By and large, schools are no longer letting the BSA get a free ride in using their premises. However, the issue of public premises to groups that discriminate is still a dicey question, because it’s right on the edge of public/private. I mean, even if there wasn’t atheism or homosexuality, the BSA still discriminates on the basis of sex. It would still discriminate on the basis of people’s willingness to be honest.
I wonder about the “atheism as faith” thing. That would be kinda funny: playing hide-n-seek with their own goofy semantic. “Yes, I believe in a higher-power: atheism. My lack of belief is a power far greater than myself, that informs every aspect of the being I am not.”
Not strictly true. The BSA has allowed female participation for at least 25 years that I am aware of (probably many more). I participated in a coed explorer post in the mid 70s. Explorers and Venture Scouts are not ‘Boy Scouts’ per se but a closely related BSA program. “Venturing is for young men and young women ages 14 to 20.” (from the BSA home page)(emphasis mine)
As far as I know the only real areas girls aren’t allowed to participate are in actually being a Cub Scout and actually being a Boy Scout. Girls have been in Explorer programs for years. Women serve as scout leaders in a variety of areas and work on many boy scout camp staffs. It seems the BSA may "discriminate” in one or two areas but the statement certainly can not be said for the whole organization. I liken it to my son not being able to participate on the volleyball team at his school (because the team is for girls only). Would I say they the entire education system is sexist and discriminatory? No.
Just exactly how many 12 year old boys are sure and confidant in their homosexuality?
But just out of curiosity, does the BSA accept a Belief in the God of Spinoza. That would sort of defeat the whole no atheists thing if they did. Most of the ardent atheists I knew were very much aligned with Spinoza’s beliefs.
There’s been a split and a spinoff (kinda) since you were in an Explorer post. I don’t exactly the remember the details (as it appears to mostly be semantics), but Explorers is no longer exactly attached to BSA. Something to do with the aforementioned “homosexual issue” and the connection of many posts to civic employment like the police. Since the city cannot discriminate on that point, there was a possibility that a gay officer could become the liasion to the post, or something like that.
Personally, I think it’s all a bunch of crap. I’m sure you could find an explanation somewhere.
In my experience (I’m an Eagle, BTW), you’re right. The two troops I’ve been affiliated with pretty much ignore national as much as possible. The one I was with as a boy followed more than the one I’m with as an ASM (though I’m not around very much with school and work.)
Personally, I think National is mostly filled with a bunch of out-of-touch Texan jerks. The things that worry them aren’t that important at an operational level, and they’re troublesome to me at an idealistic level.
We had someone’s friend from Salt Lake on a camping trip with us for a week, and his description of that council really pissed me off. They placed all sorts of unreasonable restrictions on the troops inside it, worse than National. What possible good could come from capping membership, for example?
It is possible to change National, it just won’t be easy. It’s kinda like the government. Enough people voting with their feet will have an effect, but even better would actually being able to get people who think national policy is wrong and are willing to change it would be better.
The Boston Minuteman Council adopted its own policy that amounted pretty much to “don’t ask, don’t tell” (not nearly as restrictive as the military’s definition of that phrase, though). As far as I know, National hasn’t really done anything about it. It seems that troops in the geographic area covered by the Boston Minuteman Council which are hosted by Mormon churches have since switched their affiliation to Framingham Council.
As far as I can tell, the biggest hurdle for a less exclusive policy is the fact the the LDS church is a huge supporter of the BSA and is dead set against it. The Catholic church is also a big supporter and a big opponent of changing the policies. I don’t know about elsewhere, but around here the Scouts really doesn’t seem to get much use school facilities or anything of the sort.
The fact that the local sort of blows off the national doesn’t make much of a difference in my opinion. The national rules are how the group is represented to the outside world. If they continue to insist on being exclusive, I’m going to continue to boycott them in every way possible.
And I’m glad they can’t be forced to do anything. They’d just hide their true colors from the rest of the world and get way more support than they deserve.
Was this a surprise to anyone? I grew up knowing that BSA was the Jr John Birch Society. No, I never joined, and I don’t think that it is a damn shame.
Why exactly does anyone (who’s not a far end right winger) want their kids to be part of this fascist claptrap private group? I didn’t want number one son to be in it before they excluded gays, I certainly didn’t want number two son to be in it after. Number three son is part of the “Campfire Boys” and can camp and make fires just fine. They just don’t tell him what he MUST think about God and sexuality. Jeeesh, he’s only 7! Who knows what he’ll believe when he’s a teen?
So sure, work to open up the organization so that you can be part of a group that disses diversity of thought.
Me? I hope that mainstream America realizes what BSA is, and moves on to other groups that are actually tolerant of independent thought.
But no to any public facilities use for this exclusionary group that endorses straightjacket thinking.
My parents are both liberals and teachers, and they got me to join the BSA. It helped my confidence a lot and I learned a lot. Thinking about all the things I learned in boy scouts, I don’t think there would have been an alternative way to learn them. BSA encouraged intelligence, physical fitness, being self sufficient, and of course being courteous, kind, etc. These are important things, especially considering how many boys these days are uninterested in learning, overweight, and dependent as infants. I think boy scouts is a very good experience, and when I was a boy scout I had no idea anyone was supposed to be excluded. I doubt even the scout leaders cared or knew about the exclusionary policies.
Which makes it all the more terrible that such a valuable part of society is controlled by such intolerant people, who seem bent on destroying its worth.
This is sort of off-topic, but I think the reason why BSA wants you to believe in something is because if you don’t believe in anything, you do not aknowledge ultimate authority (unless you consider yourself as your ultimate authority).
If you don’t aknowledge ultimate authority, there is a much greater chance that you won’t aknowledge local authority.
This is because if a scout were to ask about why the scouts did things a certain way, they would say “because” (I’m guessing this is what it would be). And if the scout would try to get things changed it would totally defeat the purpose of the scouts because they like tradition.
Which goes [back] to my agreeing with the fact that the scouts are another version of Hitler’s youth-nazi-thing…
(I’m not sure if I should start a separate thread with where my post seems to be heading to…?)
In 14 years in the BSA, they never told me what I MUST think about God and sexuality.
So, how is it that Scouting programs in other countries manage to do basically the same thing without such policies? Do you have any experience in Scouting?