ghjim

It's a bit higher than that, as the poll also says "More Americans say they do not believe in God or a universal spirit (7%) than say they are atheists (2.4%)", so it's more like 7% and 93%, but I assume part of jblake47's definition of "impact" are things like the removal of ten commandment monuments from public school property, so you can't simply compare 7% vs. 93% as part of that 93% agree with the government being neutral on religion. The head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State has been a UCC minister for decades.

SUMMARY - If my church had to sign that agreement, I'd recommend my church drop the BSA charter.

 

The agreement scares me.

 

It implies an interpretation that applies the new BSA membership rules onto specific units. I always thought units could choose their membership, youth and adult. Most units accept everyone. Some do not.

 

Maybe I was wrong to be sad when churches have drop their BSA charter. Now from reading the above memorandum, it seems those churches may have been justified and right. The above agreement says the Lutheran M.S. church will not deny membership to a scout based on sexual attraction alone. But clearly stating such an orientation is promotion. Going thru the teenage years and exporing sexuality is promotion. Having a boyfriend is promotion. All those actions say that it's okay and normal and in the face of churches that do not support, teach or believe that.

 

Instead, the agreement requires some further action called "promotion" or other to trigger removal from the troop.

This is red herring. The key point today is that BSA troops are not required to discriminate against gay youth. If there are still some troops who choose to do so (in violation of BSA membership rules today) I doubt it will raise the ruckus we just went through. Let them keep out gay youth if they want. What openly gay youth would want to be in that troop anyway when there are plenty with open arms.

Trayvon Martin is dead because he chose to confront a neighborhood watch captain who was keeping an eye on him until police arrived to question his suspicious behavior.

Martin had 4 minutes to walk 80 yards to get to his father's girlfriend's home.

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CDk6SYyZum8/T3JNkQ84MeI/AAAAAAAAAxg/Hg9HwbXJ4Mo/s1600/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-path.jpg

 

He chose to use those 4 minutes (the time between his phone being dropped, connection lost, and the time the shot was recorded on the 911 tape) to ambush the person following him.

A timid child in an unfamiliar neighborhood in the dark would choose to go home.

If confronted, a normal teenager would politely explain who he was and where he was going.

A belligerent teenager seeking to boost his 'street cred' (who had bragged about winning a fight the week before) would instigate a fight against a 4 inch shorter unsuspecting victim.

 

George Zimmerman didn't get away with anything.

His life is ruined. He will always be hunted by Black activists.

The two years it's taken to get to a just verdict have been hell on Zimmerman.

All because Zimmerman didn't want to die.

 

Anybody else on the board ever stitch up a scalp would? The scalp is tough. It's hard to push a needle through the human scalp. Trayvon was pounding George's head on the concrete to produce those wounds. When the police that George had called didn't arrive in time, and the neighbors who heard him yelling chose not to help, George chose to use his gun to keep himself alive.

 

Under the same circumstances, every one of us would have acted the same.

 

Trayvon Martin is dead because he chose to confront a neighborhood watch captain who was keeping an eye on him until police arrived to question his suspicious behavior.

Martin had 4 minutes to walk 80 yards to get to his father's girlfriend's home.

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CDk6SYyZum8/T3JNkQ84MeI/AAAAAAAAAxg/Hg9HwbXJ4Mo/s1600/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-path.jpg

 

He chose to use those 4 minutes (the time between his phone being dropped, connection lost, and the time the shot was recorded on the 911 tape) to ambush the person following him.

A timid child in an unfamiliar neighborhood in the dark would choose to go home.

If confronted, a normal teenager would politely explain who he was and where he was going.

A belligerent teenager seeking to boost his 'street cred' (who had bragged about winning a fight the week before) would instigate a fight against a 4 inch shorter unsuspecting victim.

 

George Zimmerman didn't get away with anything.

His life is ruined. He will always be hunted by Black activists.

The two years it's taken to get to a just verdict have been hell on Zimmerman.

All because Zimmerman didn't want to die.

 

Anybody else on the board ever stitch up a scalp would? The scalp is tough. It's hard to push a needle through the human scalp. Trayvon was pounding George's head on the concrete to produce those wounds. When the police that George had called didn't arrive in time, and the neighbors who heard him yelling chose not to help, George chose to use his gun to keep himself alive.

 

Under the same circumstances, every one of us would have acted the same.

 

I think George Zimmerman confronted Trayvon Martin, and possibly grabbed him. The situation backfired and he was soon fighting, perhaps for his life.

Zimmerman got off because there was no witness to what caused the fight. I also agree with other posters that the prosecution made a mistake trying to prove Murder 2 for which there was no evidence. "Under the same circumstances, every one of us would have acted the same"? Also nonsense. Everyone of the rest of us would have followed the 911 operator instructions and let the police interrogate Trayvon. George Zimmerman was playing Rambo and lost control of the situation.

Humanity has undergone more change in the last 100 years than it's first 10,000 years of existence. That rate of change has also increased during that time. The basic problem arises when that speed of change occurs without opportunity to assimilate the changes and what that may mean for the future. I'm thinking the eventual problem lies in the fact that humanity will collapse due to being overwhelmed by this problem. One cannot wake up every morning not knowing how to function in a world that is far different than yesterday. Critical mass is a good way of describing the process. I have no idea where we are in the process, but there is an increasing tempo of life that was never part of the human experience in the past. How long the species can tolerate that is anybody's guess. Evidence of this is already being experienced in the stress that seems so prevalent in the more "advanced" societies of the world. Ask anyone today whether they like the way things are and are going or would they want, if possible, return to a more simpler life.

Sorry I don't buy the "I am persecuted, because I can't interfere and force my religious beliefs into the lives of others that I don't even personally know, and I am not free to persecute whom I deem worthy of my persecution". That argument just doesn't fly..

My left-leaning take on the whole issue going on is that conservative groups within the USA, still reeling from all of the changes that occurred in the 1960s, have made slow organized efforts to gain control of American institutions. Such groups are successfully taking control of my current employer, a major aerospace company. They had a major champion for eight years during the Bush administration. For a generation they have successfully dominated the BSA.

What we are now seeing is a backlash, or if you prefer, a pendulum swing. Failing to take dominate the GSUSA, the far right organized their own girl scouts, the AHG. Losing their domination of the BSA, the far-right BSA members are now organizing to form their own scouting group for boys.

Will they succeed?

From their perspective I think they will. They have the financial backing and the institutions to promote and carry them into the future. Religious institutions are powerful organizers.

Will the BSA recover and build up again? I hope so. Even though I am still ineligible for membership I am going to start regularly donating now. The BSA is in for some rough waters. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next 10 years.

For what it's worth, I think that penalizes someone for same sex attraction is wrong and violates our Pack's religious orientation. Regarding sexual activity, what are we defining that?

 

Boy admits he's attracted to boys, that's not a sin.

Boy admits he's attracted to girls, that's not a sin.

Boy kisses another boy, that's not a sin.

Boy kisses a girl, arguably that is a sin (since we're quoting Midrashim and Rashi, can we bring up Shomer Negiah, observing the separation of the sexes).

 

Boy has sex with another boy, that's a sinful violation.

Boy has sex with a girl, that's debatable as a sin actually... Sex out of wedlock is prohibited actions, but there is certainly precedent in Jewish Law and Church Canon that this establishes a marriage between the two, but contemporary sources do not permit marriage created via sexual activity, so we're back to a sin.

 

A certain segment of the population has had sexual relations of various levels with members of the same sex and opposite sex. Given that, I'm sympathetic to those that believe our value code should encourage those with both sets of attractions to channel it in a heterosexual direction, while the normalization of homosexuality reverses that. For the small segment that is 100% same sex attracted, I'm not sure what to do, but one that prefers their same gender but has an attraction to the opposite, historically would be heavily encouraged to channel it heterosexually, when they fail to maintain that, it's a big embarrassing scandal.

 

That's what makes the local options somewhat appealing and consistent with BSA's non-sectarian nature. Liberal Christian and Jewish groups, as well as secular groups, would obviously have no problem with homosexual members. Conservative Christian groups appear to have strong problems with homosexual activities (and possibly even attraction, I'm not sure), while Conservative Jewish and Muslim groups might have a problem with ALL sexual behavior, same sex or opposite sex.

 

Since we are fundamentally a values organization that teaches general American values PLUS the faith based one in a non-sectarian manner, I think that this is best pushed to the local level.

 

Youth protection is another story, and part of what makes this all VERY odd. Two thirds of BSA's members are in the Cub Scout program, and quite frankly, Cub Scouts have no bone in this fight. While you can argue if gay leaders present the values BSA wants to present (and if that overrides the local CO's values), there is no Youth Protection issue at the Cub level from SSA. The concern at our level is pedophilia, we're pre-pubescent. Since Boy Scouts overlaps with puberty, you need to worry about pedophiles and simple attraction. For better or for worse, we culturally don't worry that a female scout master will be attracted to a 17 year old boy in her charge (the female teacher with male students issues makes the news and results in chuckles, not panic), yes we think that putting a gay scout master in that position with 17 year old boys is more problematic. Quite frankly, we assume that men will sleep with anything that moves if they can without a downside, while women are more discerning.

 

Honestly, I find it VERY unlikely you're going to find gay men wanting to be alone with teenage boys, where such an attraction might be an issue. i know that there is no way in hell I'd go off on a camping trip with another heterosexual male leaders and a troop of 16-17 year old girl scouts, that's just waiting for trouble.

 

But at the Cub Level, where we need a higher parent:youth level in daily activities, this current policy deprives us of valued leaders.

 

Whatever will be, will be. My biggest issue with this is that GLAAD and other groups have absolutely engaged in bullying behavior towards the BSA, and I'm concerned that any change in policy, despite the support on the ground, will look like we've given into bullying. Any approach to do it needs to be cognizant of that fact. Look at Augusta, they refused to allow women in when the pressure was on to NOT give in to bullying, then when they decided to, they invited women in, and did NOT allow the bullies to claim a trophy.

 

But I'm not sure why we'd kick a Scout out for fooling around with a boy in high school but not a girl. I'm okay with a abstinence only policy for Scouting, but not sure why an orientation one makes sense. Either we're against illicit sexual actions or we're not.

We have a cub scout mom starting a BPSA unit for her 7yo daughter. We will be running the BPSA program in parallel to our cub scout program and treating the BPSA unit just like a den.

BPSA founded in 2008 and run out of a guys basement in Washington Mo. (small town outside of St. Louis) 19 units nationwide. Not sure I would jump

in with both feet with this group if the vote does not go your way. Last I read about them they were looking for donations to fund background checks

for potential leaders. I guess all groups have to start somewhere.

I don't recall the time I realized my sexual orientation but I do remember watching television with my four year old. The most censoring that I did with my son was during the news. I really didn't want him to see explicit "real" violence. One day, they were starting to show something about a bombing or something in Israel and I decided to turn the channel (I didn't have cable at the time). I came upon Entertainment Tonight or some such drivel and they showed some starlet in a bikini. I changed the channel about ten seconds later andall of sudden my son asked me to go back to Entertainment Tonight. His exact words to me were, "I like that but I don't know why."

 

 

Most respected psychologists believe that we are all on a sexual spectrum. No one is 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual. Certain environments will influence our behavior - sexual and other. For example, usually in single sex environments (prisons, castaways, etc.) sexual activity does not cease.

But maybe there are people who do have trouble deciding and try out both lifestyles. If so no such person has ever told me that.

Did the Savin-Williams study involve people who declared themselves to be bisexual? I do believe those types of people often settle into either a heterosexual or homosexual lifestyle at some point in their life. I can see such a person eventually driven to a heterosexual lifestyle by societal, family or religious pressure.

 

But every single gay person I know (more than a few) have told me they always knew they were gay, there was never any doubt. Which has always made sense to me as I always knew I wasn't.

"...no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

"All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective."

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

Did the Savin-Williams study involve people who declared themselves to be bisexual? I do believe those types of people often settle into either a heterosexual or homosexual lifestyle at some point in their life. I can see such a person eventually driven to a heterosexual lifestyle by societal, family or religious pressure.

But every single gay person I know (more than a few) have told me they always knew they were gay, there was never any doubt. Which has always made sense to me as I always knew I wasn't.

My take on this is that it started with the top 70 when they said they wanted a change. They did an informal poll of the councils and came up with the 2/3 want to change it number. They start talking about the change in Feb and the blow back is big, so they figure they'll do a real survey and things will go their way. As the results indicate, it's really a mixed bag. The future implies change is needed but the current membership is on the fence. A little risk analysis - they don't want to walk away with nothing - suggests change the scout policy now and the adult policy can wait.

 

It's interesting how they wrote the results page. In the summary of results, the first four items are "people's views are changing or have changed." The fifth and seventh item is that gay scouts would be tolerated now. The sixth item is all by itself stating that a local option is not favored by a majority. I'm not sure that the result details are really covered by the result survey. The result summary I would think would be closer to the details are that the future suggests change (young parents, kids, cubscouts donations) but that the old folks like it as it is. i.e., changing it all at once is too much.

It has been mentioned on this forum that National is now in a no-win position. There is no solution that will satisfy a majority. This proposal probably will result in the fewest number of people pulling out.

If the youth membership continues to think as this survey suggests, then the ultra-conservative scouters are living on borrowed time. Ultimately the gay ban will fail. But it looks like it will take more years.

Youth Study Group

The Youth Study Group (teens 16 to 18) was charged with listening to the voice of youthâ€â€both current members and nonmembers. Harris Interactive was contracted to survey both current youth members as well as general population teens. Key findings include:

Among general population teens and Boy Scouts and Venturers alike, a majority oppose the current Boy Scouts of America membership policy.

A majority of Boy Scouts and Venturers oppose allowing chartered organizations to follow their own beliefs if that means there will be different standards from one organization to the next.

According to a majority of current Boy Scouts and Venturers, the current policy does not represent a core value of Scouting.

 

The Old Goat Patrol never fails to throw Boy Led out the window at every opportunity.

"Views among parents under the age of 50 have changed significantly ... with a majority now opposing the BSA's current policy"

"Among general population teens and Boy Scouts and Venturers alike, a majority oppose ... the current membership policy".

Who exactly are the "majority of adults" who support the current policy? Old Goat Patrol is right. Looks to me like we have a conservative minority trying to control everyone.

Statistics being what they are, survey results are summarized at http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/content/MembershipStandards/Resolution/Summary.aspx.

Why don't ask, don't tell don't work...

 

Here's a woman who died:

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/dispatch/obituary.aspx?n=Jeanne-Roe&pid=163314539

 

Now, since her daughter was listed as "daughter, Carla (Julie)", she was fired from job at a Catholic school.

It's even possible the obit was written by some other family member and she didn't even know she would be outed.

Telling gay members to just keep their mouths shut will work just as well, as in not well at all.

I'm not sure about the "solely pro-Christian" thing but BSA sure as heck DID single out the UUA (non-Christian faith) for exclusion of their religious award when they merely disagreed with the membership policy.

 

Well that's the lovely thing about membership organizations, you can always leave and start your own if you want or find another that fits your belief system. If I don't like AARP I can find another senior's group to belong to. Don't like my college because they encourage anti-conservative or liberal values? I can find myself a college that fits my belief system without forcing the obvious majority of people at said college to conform to mine.

I'm not sure about the "solely pro-Christian" thing but BSA sure as heck DID single out the UUA (non-Christian faith) for exclusion of their religious award when they merely disagreed with the membership policy.

 

Well that's the lovely thing about membership organizations, you can always leave and start your own if you want or find another that fits your belief system. If I don't like AARP I can find another senior's group to belong to. Don't like my college because they encourage anti-conservative or liberal values? I can find myself a college that fits my belief system without forcing the obvious majority of people at said college to conform to mine.

If the upcoming vote affirms the selective membership of the BSA I predict that there may be new efforts to challenge or alter the congressional charter.

Having said all of that' date=' I am concerned about an individual that is so wrapped in his or her sexuality that s/he must be identified as Jack/Jill the gay Scout leader. Why can't it just be Jack or Jill the Scout leader? [/quote'] You just don't get it. There is this fantasy that we are going to get gay scout leaders showing up in a feather boa and high heals, and shouting in front of the scouts "let me tell you how great it is to be gay!". It's total BS. The problem is that you declare your sexuality every time you introduce your wife as your wife. Gay leaders just want the same freedom to get dropped off at an event by their "partner" without the fear that somebody is going to report them and cause pain for them and their unit. "Don't ask don't tell" doesn't work because "telling" really means "someone found out and complained".

 

No, not really. Every time I introduce my wife, I'm introducing my wife. I'm not telling anyone anything about my sexuality. Sometimes a wife is just a wife. You say "...gay leaders want the same freedom to get dropped off at an event by their partner..." how would "don't ask, don't tell" impact that? It wouldn't. Let's be honest with one another here for a moment - we've had gay leaders in Scouting for as long as we've had Scouting. And I'm sure that "gay leaders have been dropped off at events by their partners" from time to time. And maybe even those inclined to wonder why Mr. Jones is always being dropped off by Mr. Smith, the youth really didn't "know" anything about the sexuality of the adult leaders. Sure, they may have guessed. They may have intuited it as they got older. But it wasn't out in the open so to speak.

 

So what we're really talking about is that those who feel passionate about forcing the Scouts to accept gay leaders really do want to have "Joe the gay leader" instead of "Joe the leader". I'm not smart enough to know why this is so important, but suspect it has something to do with mainstream acceptance and changing the cultural and moral values of our country. But that's just a guess. I may not get it.

DADT is wrong on several levels. But the most important is that you have to hide who you are. This is bad for everyone involved, for the gays, the homophobic, and the kids. It is never a good idea to deny the reality of the world around you.

In what I think we can agree is a fairly conservative organization' date=' does it present a shock to anyone's intuition that the Eagle Scouts produced by that organization thereby reflect what the BSA was or IS, in terms of it's legacy policy and views?[/quote'] Well, given that the vast majority of the COs are religious organizations and how they feel about the topic in general, I think that gives you your answer about why the Eagles may be more conservative. But to be honest. I don't know that many Scouts that are really following this issue -- or any political issue for that matter. Most really could not care one way or the other.

 

I thought the Linked-In poll was a bit of an anomoly compared to most of what I've be seeing on the internet. Even the comments posted to the poll generally reflect more interest in the local option. Keep in mind that this particular group I've cited is not made up of youth, but adults who in the past have received the Eagle Award (following the tradition of "once an Eagle, always an Eagle."). The members may or may not still be active in Scouting.

I guess the point I'm trying to make, is that most of the noise seems focused on inclusion and the highly touted local option. If I had to bet, I would say it's a foregone conclusion. In fact, I think the decision was made several months ago but the board wants to give the air of open discussion so they kicked it down the road to the National Meeting. Now, I'm going to speculate a bit and suggest that maybe the poll I cited actually reflects what the "stakeholders" really feel, but have not been that vocal about. What happens when the vote in May turns to keeping the current policy? I predict should that happen the Board will simply overturn that vote and change the policy anyway.

 

I'm sure not looking forward to the media circus and Facebook madness that will surround that meeting. Might be a great couple of days to turn it all off and read some books instead!

My money says the Board will adopt whatever the majority of councils vote for. I think it is well established at this point that this whole thing resulted from a revolt from inside the BSA.

Despite the challenge of trying to navigate this new version of the forums, I am still drawn like a moth to the flame...

 

Just wanted to post something a little more in line with the original poll that started this thread.I'm a member of a Linked-In group that is comprised of about 30,000 Eagle Scouts. The moderator started a poll about the same time as this one. The poll is interesting in that the results are a flip of the one here.

377 votes in favor of current national policy, versus 232 in favor of lifting the ban and going local option. A 61% to 38% split.

However, when you skim through the nearly 1,300 comments posted to that poll, those in favor of the local option seem to be the most prevalent.

[TABLE=align: right]

 

 

[TR]

 

[TD=align: left]

 

 

"Current BSA Membership Policy[/TD]

 

[/TR]

 

 

[/TABLE]

 

This was emailed out from our council ofice today as a reiteration of current policy, before the coming "survey":

 

While the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA. Scouting believes same-sex attraction should be introduced and discussed outside of its program with parents, caregivers, or spiritual advisers, at the appropriate time and in the right setting. The vast majority of parents we serve value this right and do not sign their children up for Scouting for it to introduce or discuss, in any way, these topics. The BSA is a voluntary, private organization that sets policies that are best for the organization. The BSA welcomes all who share its beliefs but does not criticize or condemn those who wish to follow a different path."":

"

Every council has certain voting members that can vote at the National meeting; usually the Key Three and, depending on the size of the council, member(s) at large. Our small council has 4 total. They just put out a three question survey regarding the issue, sort of. The queries did not mention "local option", only acceptance or non-acceptance of Gays; so do not think it is going to get meaningful results. On the other hand, just got a National survey as well; and it was very specific, and asked for detail as to why and so on. It seemed to be aimed at an honest attempt to get "real" answers. I had to deal with one local member of the congregation at our Methodist sponsor on Scout Sunday. We had a short discussion out in the patio away from the others. Not sure if my answers mollified her, but at least she did not pursue it further. She had gone to the minister, who came to me and asked me to speak with the woman. The church as a whole, is very supportive still.