WTF?
This is going to need some more splaining.
So protesting from the inside does…what, exactly? When it comes to fighting the war against bigotry, are you what might be called a “silent partner”? Would you even write a letter of protest against his expulsion(“removal from the list”-sounds so clean that way)? If he told them that you already knew that he was gay and that you said he could join anyway, what would your response to them be?
Nothing silent about me. Maybe you should re-read the thread. I already write the letters, told them why they lost my annual donations, and make loud noises at certain Council level events and activities.
My response, however, would be irrelevant. The BSA would remove him from the list. That means the boy would no longer be registered Scout. Since I am not some movie hacker - I can’t log into the BSA network and reset a boy’s registration. Each boy has a unique ID in the system - and if the BSA removes a boy - they are gone.
To help dispel some ignorance - they don’t go after the boys (to my knowledge). They spend their efforts kicking people out on the adults. That is why Dale was kicked out - he was a registered adult leader and came out of the closet. Same with the lesbian mom - she was removed as an adult leader. Nothing keeps the pack from keeping her around, but she can not be listed as the official Den Leader anymore nor can she hold any official position in the BSA.
Now - what does protesting from the inside accomplish? Same thing it did with my church. We kept on sending delegates the General Assembly, we kept on putting up proposals to ordain gays and lesbians. We kept on winning small battles, and they we won a big one with the ordination. The last step to fight for is to recognize gay marriage, though with the hard core anti-gay Presbyterians leaving that should be easier to get through now.
Now, we could have instead founded a new church and let them keep the name of the PCUSA - but everyone in the Covenant Network of Presbyterians chose to instead fight for our organization, to keep our organization. I am going to be a part of the same fight with the Boy Scouts - staying inside, fighting for inclusion, making a nuisance of myself, etc. I want the Eagle and the BSA logo to keep its shine (though it has some tarnish right now) - that means I stick around instead of leaving. Every year a few more found leaders join who aren’t bigots. Every year a few more old-timers retire who are. Add in a few more public events and some bad press and the loss of facilities and pressure from within and we get to the point that Irving, TX decides to hold another vote in committee.
If gays aren’t permitted, how do you determine they’re gay, and when do you kick 'em out?
Oh, I didn’t realize the question was rhetorical.
For what it’s worth, it actually kind of bothered me when Ogre (I think) said he would no longer be involved because of this. I agree fully with your rationale for “staying in”. What I don’t agree with is Unintentionally Blank’s attitude, which appears to be “well, it doesn’t really mean anything.”
I don’t believe I said that. If that’s all you’re taking away from my comments, I coulda saved a LOT of typing.
Pretty sure it was you that said…
I did. And that’s true. It hasn’t, in any way, impacted our local pack. I then also made the distinction between the local and National levels, relative ages of kids (they join before there’s a hint of preference), how 99.999% of scouting is worth dealing with the minor stupidity, how it might be a lesson on there being assholes in EVERY collective why should Scouting be different?..but yeah, go with it doesn’t mean anything.
Actually, what’s funny is: The stuff that takes the most of my time in the pack is stuff the kids never see. The Politics, the money, the logistics, none of that is seen by the kids.
Until Vatican II Catholics were forbidden to attend non-Catholic religous ceremonies of any sort (including weddings & funerals) without first getting dispensation from their bishop. The RCC also frowned on it’s youth going to to YMCA/YWCA (the C was a Protestant C) and founded the CYO as an alternative.
I’m trying to imagine not knowing the sexual orientation of the adults in my Girl Scout’s lives. We don’t have too many of them volunteer, they are busy, so most of them wouldn’t be under the rules. However, like Boy Scouts (at least around here), all parents are heavily encouraged to volunteer. And I know these girls, and I know their parents, and I know their home lives - at least at the level of that they are publicly married or not, or living with someone or not. I know that A’s parents struggle with two disabled kids, that L’s father fights addiction and that his relationship with his girlfriend is tumultuous, that M’s aunt is an out lesbian (who does volunteer).
Do the girls know the “politics?” - every year for our first session we review the law and the promise. We talk about how “God” is something not everyone is comfortable saying and some of the girls in the troop aren’t comfortable with and they are welcome to substitute a different word (most of my troop used Earth - I have three atheists and two Christians). We talk about the promise “respect myself and others.” The law, the promise, and the politics of the organization all come from its values. Now the girls are old enough (they are all at least twelve) to get involved and become delegates to the Council convention and the National convention. Should any of them select and be selected to pursue that path, they’ll need to understand Girl Scout politics.
ETA: At twelve and thirteen my girls also know the logistics. At this point - THEY, not me, run the troop. They decide what to do, I provide supervision, guidance, and a drivers license. That’s the whole idea, for them to be able to pull together their own packing list for camp, budget their own trip, and choose their own volunteer activities. They’ve more or less stuck with what we’ve “always done.” But at this point, they make the phone calls.
The thing about joining before there is a hint of sexuality bugs me in two ways. The first is that with Girl Scouts is a retention organization - and I’d assume Boy Scouts is too. We want to see the girls stick with the program through high school - preferably their whole lives. And we loose a lot of them about the time sexuality becomes important - they become more interested in “boys” than in “Scouts.” (I’m sure some of them get more interested in girls, mine who have become interested all appear to be obsessed with the opposite sex). It seems short sighted to say “well, we don’t know when they join, it isn’t important then.” The second is that while I understand how important it is to a gay boy to be accepted and out, I am also concerned about the message it sends to other boys in the troop…its ok to be a member of our - quite literally at some point in the program - pack, until you break these certain rules - then we are within our rights to shun you. Right now, those rules may only apply to “work your way through the program as a kid, and we won’t shun you until you are actually an adult” but that doesn’t seem like that much of an improvement in the message about values I’d want to send to my kids - and so, no Boy Scouts.
(We would be in NorthStar, which is ignoring National on this…and we were told by other troop members back when my son was six that they would be welcoming, but this is too important to me to say “its fine locally and I can ignore National.” I think that sends an inconsistent message to my son.)
Good collection of essays from the New York Times on this subject:
Say you find out that a close friend likes to hang out on Stormfront and attends Klan rallies when he travels. His actions and beliefs don’t really affect you (e.g. he doesn’t pick fights with the waitress), and you only pick up on the occasional veiled racist comment. In a visit to his house or late evening [del]full of buttsex[/del] drinking beers, you learn that his attitudes towards racial purity etc. are fairly strong. For example, he complies with the law, but does what he can to limit hiring black people (you have a job and are in no way affected by his actions).
Irrespective of whether he has a nice pool table and bar in his basement, some people would not continue to be friends with or associate with him.
Some people would continue to hang out under the pretext that he’s great fun, they’re not a racist, and as long as they don’t help prepare for a Klan rally there’s nothing the matter.
Some people would acknowledge it’s wrong, but stay friends because he also has a pool and an RV that he let’s you borrow. They justify this because they occasionally give him dirty looks when he makes a comment, or frown inwardly and hope he’ll change.
To paraphrase, “The Boy Scouts are worse hate group than the Klan because they don’t make discrimination part of their declared purpose.” That conclusion is so ridiculous on its face that I cannot comprehend it. Read those words again:
Is there more than the tiniest sliver of the population that would agree that the BSA is a worse bigot than the KKK?
The discrimination is an issue most Scouts will not even be aware of. The primary goal of the BSA is a good one and to classify them as a hate group is overly broad. By that definition, the US military was a hate group until recently. Augusta National Golf Club is a hate group against women. Any church organization is a hate group against any other religion if they only admit members of their religion. A group can have a bad policy, but that doesn’t make it a hate group by any but the most broad definition. That’s a definition so broad that any club that chooses who it admits would qualify.
I certainly didn’t learn to hate gays as a Scout. I saw far more bigotry in high school than in Scouts, and I’m not limiting that to only my (very tolerant) Troop.
I wouldn’t bother. The comment is too absurd to merit a response.
Don’t you think there is a difference between bigots being scattered throughout the organization and bigots running the organization?
And now it starts to get interesting:
Major League Soccer just dumped its relationship with Scouting - one that was only started in January. A one line press release statement is all that was made.
This one doesn’t require a subscription to read it.
I think there are bigots EVERYWHERE. Bias runs a great part of a great many lives, it’s just rare that it gets talked about.
But I must say, this has been a tremendously valuable discussion. The articles from the NYT especially. And the statement “You raise a boy to be honest, forthright, upstanding, then you make the very last statement he makes before Eagle be a lie.”
That’s a sticking point.
That’s largely because you can’t comprehend what you read. They may be worse not because they “don’t make discrimination part of their declared purpose,” but rather because they are an openly bigoted group that purports to develop children into moral, upstanding adults. Therefor, it is the position (unstated as it may be) of the Boy Scouts that bigotry based on religion and sexual orientation is part of being a moral, upstanding adult.
We have come very far in the past few decades in creating a society where the the overt and brash displays of hatred of the Klan are becoming unacceptable. Why would you not think it just an important to weed out the (only slightly) less offensive displays of hatred like those displayed by the Scouts?