Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Where do you draw the line?

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by CalicoPenn View Post
    (I note that the question didn't say boo about adult sex offenders),
    ....

    AZMike:
    • "Adult leaders who were previously convicted of a child sexual offense, but are no longer required to register as a sex offender?"

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by dcsimmons View Post
      I'm not convinced local option is the panacea that folks think it is. If local option means scouts can march in Pride parades does it not necessarily imply then that scouts participating in decorating Confederate headstones on Decoration Day is also just as local of a decision? The challenge with local option is the BSA brand is a national brand. The actions of units in one area of the country do affect the perceptions of folks in other areas of the country.

      "​Local option" is about the charter organization "unit" membership. Marching in a city July 4th parade, fine. Marching in a "Pride parade" is more about taking a position and using scouting for a political agenda. At that points, leaders are using scouting for politics and they have no business doing that.

      Comment


      • #18
        As for the rest ... already too late. This might be a controversial view, but ... girls ... transgender ... etc. The threshold has been past with alternative orientations. Already we need to consider more dating issues and more privacy issues.

        Perhaps it is best if scouting units all changed to using one "person" tents.

        Comment


        • #19
          Atheists ????

          BSA national? ... sure.

          Unit chartered by my "church"? ... if they don't make a point of it ... fine.

          Unit chartered by my "church"? ... if they make a public issue of it ... they wouldn't have a prayer.

          -----------------------------------------

          It's really the same as sexual orientation .... as it exists now.

          BSA national? ... Sure.

          Unit chartered by my "church"? ... if they don't make a point of it ... fine.

          Unit chartered by my "church"? ... if they make a public issue of it ... you would be out and not just of the closet.

          -----------------------------------------

          Our church will support and help anyone.

          But if you start telling everyone where our faith is wrong, it's best if you go elsewhere.
          Last edited by fred johnson; 07-18-2014, 03:10 PM.

          Comment


          • #20

            Originally posted by fred johnson View Post
            "​Local option" is about the charter organization "unit" membership.
            I believe at one time this was a true statement, but I'm not sure it is any more. In the thread about the Pride Parade in NY CalicoPenn posted this:

            "~~No matter what, though - it all still boils down to the same solution - local choice - don't want your Scouts participating in a pride parade? Then don't participate - but why should you care of the Troop down the block decides to participate? Do you think you should have any say at all in the activities it does?"

            I think the "local option" idea is being expanded to include not just membership but activities in general. That belief lead to my post about BSA being a National Brand and how the actions in one corner of the US will have an effect on other corners.

            Curious times.

            Comment


            • #21
              dcsimmons ... Agreed that is a distinction that needs to be made. Local choice works until scouters start using scouting for none scouting purposes. Marching in a parade in support of a controversial topic is using BSA for politics and not worthy of a scouter.
              Last edited by fred johnson; 07-18-2014, 06:48 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Comment:
                They do that quite frequently. They just fought a legal battle with SCOTUS over their desire to discriminate against the religious owners of Hobby Lobby, in violation of a statute signed into law by President Clinton. They have ended contracts with Catholic adoption agencies over their commitment to abide by their religious beliefs.

                Reply:

                No, the Catholic adoption agencies ended the contracts, because the government would not grant those contracts to agencies that excluded gays as potential adopters. Those agencies could have either agreed to the contracts, or continued without government funding.


                My problem: I am missing both how the reply relates to the first sentence and the meaningful distinction between cancelling and setting conditions you know will be deal-killers.




                Comment:
                I'd say yes and no. I certainly have no objection to that if that is what the demand is for. However my experience here in the UK is that that pressure doesn't really seem to be present in scouts. When the uniform goes on they stop being boys and girls and they just see each other as scouts. It all seems to work quite well.

                That is not the experience reported by my friends in Canada. "Like rabbits" is what I keep hearing.


                Comment


                • #23
                  My problem: I am missing both how the reply relates to the first sentence and the meaningful distinction between cancelling and setting conditions you know will be deal-killers.

                  ​The government didn't set conditions to be deal-killers; plenty of other agencies agreed, and the government set them to not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, not to get agencies to cancel contracts. My reply didn't address the first sentence.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by TAHAWK View Post
                    Comment:
                    They do that quite frequently. They just fought a legal battle with SCOTUS over their desire to discriminate against the religious owners of Hobby Lobby, in violation of a statute signed into law by President Clinton. They have ended contracts with Catholic adoption agencies over their commitment to abide by their religious beliefs.

                    Reply:

                    No, the Catholic adoption agencies ended the contracts, because the government would not grant those contracts to agencies that excluded gays as potential adopters. Those agencies could have either agreed to the contracts, or continued without government funding.
                    In other words, due to the government's change in policy, the religious charities that contracted with the government were faced with acting in violation of their religious consciences, or losing their contracts. They chose the latter. I don't see how that is any better.

                    And in fact, the executive order that President Obama will sign Monday will do just as I said. it "has two components: It prohibits federal contractors from discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity -- a move that affects 24,000 companies employing roughly 28 million workers, or about one-fifth of the nation's workforce -- and it explicitly bans discrimination against federal employees based on their gender identity. Senior administration officials outlined details of the executive order in a Friday afternoon call. To the relief of the LGBT community, there is no sweeping religious exemption in the executive order." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5600100.html


                    Comment


                    • #25
                      In other words, due to the government's change in policy, the religious charities that contracted with the government were faced with acting in violation of their religious consciences, or losing their contracts. They chose the latter. I don't see how that is any better.

                      The government didn't act to try and break the contracts; the government decided to not discriminate against gays. They also can't discriminate on the basis of race, but I don't see people complaining that that cuts off charities that practice segregation.

                      And in fact, the executive order that President Obama will sign Monday will do just as I said.

                      Yep. That's good in my opinion, since gays pay taxes too -- why would they want their own government to support discrimination against them?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by TAHAWK View Post
                        Comment: I'd say yes and no. I certainly have no objection to that if that is what the demand is for. However my experience here in the UK is that that pressure doesn't really seem to be present in scouts. When the uniform goes on they stop being boys and girls and they just see each other as scouts. It all seems to work quite well. That is not the experience reported by my friends in Canada. "Like rabbits" is what I keep hearing.
                        It's not what I hear from scouts in Canada. We have a twin troop there, they have no problems with being coed at all. Like us the scouts just generally want to be scouts. Do boys and girls ignore each other? Of course not. We occasionally have young love blossom. But it never gets in the way. They have separate tents, they are not physically all over each other, they do get on with being scouts rather than just being together. From other troops and units where the occasional couple has stepped over the line the other kids normally deal with it. Last summer we did an exchange with our Canadian friends. We have a far greater proportion of girls than they do. My troop is about 35% at any one time compared to their single solitary girl. Their boys didn't bat an eyelid. Very simple.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by TAHAWK View Post
                          .... That is not the experience reported by my friends in Canada. "Like rabbits" is what I keep hearing. ...
                          After my crew had been going a few months, a scouter asked me how it was going, to which I replied with a list of activities that the youth accomplished and planned. He said that's not what he meant, and I replied that there were surprisingly no issues there and the whole co-ed thing was a positive experience so far. It was all I could do to keep from saying "So far all the pregnancy tests came back negative." (It was one of my prouder moments where I kept my actually kept my mouth shut.) Based on that experience, I would check your friend's sarcasm meter.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I have been working with co-ed groups for 40 years and for some reason, I have never had a problem. The age groups are the equivalent to the Boy Scout/Venturing aged youth.

                            With Boy Scouts doing just fine with just boys, I don't see any reason to change it. If they wish to drop the venturing age down to 11 so that college aged boys can hang out with middle school girls, so be it. Seriously? It's bad enough having female high school freshmen hanging out with sophomores and juniors on the college level. Sorry, not for my daughter. Was Venture Crew Adviser and girls who I care about were discouraged from joining. It was pretty much an all male crew. Over the 10+ years we had a gal join for a year or so, but nothing long term. They were high school aged gals, but I had no college aged males at that time.

                            My philosophy on the whole issue is 1) lay out the rules ahead of time, listing any and all consequences. 2) Make sure they know there are no second chances. 3) Statutory rape will be reported to the authorities immediately. You will get your name added to the child molester list.

                            If both Venturing Crew members are over 18, it's none of my business, so says the law.

                            Then I don't spend any time worrying about what might happen because so far it never has.

                            Stosh

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I think what has happened to this once great organization is now irreversible and will eventually lead to the demise of this once great organization.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                jblake47: "Then I don't spend any time worrying about what might happen because so far it never has."

                                A wise and prudent policy that should be the guideline for everyone involved in risk mitigation.



                                ( j/k - in context, your statement makes sense.)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X