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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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 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”. [sub]We loved it.[/sub] And it was one of the better-run troops in the area.
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.
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…
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!
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**
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**
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.
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…?
)–was stronger.