Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

South Carolina Scout Executive Resigns

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    LOL, I told I was pragmatic. You on the other are so emotional about this subject that you spent more words criticizing my choice of words that I lost what ever point you wanted to make. Are you really a lawyer, you can't seem to see past the trees. I was discussing generalities because there are a lot of groups out there that want to be accepted in scouts and do not yet have the "status?". I'm not sure why you want (need?) my acceptance for your thoughts on the subject of the local option, but I'm kind of uncomfortable with it. You got my practical unbiased answer, your definition of the local option is so broad that it will include types of behaviors (status?) to be roll models for our sons that just the thought of it will turn parents away. I know you are micro focused on gays, but transexuals, polygamist, and less tolerated behaviors (forest) are standing in line.

    Comment


    • packsaddle
      packsaddle commented
      Editing a comment
      This is fun. C'mon NJ, you know lots of polygamists. They are merely sequential polygamists. And BSA is just fine with that. As for the transsexuals....heh, heh, as far as YOU know. I mean really, how are you GOING to know...if they're good at it? Besides, if they ARE transsexuals they might still meet BSA membership standards although as I've tried to point out several times in the past, the standards are unclear on this particular topic - do they apply to the physics of the matter or the genetics of the matter? If the two people are physically male and female, seems to me that until BSA starts karyotyping people for the membership application process, then even if BOTH of them are transsexuals it might be just hunky-dory (don't ask me how that might come about though).

      Think about it. Look at where you live. Watch 'that' television show (you know the one). There are probably a lot more of 'them' around you than you think. And who knows, maybe 'they' have already beaten down the walls and gotten into BSA. Delicious!

    • qwazse
      qwazse commented
      Editing a comment
      Thanks, Pack. You just explained the "No Skinny Dipping" rule in the G2SS!

    • NJCubScouter
      NJCubScouter commented
      Editing a comment
      Packsaddle says:

      "If the two people are physically male and female, seems to me that until BSA starts karyotyping people for the membership application process, then even if BOTH of them are transsexuals it might be just hunky-dory (don't ask me how that might come about though)."

      Maybe we should ask that person in the "Encouraging Volunteers" thread under Open Discussion, who won't fill out an adult leader application because he/she (heh heh) would have to give up his/her Social Security and drivers license numbers, whether he/she would have a problem giving some DNA to the BSA so they can run a gender test as well.

  • #47
    I think the question is why wouldn't the local option work. The short answer is because it scares people away. I read the other day of a liberal church that encourages its congregation to stay away from the BSA because of its past membership history. That was a new one for me, but we've all heard about concervative churches that don't support the BSA for the opposite reason. Now I'm just using churches as an example, the situation is the same for every USA family. "When a parent is faced with picking a side to join a program (especially a political side), they will skip that program altogether". That is why the local option doesn't work. Barry

    Comment


    • #48
      Local option is simply letting people do the program in a manner that works for them. It is not picking sides. It is not belittling others. It does not have any effect on others unless those others insist on letting it. People that cannot simply live their own lives without being traumatized by someone else's choices are pretty unfortunate. Local option worked just fine until the PC idiots had to politicize personal choice.

      Comment


      • Merlyn_LeRoy
        Merlyn_LeRoy commented
        Editing a comment
        Local option worked just fine until the PC idiots had to politicize personal choice.

        Sorry skeptic, you keep trying to push your tired, old "it's all the fault of those nasty PC people" nonsense, but facts are stubborn things and they're acting against you.

        James Dale's BSA troop wanted him to stay on (the "local option"). The national BSA insisted on kicking him out. The BSA politicized it. They were apparently "traumatized" by someone else's choice enough to kick him out and insist they had a right to discriminate. They were the idiots.

      • skeptic
        skeptic commented
        Editing a comment
        Merlyn; you will never admit that there are individuals who feel that they should have the right to tell others how to live and so they should change things to fit their wants and beliefs, rather than simply live their lives without interference from the others. The "reality is" that the whole issue with Dale would have been able to be reconciled had others just stayed out. But, the relatively newly launched campaign by those pushing the GLAAD agenda decided to make it their project. When they finally lost in the SCOTUS, they made it their goal to find any and all ways to continue to force the issue. The same goes for you and your belief that somehow the BSA should defer to your atheism, rather than simply run their program as they feel it should be.

        Please do not embarrass yourself by again calling me names. I accept the fact that you feel you have some kind of special right to try and force your ideas to be accepted by those with whom you disagree. The idea that you are overstepping your right is simply not something you are likely to ever accept. But, labeling those that choose to allow personal choice to be "just that" as villains or worse is simply rude and does nothing to help your agenda. And yes, it is an agenda, as you have made it a point to be sure we all understand that. It is too bad that you cannot put as much effort into something more generally beneficial, as you would have far more success.

      • Merlyn_LeRoy
        Merlyn_LeRoy commented
        Editing a comment
        Merlyn; you will never admit that there are individuals who feel that they should have the right to tell others how to live and so they should change things to fit their wants and beliefs, rather than simply live their lives without interference from the others.

        Oh, there are plenty of those, including yourself. You keep trying to tell me that atheists should accept their second-class treatment and allow public schools to charter BSA units that exclude atheists, but I'm never going to allow that.

        The "reality is" that the whole issue with Dale would have been able to be reconciled had others just stayed out.

        What??

        How, exactly? Dale was kicked out when it became known he was gay from a college newspaper article about him as co-president of the Rutgers University Lesbian, Gay and Bi-Sexual Alliance.

        But, the relatively newly launched campaign by those pushing the GLAAD agenda decided to make it their project.

        So if they had stayed out of it, how would that have reconciled Dale's situation? He's still out of the BSA. Is that what you mean by reconciliation?

        The same goes for you and your belief that somehow the BSA should defer to your atheism, rather than simply run their program as they feel it should be.

        I think they ought to change, but until they do, they get no government favors.

        Please do not embarrass yourself by again calling me names.

        Don't embarrass yourself by being patronizing. Oops, too late.

        I accept the fact that you feel you have some kind of special right to try and force your ideas to be accepted by those with whom you disagree.

        No, I just argue what the law says. Remember, you're the one who keeps saying it was no problem having public schools charter BSA units.

        Here's you from 7/7/2008: Or, maybe the people in the school simply hoped the PC stuff would not be an issue, and the 99% positive element of the program could happen. They, perhaps weighed the positives and negative(s, then felt the positives "far" out weighed the negatives; and a large group of parents wanted it. Oh, I am sorry, we need to ignore that group, as they just want what they see as "best" for "their" kids.

        See, right there you're advocating that public schools ought to be able to discriminate against atheist students if it makes the majority happy.

        The idea that you are overstepping your right is simply not something you are likely to ever accept.

        Look, if I'm "overstepping" my rights, have me arrested. You just don't like "uppity" atheists. Too bad for you, especially with atheists getting much more politically active.

    • #49
      >>Local option worked just fine until the PC idiots had to politicize personal choice.<< That says it all.

      Comment


      • #50
        Originally posted by Eagledad View Post
        I think the question is why wouldn't the local option work. The short answer is because it scares people away. I read the other day of a liberal church that encourages its congregation to stay away from the BSA because of its past membership history. That was a new one for me, but we've all heard about concervative churches that don't support the BSA for the opposite reason. Now I'm just using churches as an example, the situation is the same for every USA family. "When a parent is faced with picking a side to join a program (especially a political side), they will skip that program altogether". That is why the local option doesn't work. Barry
        It sounds more like you're talking about whether or not a sponsoring organization will charter a Scout unit, not about a local within Scouting.

        Certainly liberal churches, especially those within the UUA, will have bones to pick with BSA, plus there's the very real problem that BSA will force discrimination upon a chartering organization regardless of how strong a non-discrimination policy that CO has. In court, BSA has even argued that they themselves are immune to discrimination lawsuits, so the plaintiffs should sue the CO instead (yes, BSA quite literally wanted to throw the CO under the bus). The PTA will not charter any units, though that argument was over liability issues. Government agencies are finding that they also cannot charter units. But with a local option, a CO would have a chance to operate in accordance with its own non-discrimination standards and be more inclusive as BSA keeps its distance.

        With conservative churches, many of them already have a youth program called "Awanas", and possibly others (are the "Stockade Boys" still around? -- part of the Christian Service Brigade). In their case, BSA would be competing with other programs, ones that the individual church may feel that it has more control over. In this case too, with a local option a CO would have a chance to keep its program as exclusive as it wants as BSA keeps its distance. The difference here is that it is the unit, not BSA, that is discriminating; the excluded member can still participate provided he find a unit that will take him.

        During my own "time of troubles" in the 1990's, my unit wanted me and even my district wanted me, but BSA would not allow that. When we joined the pack, it was struggling with a former BAM (female Marine, the Bear leader) trying her best to keep it going. No Tiger Cubs; that age group was registered as Wolves which nearly destroyed the poor Den Leader. And no Webelos den. I got recruited as Committee Chair, I seem to recall, at which time I then started researching the DRP (the Bear leader dismissed it as meaningless) so that by the time I was asked to step up as Cubmaster I knew what it meant and could sign it honestly. I got a good ACM and a phenomenal DL (whose ward later invited the Randall twins to join our pack) and another competent DL, a Marine spouse. I immediately mandated adult leader training for everybody and I started the Webelos den, running it myself. At registration, we sought for and achieved 100% Boys Life and we organized summer-time outings to qualify for Year-Round Unit. Our membership grew and our program strengthened, especially as I strongly encouraged attendance of the monthly district Roundtable meetings which I also always attended. I also would regularly announce at pack meetings the Religious Awards Programs and encouraged boys to work on them; it is practically an article of faith for me that everybody needs to learn as much about their own religion as they possibly can.

        Then when I was expelled for being an atheist (ie, for no good reason), I informed each of the unit leaders of what had happened. BSA's rhetoric at the time was that even the quiet respectful presence of an atheist would irreparably disrupt a unit. When I informed the leaders of that stated position, one especially responded immediately, "But we've flourished under your leadership!" (yes, that was the Marine spouse). I continued to support the unit as an involved parent. No, more than that. As decided by the unit leadership, I continued acting in my previous roles in anticipation of my reinstatement, since my case was under review -- it would languish for several years while BSA awaited the California Supreme Court's decision on the Randalls. In all cases, we provided straw leadership at rechartering and we also had mandatory registration of all parents as Member of Committee, so that we could always have the required number of registered adults present at all meetings in order to stay legal. Then as my boys advanced into Boy Scouts, I took much more of a back-seat in their troop. However, I continued to attend the monthly Roundtable meetings on behalf of the troop. So what was the effect of the mere presence of this quiet respectful atheist? The other volunteers observed me month after month attending and participating solely in the interest of Scouting, not because I had ever planned that, but simply because I was there honestly doing my part. Our DE informed me that the other volunteers practically stormed the Council SE's office demanding that I be reinstated. And he promised that he would do all he could to that end, they left, and he did absolutely nothing whatsoever (except perhaps to report it up the chain as required). That is called "smiling you out the door".

        Many other cases also involved people being excluded that their units wanted but BSA wouldn't allow it. In the early 1990's, I did hear of the opposite situation. A unit chartered by a religious organization, Muslim perhaps, and a Scouter wasn't (or maybe it was the other way around), so they excluded him even though he was popular with the unit members. BSA upheld the unit's using its local option, but the ousted Scouter was still welcome in BSA and just had to find a unit that would take him.

        I even heard of a unit over in Los Angeles County that had lost its Cubmaster for religious reasons, so the parents recruited another dad to the position. Everybody knew that the new Cubmaster was gay (remember, this was the early 1990's) and they all laughed their heads and other body parts off at what colossal fools BSA was.

        So, there are pros and cons to a local option. But the biggest pro is that it gets BSA out of the loop!

        Comment


        • Eagledad
          Eagledad commented
          Editing a comment
          As I said, church was just an example of the bigger world, I wasn't trying to be specific. Even you admit that there were gays in scouting, but it was local because local meant your small community. But local now means national, everyone in the country knows that gays will be role models for somebodies sons and that bit of knowledge is enough for some folks a 1000 miles away to rethink the BSA. Add to that, a person joining now is being forced to take a side. It wasn't very long ago that gays were accepted within many units, that was a true local option. But now units are going to define themselves as accepting gays or not. And folks will have to make a choice, which will define them.
          Last edited by Eagledad; 07-12-2013, 08:58 AM.

        • Eagledad
          Eagledad commented
          Editing a comment
          The editor wouldn't let me add anymore text, my oppolgies for the double post. My point is folks now will be identified by their choices they are being force to make. And I think people would rather skip the question than make the choice. Local option will drive families away. Ironically less boys will have an opportunity because the BSA is more inclusive. Barry
      Working...
      X