP Spaceghost! Mr. Jarbaby is an Eagle scout and is constantly having to defend his affiliation to people Flying Off The Handle about him being a boy scout.

Frankly, I've never known a more compassionate, open minded, intelligent, good smelling, well adjusted man than my husband, and I suspect that the boy scouts have a lot to do with that.

jarbaby

[Sultan Kinkari]

United Airlines recently rescinded funding to the BSA, and AFAIK, has made it clear that that they felt the stance taken by the BSA is immoral and generally politically incorrect. This really should not come as a shock, considering that United stands to profit off being one of the few openly "gay-friendly" airlines, as continuing to support the BSA could have serioulsy tarnished their relatively clean image and they would have had to change their slogan to "Fly the mostly friendly skies."

[Hello Again]

Well I my own self know several Eagle scouts and they are fine upstanding young persons. I would not bash them or any *person* thusly involved.

On the other hand I do disagree with the BSA (the *organization*) on their stance and I think if I had kids I would be hesitant to endorse their organization through membership.

Space Ghost -- does it concern you that the original bringer-of-the-case (BSA v. Dale) was an Eagle Scout and Assistant Scoutmaster himself? Up until the point at which it became publicly known that he was gay, the young man was considered a model member of the organization.

[Otto]

And yes, I realize that any given troop can disregard this, but their policies aren't the ones that make the news.

They do make the news. Seven troops and packs in Oak Park lost their charters after advising the national office hat they would not exclude gay Scouts and leaders. The Boston-area concil just announced this week that they would adopt a "don't ask don't tell" policy. And this week's Newsweek has a cover story on the BSA in which it describes a local council office entering a church and stripping it of its Scout-owned equipment and charter. I read each of these stories offline so I don't have links, but yes, those who disregard the national policy are covered and no, they aren't free to disregard the national policy if they want to retain their affiliation.

[Myrr21]

I think the problem is that the organization is completely out of touch with the people in it.

Personally, my troop was loaded with atheists--and probably some gays. We spent more time learning to shoot bottle rockets and hide porn than learning to be "morally straight". _{We loved it.} And it was one of the better-run troops in the area.

[MrVisible]

Oh, goody. Another "Nobody lets me discriminate against people I don't like! That's discrimination!" post. I love these.

The boy scouts have proven to the nation that they have the right to exclude whomever they choose from being a part of their organization. They chose to use that right to exclude gays, which serves to actively perpetuate the myth that gays are not "morally straight" and that gays cannot be trusted around children. This also proves that the boy scouts, as an organization, is mired in 19th century thinking, and that their national policy is based on ignorance, fear, and nostalgia.

I understand that most of the people in the BSA are good, generous folks giving their time and an enormous amount of effort to an excellent cause. However, I also know that there are a lot of kids in their care who grow up to be... gasp... gay. When do these kids get kicked out of the organization? When they go from well-respected members to scoutmasters? When they come out? Should gay scouts that want to be scoutmasters just stay in the closet? That doesn't seem to be promoting honesty.

The national council is bigoted. They equate homosexuality with immorality, and hold that gay people cannot be good role models. They present no proof of their allegations, and no evidence that the exclusion of this group will benefit the people they are supposed to serve. And then they whine when they get bad press.

Tell you what, fellas. I'll commiserate with you about discrimination when you have to fear for your life every time you express yourself in public.

And, jarbaby, I'll agree with you. The guys I've known who were scouts were brave, cheerful, clean, obedient, and sometimes even reverent. Yum.

[SpaceGhostofArrakis]

I know this is going to get me a lot of flames, but I fully support the BSA's "No-Gay" policy. For one thing, many, many parents would probaly just get the "heebie-jeebies" knowing their kid's scoutmaster is a Homosexual.

The other is that Groups like the RCC, the Southern Baptists, and the Mormons are very large backers of the BSA (specifically, they back individual troops). I suspect that even if the church leadership does note pull funding, individual churches may simply withdraw support and the use of their facilities from the Boy Scout troops. The only time I was with a scout group that was NOT affiliated with a church (this included my HS years in S.F.) was when I lived on-base at Camp Lejume, North Carolina, when the base gave the BSA use of unused gaurdrooms/ammo storage places dating to WWII.

Incidently, I used to be a lot more liberal toward gays, prior to me moving to SF, but then the "Sisters of Perteptual Indulgence" pulled that stunt, and I've been vaguely disgysted since.

Adam yax I can't tell, are you making fun of the Boy Scouts of America when you use "BS"? the proper acronym would be BSA.

Thanks for not tearing me a new one that badly all. As for My troop(s) didn't do much with bottle rockets, But once we managed to get a hunk of Potassium and toss it into the Lake at Wente Scout reservation....

[mouthbreather]

I'm sick and tired of Boy Scout bashing.

Me too, espicially knowing that those little Girl Scouts get off without a hitch.


Stupid little cookie hustlers, I'll get them good one day.

[Ike Witt]

Originally posted by SpaceGhostofArrakis
Adam yax I can't tell, are you making fun of the Boy Scouts of America when you use "BS"? the proper acronym would be BSA.

No insult or fun making intended. I didn't know that BS was incorrect.

[Tedster]

It isn't that Scouts want the world to be some perfect 50's Leave it to Beaver place. You're right, it isn't. They want *their* world to reflect *their* values. We're witnessing a cultural war against traditional values, and the Boy Scouts are in the thick of the battle, of course. Yes, it is blatant "discrimination"; but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. More power to them.

Forcing private organizations to bow at the federal heel is just so much totalitarian bullshit. In any case, Scouting will probably be ruined by the PC goosesteppers, similar to public schools, universities, etc. etc. Way to go!

[SpaceGhostofArrakis]

Adam Yax

Face it, the Boy Scouts bring most it upon them selves. Yes, the Confederate patch doesn't seem to be an official BS patch. However, I think that the point is that the BS higher ups displayed poor judgement in letting it be used. The stars and bars is a lightning rod issue regardless of its intention.

Actually, scouts would not be allowed to wear patches that are non-regulatory. In fact, IIRC, they last "Official" patch to have the confederate battle flag was the East Carolina Council patch, which was gotten rid of in 1994.

rmariamp

Space Ghost -- does it concern you that the original bringer-of-the-case (BSA v. Dale) was an Eagle Scout and Assistant Scoutmaster himself? Up until the point at which it became publicly known that he was gay, the young man was considered a model member of the organization.

He certainly was. However over, for the reasons stated in my previous post, he was sacked. I believe the BSA was right in doing this.

MrVisible

Tell you what, fellas. I'll commiserate with you about discrimination when you have to fear for your life every time you express yourself in public.

Well, I wouldn't call the Boy Scouts a bunch of 'brownshirts' (" But Scoutmaster Chan! Aren't we wearing Brownshirts?" "Quiet you!"), But the Boy scouts do have a right to choose whom they wish to associate with. And, as I said, There are economic reasons for it too.

[Revtim]

Tedster, please explain what circumstances make discrimination "not necessarily a bad thing".

[don Jaime]

Originally posted by SpaceGhostofArrakis
For one thing, many, many parents would probaly just get the "heebie-jeebies" knowing their kid's scoutmaster is a Homosexual.

Yeah? Fuck 'em. Their boneheaded ideas about homosexuals do not equate to what actual homosexuals do. Gay men do not molest thirteen-year-old boys any more than straight men molest thirteen-year-old girls. Judging people with a preconceived notion like this is, that's right, discrimation. The BSA deserves to be criticized for failing to live up to its own high moral standards.

And as for Leave It To Beaver, how did you all miss that one episode with Beaver and Whitey...?

[tiny ham]

I sent this thread to my husband and this was his reply:

**sigh**

I loved being in the Boy Scouts, and I hope my children will be involved as well so that I can share in that experience with them. I would never push them into it, but I loved it. And I would like to be involved with the scouts again.

Sadly, this whole thing has gotten WAY out of proportion. Although I don't necessarily agree with the stance the Boy Scouts has taken, I also realize that they feel they had to in order to pacify the parents out there who would freak out to know that a gay man was spending the weekend with their sons. It's the simple-minded paranoid few that have brought this unfortunate issue to become what it is.

Granted, there are exceptions in every issue. There are child-molesters out there. There are bad scoutmasters out there too. But if parents would just learn to involve themselves in the lives of their children and not treat a scout outing as a free weekend away from the kids, their own children would grow up more well-adjusted and accepting to individuals for who they are as human beings. Parents would see the good that scouting does and has done for many years. They might even take pride in watching their children learn and grow.

Again, although I don't agree with the Scouts having to take the stance they have had to, I don't blame them for it. I blame the parents who dump their kids off once a month. I commend scoutmasters everywhere for giving what they give and sharing their knowledge and, most importantly, their time. It's no wonder there is a shortage of them. They take this constant criticism for their involvement in an organization that has taken so much fire (some of it brought upon itself), and yet, they still give. They don't HAVE to, but they do.


I wouldn't be the man I am today if it wasn't for the scoutmasters I had growing up. And you know what? One of them was a homosexual.

Please feel free to post this on the SDMB for me. Thanks for the nice things you said about me. Love you

I don't know if he loves all of you, but he's such a great guy that I'm sure he meant the whole board

jarbaby

[Jack Batty]

Yes, as a private organization the Boy Scouts have a right to choose with whom they wish to associate.

And the rest of us citizens have a right to scream at the top of our lungs that they are being intolerant and feeding stereotypes and intolerance.

Parents would get the heebie-jeebies knowing a homosexual was a scout master? Who cares? There are parents that would get the heebie-jeebies knowing that a scout master was black, or Jewish, or Canadian, or who freakin' knows what.

Does it really matter who the scout master is sexually attracted to? Sex isn't even going to come up in conversation in the process of building a fucking bird house. What difference does it make?

[Otto]

Here's a link to the Boston Scout story. I'll see if I can find the others I referenced as well. The Newsweek story is on the stands now. I read it yesterday and tears came to my eyes at some of the comments and descriptions of actions that anti-gay Scouts and leaders have taken. All I could think was "how can they do this to children?"

I know this is going to get me a lot of flames, but I fully support the BSA's "No-Gay" policy. For one thing, many, many parents would probaly just get the "heebie-jeebies" knowing their kid's scoutmaster is a Homosexual.

And of course as all those who congregate on the Straight Dope Message Board know, the proper response to ignorance is to perpetuate it and enshrine it in law.

Incidently, I used to be a lot more liberal toward gays, prior to me moving to SF, but then the "Sisters of Perteptual Indulgence" pulled that stunt, and I've been vaguely disgysted since.

I don't know what "stunt" you're referring to, but doesn't it strike you as a little bit unfair to apply your feelings of disgust to millions of people who did not take part in it?

I was a Boy Scout for years. My father worked for various councils for 25 years and I worked at Scout camp one summer. I can promise you that gay scouts were not on the radar screen at any time. The Scouts themselves didn't formulate the "no gays" rule until after the first round of the Dale case. The idea that gay Scouts and leaders could exist peaceably in the Scouts from 1910 to 1996, then suddenly become a threat to children either physically or morally is ridiculous.

The First Amendment right of association is NOT absolute. The entire record of SCOTUS precedent prior to the BSA case was to treat claims like that of the BSA with skepticism and require them to prove their allegation of harm. BSA was completely unable to offer any evidence that they were or would be harmed by the inclusion of gay leaders or members. Even the minority opinion reflected amazement at the lack of scrutiny the majority gave the BSA arguments in rubber-stamping Scouting bigotry.

[SpaceGhostofArrakis]

don Jaime

Yeah? Fuck 'em. Their boneheaded ideas about homosexuals do not equate to what actual homosexuals do

Yeah, I bet that'll change their minds...

The BSA deserves to be criticized for failing to live up to its own high moral standards.

Actually, their High moral standards say being Gay is bad. You know, that whole burning in Hell thing.

[hijack] my own vague disgust comes from an event not unlike one described here , in that fine satire, The Onion [/hijack]

[SpaceGhostofArrakis]

Otto

And of course as all those who congregate on the Straight Dope Message Board know, the proper response to ignorance is to perpetuate it and enshrine it in law.

Your right, dagnabbit .

Jack Batty

Sex isn't even going to come up in conversation in the process of building a fucking bird house. What difference does it make?

You, sir, have never taken the "Family Life" merit badge....


[hijack] In the Spring of 1999 a Gay Pride organization called the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" had a Gay Pride street fair in Easter Sunday in front of th Archdiocse of San Francsico. Some of th "Sisters" wore nun habits while making rather crude/rude/disgusting gestures wiht some of the other "sisters".
The City Supervisor gave a permit for this event because it was an event that "Celebrated San Francisco's Diveristy". I know the RCC protested this, and a Catholic Org. called for a boycott of San Francisco, But I never once heard another Homosexual stand up and say "Hey, maybe this is not right" [/hijack]

[pldennison]

Originally posted by Tedster
It isn't that Scouts want the world to be some perfect 50's Leave it to Beaver place. You're right, it isn't. They want *their* world to reflect *their* values.

Good. Then they can take *their* troops to *their* planet, and do whatever the hell they want there. In the meantime, they want to live on *our* planet, and discriminate against *our* kids, but still get unfettered, unqualified access to *our* schools to hold meetings and recruit new members. *They* are trying to eat *their* cake and have it, too. Doesn't sound too upright and moral to me.

We're witnessing a cultural war against traditional values, and the Boy Scouts are in the thick of the battle, of course.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Forcing private organizations to bow at the federal heel is just so much totalitarian bullshit.

Forcing the schools and the city halls to open their doors unqualified to organizations that won't take gays or atheists is, too.

In any case, Scouting will probably be ruined by the PC goosesteppers, similar to public schools, universities, etc. etc. Way to go!

Run for your lives! It's the PC goosesteppers!

[Jack Batty]

Originally posted by Jack Batty

And the rest of us citizens have a right to scream at the top of our lungs that they are being intolerant and feeding stereotypes and intolerance.

That sentence brought to you from the Redundant Department of Redundancy.

[ultrafilter]

Originally posted by Otto

They do make the news. Seven troops and packs in Oak Park lost their charters after advising the national office hat they would not exclude gay Scouts and leaders. The Boston-area concil just announced this week that they would adopt a "don't ask don't tell" policy. And this week's Newsweek has a cover story on the BSA in which it describes a local council office entering a church and stripping it of its Scout-owned equipment and charter. I read each of these stories offline so I don't have links, but yes, those who disregard the national policy are covered and no, they aren't free to disregard the national policy if they want to retain their affiliation.

I stand corrected. But that doesn't change my feelings on the issue.

[Jack Batty]

Originally posted by SpaceGhostofArrakis

Jack Batty

You, sir, have never taken the "Family Life" merit badge....

I've also never smeared myself with mashed potatoes and proclaimed myself emperor of Mars. What does either one have to do with my statement?

Or are you saying that homosexuals are incapable of contributing to a family unit? In which case might I just say, Bull-Shit!

Who a person is attracted to does not have any bearing on how capable he is of being able to interact with or contribute to his family.

Just in case I'm barking up the wrong tree, just what is involved with earning this "Family Life" badge, anyway?

[Hello Again]

If the BSA wants to trot out their "private organization" card then they should be forbidden from meeting (as an organization) in public schools or other federal buildings. JMHO, of course.

[SpaceGhostofArrakis]

You need to calm down. I didn't go out of my way to insult you(altough I'm sure by now I've insulted pretty much everyone on the SDMB), so you don't need to act like that. You're hearing hoofbeats and think Zebras instead of horse. I'm sorry you were unable to connect the discussion of sex with the mention of a specific merit badge.

[Ulysses Everatt McGill] Well Pete, I think it should be the one with the capacity of abstract though [/UEM]


Think of the "Family Life" Merit Badge as "HS health class". So, Sex would be discussed....

[SpaceGhostofArrakis]

Just in case I'm barking up the wrong tree, just what is involved with earning this "Family Life" badge, anyway?

Ahh, sorry, I didn't read all the way down. I should've.

[SpoilerVirgin]

originally posted by jarbabyj on behalf of her husband
Although I don't necessarily agree with the stance the Boy Scouts has taken, I also realize that they feel they had to in order to pacify the parents out there who would freak out to know that a gay man was spending the weekend with their sons. It's the simple-minded paranoid few that have brought this unfortunate issue to become what it is.

But the BSA had another, better option. They could have pacified all of the people who now are opposing the Boy Scouts because of their anti-gay stance, while ignoring the simple-minded, paranoid few. The BSA deliberately chose the simple-minded, paranoid option, and while I have no doubt that many Boy Scouts are clean, reverent, good people, the policy certainly doesn't say much for the organization as a whole.

originally posted by mouthbreather
espicially knowing that those little Girl Scouts get off without a hitch.

The Girl Scouts, an organization of which I am proud to have been a longtime member, gets off without a hitch because they have an open, non-discriminatory policy toward gays and lesbians. And those cookies are good!

[manhattan]

Originally posted by Jack Batty
I've also never smeared myself with mashed potatoes and proclaimed myself emperor of Mars.

You should come to more dopefests. Enough tequila, and we can fix this.

[black rabbit]

I don't have a problem with the BSA discriminating against homosexuals. It's their organization, they can do what they want with it.

I will, however, no longer make contributions to my local United Way. I will no longer patronize the fish frys. If the ACLU wishes to sue to get troops kicked out of public schools or government facilities, I will wholeheartedly support them.

Of course, I also happen to live in the only major municipality in the United States that specifically singles out homosexuals for discrimination in its ordinances, so I have to pick my battles.

[Ike Witt]

Originally posted by Jack Batty
I've also never smeared myself with mashed potatoes and proclaimed myself emperor of Mars...

They have a badge for that?

[SuaSponte]

OK, my credentials - former Life Scout, former Assistant Scoutmaster, alumni member of Alpha Phi Omega, the national fraternity affiliated with BSA. Oh yeah, and I'm straight.
(In a fun little bit of irony, in the early 90's, BSA threatened to disassociate from APO because we allow gays to join.)

Now, on to the topic at hand.

Originally posted by SpaceGhostofArrakis
Tha Article seems to do 2 things:

1. Disapprove (quite rightly) of a Confederate Emblem on a Scout Patch.
Problem: It is not an official patch, I got one at the last Boy Scout Jamboree in 1997. It makes no identification with any Boy Scout councils or OA Lodges,

In the troops I was in, and the troop I helped run, any patch that would tend to cause distress to members of the troop or to others would've been ripped off a uniform immediately. Who cares if it isn't an official patch? The scoutmasters, etc., should have taken active steps to stop the trading of the patch. And don't gimme any bullshit about free expression by the scouts. First, as the Supreme Court has held, BSA is a private organization. Second, point out to me a scout troop that isn't run as a benevolent dictatorship, and I'll eat my hat.

2. Comment that the Scouts have very little minorities (Bullshit, when I was in San Francisco there were entire troops that were Asian, especially the Drum and Bugle Corps troop which had one, count 'em, one active white scout.)
This is not to say that Boy Scouts SHOULDN'T have ethnic minorities, on the contrary, the BSA should make every effort to recruit minorities. But this saddened me all the same that the Washington Post would even bring this up.

Saying this troop or that troop has lots of minorities says absolutely nothing about whether BSA as a whole has very little minorities. And of course race was relevant to the article - the article was about a patch with a Confederate emblem on it. The whole freaking article was about race.

It seems to me that the good things that the BSA does, community service, enviromental awareness, keeping kids in shape, is increasingly being pushed into the background while the "Bad" things (I favor the BSA's stance on Gays in the oirginization, incidently) are pushed into the open.

Warning: hyperbole ahead. Some groups of the KKK now do highway clean-ups. Is it unfair to focus only on the bad stuff the KKK does and push into the background the "good" stuff it does?

I am sick and tired of the media, both "Liberal" and "Conservative", spending their time covering the "bad" things about the BSA. It seems to me that these controversies are just personal vendettas of a few going "I'm right, and by The-God-that-frowns-on-my-life-style, I'm going to force you to legally except (sic) me!".

Well, the legal issue has already been decided. No one can force the BSA to accept them.
And it is not the personal agendas of a few. A great number of people like me have been forced to re-evaluate their associations with BSA because of their anti-gay policy. Trust me, we don't like to have to do it, and it is painful.

One wonders if if these people that profess to love the BSA realise that some of the primary sponsors of the BSA would happily withdraw their support from the orginization if it starts admiting Gays...

And one wonders if you realize that the BSA is very likely to lose its United Way funding - which is by far its largest single source of outside funding, as well as the free use of personnel and facilities of various governmental entities, if it persists in its current policies.
Both the United Way and governmental organizations have the same right (and in the case of government, the legal responsibility), to disassociate from discriminatory groups that BSA has to disassociate from gays. What's sauce for the goose ...

This is a moral issue for me - can I continue to support an organization that is explicitly discriminatory, regardless of the good work that it does? No, I cannot, no matter how much it pains me. "To thine own self be true."

Incidently, I used to be a lot more liberal toward gays, prior to me moving to SF, but then the "Sisters of Perteptual Indulgence" pulled that stunt, and I've been vaguely disgysted since.

Do you realize how stupid that is? What would you say to me if I said, "I used to be a lot more liberal towards Christians, but then that guy in Buffalo shot that abortion doctor, and I've been vaguely disgusted ever since."? Attributing the conduct of some of a group to all of a group is called stereotyping.

Sua

[Jack Batty]

Originally posted by SpaceGhostofArrakis
You need to calm down.

I'm prefectly calm.

I didn't go out of my way to insult you(altough I'm sure by now I've insulted pretty much everyone on the SDMB), so you don't need to act like that.

Act like what? Rebutting you? Pointing out the flaws in you argument? Ask you for clarification? I'm sure you would prefer that I just roll over and agree with you, but that just ain't going to happen.

You're hearing hoofbeats and think Zebras instead of horse.

For the life of me, I have no idea what that means.

I'm sorry you were unable to connect the discussion of sex with the mention of a specific merit badge.

Which is why I asked for clarification. I can't imagine the BSA would have a sexual how-to badge, but if they do, I'd like to know about it.

Think of the "Family Life" Merit Badge as "HS health class". So, Sex would be discussed....

Fine. In HS health class, I learned that a man's sperm when introduced to a woman's egg will form a zygote, which will then (etc. etc.) at which point a baby is born. I'm relatively confident that most adult homosexuals would be capable of imparting this information to formative young minds with letting it slip how they like to have sex. My HS teacher did. And I don't even know if he was gay or not.

[Saint Zero]

I've never seen the point of scouting. In Central MS, it was mostly a bunch of boys getting together and running around shouting obscenities at each other, playing tackle football, and going on camping trips where sleeping was an invite to have tons of practical jokes played on you.

I'd read the manual, look at the behaviour I saw around me, and wonder why 95% where missing the point. That's why I quit after one year and being just short of Eagle Scout. What the National Leadership doesn't realise, is that most of the scouts aren't the "Brave, Clean and Reverent" idea that Baden-Powell came up with. Most of them see the BSA as a big frat party.

I think the BSA should just hang it up.

[tiny ham]

Saint Zero:

That's why I quit after one year and being just short of Eagle Scout.

Scouts of the SDMB, am I missing something here? How can you be in the organization for only a year and be 'just short of Eagle Scout'? it's something my husband worked on for almost a decade.

jarbaby

[Opengrave]

Originally posted by ultrafilter

Well, not allowing gays or atheists into your organization sounds like pretty blatant discrimination. And yes, I realize that any given troop can disregard this, but their policies aren't the ones that make the news. The BSA is rather unfortunate in that it's going against the cause du jour; give it a few years, and we probably won't hear about it.

I recognize that the boy scouts do a lot of good, both for their members and the community. I do respect them for that. Unfortunately, the taint of discrimination tampers that quite a bit.

You are right, I guess I wasn't too clear with that - I was responding to the OP about racial discrimination.

Originally posted by Jack Batty
I've also never smeared myself with mashed potatoes and proclaimed myself emperor of Mars.

Oh no! I am the only one who really does this!

Originally posted by rmariamp
If the BSA wants to trot out their "private organization" card then they should be forbidden from meeting (as an organization) in public schools or other federal buildings. JMHO, of course.

Every sword has two edges.....if one private organization goes, they all have to go.

[MrVisible]

Originally posted by SpaceGhostofArrakis
Well, I wouldn't call the Boy Scouts a bunch of 'brownshirts' (" But Scoutmaster Chan! Aren't we wearing Brownshirts?" "Quiet you!"), But the Boy scouts do have a right to choose whom they wish to associate with. And, as I said, There are economic reasons for it too.

I never called anybody a brownshirt. I brought up some points about the BSA's current policy. And I never debated the right of the BSA to exclude anybody; I pointed out that they were using their right of exclusion in a bigoted and ignorant fashion which perpetuates outdated stereotypes. You may want to read my post again.

Meanwhile, your economic arguments are rather amusing. Are you really claiming that pandering to contributors is a good reason to promote discrimination? Way to uphold your high moral standards. How much would I have to contribute to the BSA to get the policy reversed?

Anyhow, according to the BSA's website, the reason for their policy is...

We believe an avowed homosexual is not a role model for the traditional moral values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law and homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values we wish to instill.

Below is a copy of the Scout Oath and the Scout Law. Please point out to me which of these qualities that I, as a gay man, lack.

On my honor I will do my best
to do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
to help other people at all times;
to keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight

A Scout is

Trustworthy
Loyal
Helpful
Friendly
Courteous
Kind
Obedient
Cheerful
Thrifty
Brave
Clean
Reverent

And, as to your vague disgust with gay people, I can see your point. I could get my vague disgust for straight people from the incident downtown where a guy was knifed for the heinous crime of standing outside a gay coffee shop. Or from the friends I've had that have gotten the crap beaten out of them for kissing in public. Or for the constant abuse that openly gay people are subjected to in this society. But instead, I choose to judge each person individually, as best I can, based on their actions, and I try not to make determinations about their character based on factors such as race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. I'm funny that way.

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by jarbabyj
Scouts of the SDMB, am I missing something here? How can you be in the organization for only a year and be 'just short of Eagle Scout'? it's something my husband worked on for almost a decade.

I don't think Saint Zero's recollection is completely accurate, as discussed below, but quite frankly, it's ludicrously easy to become an Eagle Scout. Back in my day, the requirements were as follows:

1. Get X number of merit badges (IIRC 20-25), of which about half were requires and half were elective. As you could get 3-5 in a week at camp, this wasn't that hard;
2. Spend a certain period of time at each rank (which is why I doubt Saint Zero's recollection - from memory, I think the shortest time you needed to get Eagle was about 2 years); and
3. Be elected to various leadership positions in the troop. Again, not hard, particularly if your campaign slogan was "vote for me, I need to win if I'm going to advance."

I was in for about two years, and all I needed was one more badge and to wait three more months before I got Eagle, when I left due to irreconcilable differences with the scoutmaster. My brother got his Eagle scout at age 15.

Sua

[mouthbreather]

ahem, "especially".


(I see upon preview that many of these points have been made alread -- that's what I get for leaving my desk for an hour. Anyway...)

I have mixed feelings on this. You need to separate the legality from the way the may feel about allowing your kids to be around homosexuals (Oh, the horror! ) One on side, It's clear that this policy is brought on by irrational fear of homosexuals, which I don't at all agree with. On the other hand, they are a private organization and should be able to set their own policies (which they have done.)

I guess the line blurs, considering PLD's comments. If they are allowed to use government facilities, then that throws a wrench into the already-fucked machinery.

So, from my perspective, they need to do one of two things:

1. Get rid of their stupid policy.
2. Stop taking any help (including use of facilities) from the government.

Really, I don't know which one is better. Although I wish they'd get rid of the policy, that kind of treads into some sketchy grounds with me. If they’re going to change their policy, it should be because they as a group feel it is the right thing to do, not because they are pressured into doing it. The second one would allow them to be consistent and I wouldn't have any problem on the legality of it.

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by Opengrave
Every sword has two edges.....if one private organization goes, they all have to go.

Nope. Governmental organizations may deny access to organizations that discriminate in their membership on the basis of sex, race, national origin, creed, etc., etc., and, in some jurisdictions, sexual orientation has been added to the list.
People and groups certainly can discriminate as they see fit. The general population, in the form of the government, are not required to support that discrimination.

Sua

[pldennison]

Originally posted by SuaSponte
I was in for about two years, and all I needed was one more badge and to wait three more months before I got Eagle, when I left due to irreconcilable differences with the scoutmaster.

What, did he hit on you?

_{::: running away as fast as he can :::}

[Tedster]

The interesting use of "tolerance" is telling. Its true meaning has been totally twisted. Orwell, of course, would be proud.

[Enderw24]

Look, BSA can exclude whoever they want to for whatever reasons they want to. The organization isn't that great that it would be an unfillable loss to gays across the USA that they can't join. Why would they want to join an organization that has such feelings about them anyway?

"But it's wrong!"
Well, so's a lot of things in this world. The government can't step in and fix them all...nor should they.

I personally think it's wrong that certain chapters are losing their charter for allowing gays in, but what am I gonna do about it? Not join their organization? Done and done!

But not allowing gays in doesn't automatically mean gays = bad. So SGofA, I completely fail to see the point of your San Fransisco nun story. How in the world does that lend any support to your argument?

[Otto]

Sua

Governmental organizations may deny access to organizations that discriminate in their membership on the basis of sex, race, national origin, creed, etc., etc., and, in some jurisdictions, sexual orientation has been added to the list.

IANAL, but doesn't the Equal Access Act mandate that schools have to charter any extracirricular club if they charter any such clubs? The law was enacted to open the schoolhouse doors to christian clubs and presumably some of them would discriminate against gay members.

BSA

We believe an avowed homosexual is not a role model for the traditional moral values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law

This would come as an awful shock to that unreconstructed shirt-lifter Lord Baden-Powell.

and homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values we wish to instill.

Because circle jerks just don't happen at Scout camp...riiiight.

[Ike Witt]

Originally posted by Tedster
The interesting use of "tolerance" is telling. Its true meaning has been totally twisted. Orwell, of course, would be proud.

How is "tolerance" being used that you find objectionable and how do you define "tolerance"?

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by Otto
IANAL, but doesn't the Equal Access Act mandate that schools have to charter any extracirricular club if they charter any such clubs? The law was enacted to open the schoolhouse doors to christian clubs and presumably some of them would discriminate against gay members.

I think xian clubs (at least most of 'em) would be able to avoid this issue because xian clubs don't exclude gays - "c'mon in and we'll cure yas." I think this is the dividing line - so long as you do not overtly bar any person by race, etc., etc., the school must allow you access if they allow anyone access. Sure, I doubt many gays want to join certain groups, but so long as they are allowed to join the group, the EAA applies.

The dividing line is because the EAA runs up against equal protection - if you provide access to a group that overtly discriminates, you are funding a group that overtly discriminates, and the government can't do that (if it has adopted sexual orientation as a protected class).

I haven't looked at this stuff in a while, but I believe my recollections are accurate. I mean, when's the last time the NAAWP could invoke the EAA to start meeting in schools?

Sua