Those who want to make their voices heard a little bit at least can sign the online petition at Scouting For All’s site. So far there are 64,332 signatures. At least it’s more than just not volunteering without them knowing why.
For starters, I joined the Cub Scouts in the 2nd grade and followed through all the way until Eagle. My Dad and Mom were active leaders in Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts. My Dad is an Eagle Scout along with several other family members. I don’t consider myself or my family morally bankrupt. I’m glad to see that the people on this thread are intelligent enough to realize that the Boy Scouts of America have the right make policies affecting the membership of a private organization. However, I find the view that the Boy Scouts should voluntarily give up the right to control their own destiny, in favor of assimilating into a one-size-fits-all organization that is more pleasing to one group in society, disheartening. The Boy Scouts of America has remained relatively unchanged since its inception in the early 1900’s. I applaud the BSA on its constancy in an ever-changing society. Had the Supreme Court gone the other direction, I shudder to think of the long-term consequences. Gay rights activists suing Religious organizations because they have anti-gay doctrines. Because that is essentially what the case (and ensuing controversy) against the Boy Scouts is about. I also think that based on the logic used by the people calling the Boy Scouts “bigots” they must also hold the opinion that members of organized religions are “bigots”. The Boy Scouts ,like churches, synagogues, and other places of worship, have always been an organization for people who share the same belief.
If you don’t hold those beliefs, don’t join. It’s as simple as that.
In fact, I applaud those who choose to boycott. If you don’t believe like I do, I don’t want you in the BSA. I am also disappointed that most of the people replying to this thread seem to think that anyone who openly supports the Boy Scouts is a homophobic bigot. Just because someone has lifted a voice of support on one issue you seem to think that you are now qualified to categorize him or her. This type of premature judgement seems to be the moral bankruptcy that you are so adamantly against.
I wouldn’t say the BSA is bigoted, per se. They are, as I understand, trying to uphold their Christian morals the organization was based on. This is what I have been told, at least.
My friends who are Boy Scouts (I have many of them) are all divided on this issue. Two of them, who attended the recent National Jamboree (it was featured in Newsweek, which was neat) aren’t comfortable with the no-gays stance, but they would rather keep their mouths shut and keep on Scouting. Others don’t care. And one of them, whose an Eagle Scout, is bisexual. He just doesn’t talk about it much in the first place, so it’s not a big deal.
Am I right in understanding that Girls Scouts have a Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy?
I have to applaud luminousman on that one, too. Nicely said.
Which “one group” are you speaking of here? The large population of atheists, the really large group of homosexuals, or the positively HUGE group of people who come from every segment of the population with at least one belief in common–that discrimination is wrong?
No one has said that one who associates with the Boy Scouts is a homophobe or a bigot. At least not in this thread. For example, I said that I intend to continue being an adult leader in the Boy Scouts despite the fact that I strongly disagree with the policy of the National Council. I intend to work for change within the organization.
The Boy Scouts are not a religious organization, and also do not really teach that homosexuality is wrong. There is a thread over in GD (the one started by otto) discussing the actual facts in the Boy Scouts v. Dale case, and whether or not the Supreme Court decided the case correctly.
As for:
The same could have been said when blacks were allowed to sit in any seat on the bus.
How about if they left control to the individual chartering organizations? What they are doing now is adopting a one-size-fits -all doctrine, which is more pleasing to one group in society (religious conservatives, and primarily the Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints). It is indeed disheartening, especially for those of us where if it were left up to the local council the policy would not be as strict (my council, Boston Minuteman, has adopted a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and has endorsed a petition to the national office calling for allowing chartering organizations to decide for themselves whether to allow gays).
Yes! That’s how you do it!
And thanks for the link. Too bad there isn’t a place for you to place your rank.
I was told that I was awarded Life, though I hadn’t made any particular effort to, but I was already in Explorers by then. Maybe it was a brevet promotion because it was embarassing having a token non-Eagle in the post.
Done. Thanks for the link, and much respect to you for doing what you can as a leader to change the policy.
purplebear, you know I respect you. You are consistently one of the most compassionate and understanding people I’ve ever run across. Such characteristics are so rare that I hesiteate to post this, but I cannot agree with everything you say. Please do not regard this as a vilification of you personally. This is just my opinion.
**
The question of the principles under which this nation was founded aside (suffice it to say that I’m not at all convinced of the “Christian origin” theory,) I reserve as my right, as should all Americans, the right to attack, question, etc., any organization that I believe is being unjustifiably intolerant.
**
This is a highly debatable point. In fact, many of the Founding Fathers (if I may capitalize) were, at best, deists, which does not at all imply that they were God-fearing, or Christian, or that they revered the Bible. All “deism” means is that they believed in some primary force, some higher power. Morality is not at all implied, nor is Christianity.
**
You are absolutely correct. They break no laws. Legally speaking, they have every right to discriminate however they see fit. However, I do not have to support their decision to discriminate.
**
I am not extremist at all. I merely want an otherwise benign organization to acknowledge the basic validity and humanity of a group of people who have done them no harm. The BSA is a valuable organization. I’d like to see it grow with the times. Let’s not forget that Lord Baden-Powell himself has, with some justification, been identified as possibly gay.
**
No, nothing at all is sacred. I like that. Everything, and I mean everything, is subject to review and criticism. It’s one of the greatest powers we hold as a people. The fact that we can examine even the oldest and most dearly held traditions and ask for their change says much about our society, and, in my opinion, it is all positive.
**
I assumed absolutely nothing about the individuals involved with BSA. Mt only negative assumptions pertained to the policies of the BSA at large, They are bigoted and homophobic. Please note that I refer to the policies, not the individuals. As separate, individual human beings, I, too, judge each person on their treatment of others and their general attitude toward the world. However, to me, the exclusion of gays from the BSA is unconscionable.
**
I am very proud of my Eagle Scout status. I worked hard for it. Both my brothers are Eagle Scouts. They worked for it too. This does not excuse for a moment the fact that the BSA is excluding a group of perfectly good human beings from their membership. Yes, they have the right to do so, but I don’t have to respect them for it, and I certainly reserve the right to protest their primitive policies.
I dare to do so because many years of my life were sunk into the BSA. I am an Eagle Scout. I have all three palms. I am a Brotherhood Member of the Order of the Arrow. I have my Woodbadge Training. I have served in every capacity from the patrol level on up to the Council level (never the national level). I have been personally responsible for the life and well-being of fellow scouts. I have served in every secret OA capacity. My ownership of the ceremonies and traditions of the BSA are without question. I have been there. I know everything there is to know about the philosophies of the BSA. I have sacrificed time, effort, money, and flesh to them.
THEY ARE STILL WRONG ON THIS ISSUE.
**
I’m completely unconvinced of a “gay agenda.” If there is one, it is to be recognized as a group that deserves equal treatment under the law, and also under social mores. They are perfectly worthwhile human beings, and I object to any discrimination against them. It makes no sense. I don’t even know what to think of the term “special favors.” Is it a special favor to want to be thought of as part of the normal spectrum of humanity?
**
Yes, I agree. The BSA have every right to their anti-gay policy. Similarly, I (as a heterosexual male who hates to see anyone discriminated against) have a right to bitch about it. I also have a right to complain to the BSA. I ALSO have the right to withhold all support from the organization. Finally, since I know precisely what I’m talking about from experience, I have the right to vilify the BSA publicly for their policy.
**
I still like you, purplebear. So we don’t agree. So what? You support the BSA. I refuse to support them due to what I perceive as an injustice. That’s the beauty of the freedom of expression. I am a little disappointed, however, that you generalize about the people on the SDMB based on this issue. This is still a good place to exchange ideas. I think this thread is ample proof of that.
Yes, I’d like to see what MC has to say for himself. Conflating those two concepts is so vile and dishonest as to be utterly contemptible. I still think a Pit thread is in order, if he chooses to ignore my requests for an explanation.
Actually, they don’t. They can only discriminate where not doing so would be against their stated principles. This was the issue in the Dale case, as the published definitions of “morally straight” contained no language that would condemn homosexuality. Or as the Supreme Court put it:
Personally, I have never, in my experience with the Boy Scouts, ever been exposed to any teachings that condemn homosexuality, but I guess you can’t fight the Supreme Court.
I stand corrected. My statement was not precise enough. My apologies.
This was my experience, as well. We weren’t talked to about homosexuality being wrong, we weren’t talked to about atheism (or any other -isms) being wrong. The problem is at the National Council level, not local (for the most part).
It’s that simple, unless you consider the fact that at age eleven, a kid entering the Scouts doesn’t know sexual orientation from magnetic North. By thirteen, he’s getting some idea of where he stands. By sixteen, most kids have a good idea of what part of the spectrum of human sexuality they inhabit.
If a kid enters an organization that discriminates against gays, and then, over the course of years of dedication to this organization, he discovers that he is gay, what then? Does he keep his mouth shut, and learn to be ashamed of himself for not being “morally straight”? Does he leave the organization, cast out for something he has no control over?
Keep in mind, the Dale in the case that brought this before the Supreme Court had been a scout for a long time; long before he knew he was gay, in all probability.
This isn’t about the Evil Gay Menace infiltrating the Boy Scouts; it’s about the scouts that are gay, and are being hurt by this policy. And it’s about the good people out there who recognize bigotry, and the moral quandary they face in a good organization advocating a prejudiced policy.
How is it exactly that a “private” orginization has the right to take this position?
The Detroit Athletic Club, a private orginization, was forced to admit women just 16 years ago.
Augusta Country Club, home of The Masters, didn’t have a black member until 1990…no black players INVITED until 1975. Find it here.
Women weren’t allowed into military academies for years. Are military academies “private”? They seem to have thought so…The Citadel didn’t admit women until 1996 when the Supreme Court declared that the all-male VMI was “unconstitutional.”
This is NOT a “private orginazation” issue. If the offended parties were female or black, it would be a moot point.
This IS a gay issue…cut and dry. And the BSA is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Pardon me for injecting a question of fact, but I thought that the BSA only prohibited gay scoutmasters, not scouts themselves. Am I wrong about this?
I applaud you brother!
I’ve seen those here refer to themselves by saying “I was a Life Scout”.
I was taught “Once a scout, always a scout!”
I too am an Eagle Scout, though I am now 41 years old. OA as well. And, I too, have trouble coming to terms with the position of the BSA on being “morally straight”.
I’ve heard of several Eagle scouts returning their regalia to the BSA in protest.
Sad, ain’t it?
Although I was never involved in Boy Scouts when I was growing up, my son (7) is a scout. Thus far, it has been a positive experience for him in many respects, especially socially. I am hoping that the skills and confidence that the BSA strive to instill in young boys serve him well.
The interesting thing to me about the “politicization” of the BSA policy is that the Scouts are not the ones who did it. Outside organizations pointed a finger, said, “we don’t like the way you think, you’re wrong”, and have made an otherwise positive group look negative. In some respects, I think special-interest groups have unfairly targeted the Boy Scouts.
It’s a difficult tightrope to walk, because I believe in tolerance toward all. But I believe the BSA is right not to knuckle under to such pressure, if they sincerely believe in their position. What sways me to the Scouts’ position is that I also believe that the special-interest groups are acting selfishly, because I don’t see that they have the kids’ best interests in mind; only their own agenda.
I will continue to support the Scouts for my son’s sake. The positive influence of scouting for him far outweighs whatever supposed dastardly mind-control underlies the BSA charter. I’ve read through his Cub Scout Manual and frankly, I see nothing objectionable in it.
No. Pay attention. The people who have brought attention to this issue are Scouts or Scout leaders, who have been ousted for being gay or atheist. If I’m missing some significant manner in which that qualifies as “outside organizations,” please let me know.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by pldennison *
No. Pay attention. The people who have brought attention to this issue are Scouts or Scout leaders, who have been ousted for being gay or atheist.
[QUOTE]
Which was the organization’s right, IMO, whether or not anyone (myself included) agrees with them. The decision of who may or may not belong to an organization rests on the organization itself.
re: VMI – they received partial funding from the state government A small fraction of their operating expenses… maybe about 10%? Not sure exactly but it was a small amount.
VMI is not unique in this – my alma mater, the College of William & Mary (also located in VA), is technically a “state school” but only receives about 10% of its funding from the state. The rest is tuition, fund-raising, etc.
Take money from The Man, and The Man calls the shots. I’ve never understood why they didn’t just go without the government money, something W&M is seriously considering.
I wanted to post this brief post, not wishing anyone to think I’m ignoring them. I will answer all I can, soon. But for several reasons beyond my control my time on here is limited right now. Please be patient with me, and I will respond as quickly as I can. Thank you, Ogre and the others for your comments. I have been thinking about all that’s been said by everyone. I wanted to consider these comments and not just respond without thinking it through.
Also, please welcome my son to the board, luminousman. Knowing him, I’m sure he has more to say on this topic.