Campfire USA has one resident camp in NY, one in PA, none in New England; a scattering of day camps in some states on New England. They’re not going to provide the outdoor opportunities that the Boy Scouts do.
Count me as another local Scout leader who disagrees with National’s stance, and if told to follow it by refusing to allow an adult or a boy to join, would refuse to do so.
Change from within, on the local level.
If you want to place blame, blame the national organizations of the churches which charter so many Scout Troops and Packs, especially in the heartland of the country. The national church organization (primarily LDS and Methodist) are the source of the discrimination; blame BSA National by extension; but blaming local leaders who do not support discrimination, who oppose it within their groups, and who promote awareness among other local leaders, is a reach.
One thing I’ve learned about while reading this thread is Scouting for All. Interesting organization.
Once public resources currently being dominated by the Boy Scouts are freed, there’s no reason an organization like Campfire or another one like it couldn’t step in and meet whatever demand is there.
This has clearly proven to be ineffective.
Do these local leaders openly declare their separation from the national organization’s discriminatory principles or do they simply keep their heads down and try to avoid implementing them? If it’s the latter, then that’s not a path for change at all.
Why shouldn’t local leaders get the blame for continuing to facilitate and enable the national organization? If they truly disagree with the national organization’s principles, why shouldn’t we hold them to the standard of joining a different organization, or starting a new one, that doesn’t offend?
Perzackly. What does the national BSA do for the Troops except take a cut of the dues and embarrass them? Why shouldn’t a Troop leadership with a serious interest in upholding American tolerance ideals just cut themselves loose?
You don’t do shit about it, and you argue that nobody should do shit about it, because of some indefinable harm to the kiddies, who may well be better off in another organization. You sob about the status quo and then insist that the status quo must be maintained. Grow some balls or get a new argument.
No. The relationships between National, Councils, and local isn’t clear, at least to me. I’m sure others know, but I think National in many ways prefers that things aren’t clear. Local relationships are clearer to me. Troops and packs are chartered to a local organization; ours is not a religious organization. I haven’t discussed this topic with them, but if they supported National’s policy I’d be shocked. And I don’t know any local leaders in my are who would support throwing out a scout or an adult without legitimate cause.
By local leaders, I mean Troops and Packs. At Council level, there are far too many employees.
I’m probably going to see my heavily-Scout-involved uncle this weekend, and I know for a fact he’s an atheist like me (or at the very least a strong agnostic). I’ll have to try to remember to ask him how he manages in the BSA.
While the BSA might be reflective of the feelings of many individuals in the society we live in, you’d have to look pretty hard to find another mainstream group which explicitly denies membership to atheists, agnostics and gays.
What would you tell your troop if they asked why gay kids aren’t allowed to join?
To be fair, when I did go back over your posts, they’re more measured than I remember.
However, you’re still being ridiculously defensive of the very organization that’s the problem. You are an abused wife who refuses to let the police handle her abusive husband because she doesn’t want the kids to not have a father. You attack the social worker whose first priority is to make sure the kids are safe in a healthy environment, because while the worker would prefer to keep the family whole and get the father to reform, he’ll move the kids to a new home if that’s not possible.
The BSA cares more about its bigotry than its kids. It sacrifices its kids so it can avoid having to change its policies. And both it and you want to blame the ACLU for that. At least the BSA’s leaders have the excuse that they probably believe exclusion is healthier than inclusion, but you agree that it’s bigoted, and yet you still want to blame the ACLU.
So you want to change the BSA from the inside. Noble, no sarcasm there. But it will take a lot longer than external forces will, and in the meantime you have to teach undesirable children that they have to hide who they are. How on earth is that healthy?
I have told them that the BSA interprets Morally Straight as being conflict. I also tell them that I consider that to be a violation of the 12th Scout Law of Reverence, where we are supposed to respect all religions - and that there are many religions (including my own personal Christian congregation) that do NOT consider homosexuality to be in violation of any moral tenets.
Your problem is that you’re casting the organization that is fighting bigotry as the bad guy. If the ACLU were to succeed and opportunities were to evaporate for the kids, this isn’t the ACLU’s fault, it the fault of the organization that’s acting like real shit, the BSA.
How long do we wait for change from within? The BSA seems to be moving towards the bigotry, not away from it. Show that the BSA is changing for the better or about to, then I might have some sympathy for the view that the ACLU should back off. Until then, I’m 100% with the ACLU. And if the pressure from the ACLU means that the BSA disappears rather than changes its abominable policy, so be it. I won’t mourn the loss of an orgaization with such backwards beliefs.
I am going to stick my neck out here and say that Algher is doing something essential, unsung, and unthanked. Your points are valid but mostly with reference to the National Council and its Executive in particular, plus the “trickle-down” effect they have on regional and local policy. I am reasonably sure when first brought to public scrutiny, the standards barred boys as well as leaders identifying as gay (not necessarily actively in a relationship) or as atheist/agnostic. That has changed – and I know for a fact that that change came from within – people like our friend Larry and Algher holding the line on what was improper to require.