MarkNoel

At the risk of derailing the current discussion and steering it back towards the original topic of the thread, I'd like to offer the following news on the situation in Philadelphia: Here's a local news article on the Cradle of Liberty's loss of its land deal. For those folks who were convinced earlier that CoL never actually intended to buck the National policy, you might be interested in the quote here from the CoL's Scout Exec, Bill Dwyer: http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/local/6873849.htm """ Calling the meeting "constructive," mayoral chief of staff Joyce

Rooster7 writes: > CubScouterFather came on to this forum to make a grand statement about his homosexuality and how > hes been cheated out of an experience with his son. His agenda was obvious. His "agenda?" You mean, beyond engaging in the sort of discussion that this forum was created for? Speaking of agendas, Rooster, do you recognize the following from one of your earlier posts? > Until then, I intend to fight that proposed policy change with > all my might. Should I see the day when the policy is changed, I intend > to leave Scouting. BSA would

I thought about posting this in the previous thread, but since that discussion has... ahem... devolved a bit, I'm starting a new one: The Philadelphia Inquirer reports this morning that the city of Philadelphia has notified the Cradle of Liberty Council that it will be ending that council's free use of city property. http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/6836417.htm """ David H. Lipson Jr., board chairman of Cradle of Liberty, said that if the local council lost its city offices, it would work from its other office, the Roger S. Firestone Scout Resource Cen

Interesting article in the Philadelphia Inquirer today: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/6788642.htm Apparently the City Solicitor has handed down a decision that Philadelphia's grant of free land use to the Cradle of Liberty Council violates the city's fair practices ordinance. The article also quotes members of the COL board clarifying their intent to break from the national discriminatory policy with their move earlier this year (which may be of interest to some of the posters here who still buy National's statement that their policy always and only applied to L

Rooster7 writes: > There is a huge difference between those hateful bigots of yesteryear who yearned for the day > when a black man was just a piece of property, and the God fearing people of today who oppose > the "normalization" of homosexuality. If it pleases you, make the comparison. But the truth is - > you are insulting millions of morally grounded folks (by looks of the Fox News poll, at least half of > this country). Of course, it is plain to see, from your prospective and that of others on this board, > homosexuals are the ones who are being insul

FOG writes: > I had been under the impression that the "ban" was not on homosexual Scouts, only on > homosexual Scouters. NRP kept saying that the ban is on homosexual Scouts. Score one for NPR > for spinning the story. The BSA itself stated that the policy applied to Scouts as well as Scouters, or in their words "homsexual members and leaders." Check out the statements the BSA submitted in the recent court case involving the state of Connecticut for some good examples of this. This wasn't "spun" by NPR -- rather, they got it right and refused to be taken in by the po

Laurie: I am not accusing you of lying... I am simply stating that your characterization of the events in the COL was incorrect -- and most probably because you were given incorrect or "spun" information from Bill Dwyer or whatever DE you spoke with. The original policy adopted there was, in fact, designed to buck the National one, and it wasn't until National jumped down their throats a few days later that they reversed course. You don't have to believe me over your SE (even though I haven't nearly the same vested interest in this issue that he does) -- You can listen to your

It seems the URL to the NPR story didn't display in my last post... it's: http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgDate=22-Aug-2003&prgId=2 (about halfway down the page)

NPR ran a story on Friday about the Cradle of Liberty Council and its current funding problems. It quotes both BSA national spokesmen and board members from the COL stating that the COL's policy _was_ intended to be inclusive, but within days of its adoption National threatened to decharter the council if it didn't publicly rescind its policy: (about halfway down the page) Evmori: In response to your question: > Couldn't help but notice you seem to be part of inclusivescouting.net which is a group that feels > the BSA should not exclude anyone. Interesting! I must a

Laurie writes: > That was eluded to in other earlier articles, but when I contacted council, I was told that there was > no new policy for the BSA--only a clearly spelled out non-discrimination policy for LFL. This is incorrect. The policy adopted by COL read in part: "United Way has brought to out attention the fact that the Agency Membership agreement contains a promise to "operate, by policy and practice, on a non-discriminatory basis" including "sexual orientation" as well as race, color, religion, ancestry, age, non-job related handicap, and citizenship."

Eisely writes: > This still leaves the youth out of the decision making process. One does wonder if at least some of > the youth members aren't looking for a different home in scouting as we speak. The youth in this unit were not in the decision-making process -- the parents and unit committee were. And as I understand it from the people involved there, the youth members generally share their parent's views on the issue, which is that they vary between frustrated with the BSA and outright disgusted. Rather than look for a new Scouting home, the crew members are sticking to

Eamonn writes: > As to if I think that the BSA,is anti gay? > I have no idea what "Anti" means. > While we do not allow avowed homosexuals as members. To the best of my > knowledge, we respect that this is a life style that they have opted to follow. We > do not make any judgement on it, other then we do not think that this is a good > role model for our members. You just answered your own question. First you have judged gays as having "chosen" a "life style" to follow -- an assertion that most gays and professional medical associations would take issue

Bob White writes: (and by the way your other links do not work.) First, my apologies for the links not working. This forum seems to have munged the URL somewhat, and I can't edit it. (Moderators, can you help out here?) The second link URL is the same as the first, except that it reads "BSA_Memo_Mar_1978.pdf" at the end. The final one should have started with http:// rather than https:// Try this one, instead -- it links directly to all the documents in question: http://www.inclusivescouting.net/bsa/documents/ > Mark the link you gave http://www.inclusivesco

Here's a article from Philadelphia today that brings up several recent topics: http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/local/6200252.htm Here are some excerpts: For more than three-quarters of a century, a local Boy Scout council has enjoyed the free use of city land for its headquarters at 22d and Winter Streets in Philadelphia. Now city politicians and gay civil rights activists - in light of the Scouts' rigid anti-gay stance - are raising questions about that arrangement. . . . . In 1928, the Philadelphia City Council voted in favor of letting the Philadelphi

Bob White writes: > If there is now a written policy then you should be able to share with us what it says precisely, when it was > written, and where it can be found. > > I would interested in such information. The first written records of an actual "Policy" with respect to homosexual members are from early 1978: A BSA memorandum to all Scout Executives (Feb. 1978) on the expulsion of two homosexual youth members of an explorer post in Minnesota: http://www.inclusivescouting.net/bsa/documents/BSA_Memo_Feb_1978.pdf'>http://www.inclusivescouting.net/bsa

SM406 writes: > Just a side thought. I find it interesting that if you disagree with the homosexual movement you are intolerant. I guess that depends on what you understand the "homosexual movement" to be about. If you see it as an attempt to change everyone's closely held beliefs about such issues, then I can see where you're coming from. But you don't have to change your own personal beliefs in order to allow someone else to hold beliefs that differ from yours... that's the cornerstone of our democracy and our freedoms. To the extent that you disagree with the prem

Bob White writes: > Because, you said that "The opinion seems to be that all the gays in scouting should stay in the closet and it is not > an opinion. It is the POLICY of the BSA. Just as a minor point, I did not say that. The quote above came from a previous posting by Questioning. But given the shaky nature of the BSA's "policy" -- which they have been loath to put into writing or to promulgate in any way, it seems that the word "opinion" is still the right word to use. After all, if the "policy" were so clear, then why would there be so much misunderstandings

Bob White writes: > Simply not true, you can be accepting and still not know. You won't know unless they tell you. Until that time they > are eligible to be members of the BSA. and in the same post, also writes in response to another poster: > > "The opinion seems to be that all the gays in scouting should stay in the closet and continue to teach non- > > acceptance to the youth of america." > > Incorrect. The rule is that as long as you do not publicly avow your homosexuality you may remain a member and > lead scouting using the methods of

Here are a couple of recent articles on the subject of CA judges and the BSA: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-scouts19jun19,1,3338863.story http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/6144787.htm And here's an excerpt from the LA Times story that might answer a few questions: """ Because the Scouting group bans gays, judges must disclose membership when it has "the potential to give an appearance of partiality," the court said in amending the state's Code of Judicial Ethics. The court added language to the ethics code suggesting that judges disqualify themselves

Laurie (CubPack495) writes: > This was not a reversal, but rather a misunderstanding or misrepresentation. Cradle of Liberty > changed one policy only: the one relating to Learning for Life. Except that LFL never discriminated to begin with... so why would all the community leaders and funders in Philadelphia consider the policy to be some kind of "breakthrough?" The real problem here is that the policy was made out to be one thing to the funders, and was then quickly re-interpreted the moment it was put to the test. Now most of the funders and supporters in Philadelph

nldscout writes: > well its obvious isn't! The guy is Gay, he has to show it off, like" Look at me, I am a Queer" . > Thats the problem with the fruitcake community, they can't just live and let live, they have to make > a big deal out of it Um... did it ever occur to you that referring to someone as a member of "the fruitcake commmunity" is hardly a good example of "live and let live?" Not to mention discourteous and unkind, of course... If you'd like to know why many gay people feel the need to come out (or "show it off" as you so indelicately put it), you migh

btps writes: > What was this scout thinking when he decided come out???? Didnt he know that his registration > was going too denied??? Or asked not to come back??? Was he living in some cave on some > island?? If he believed that the BSA was an outstanding organization he should have kept his > mouth shout. And done what? Lied? Hidden? What if he thought that the best thing for the Scouting movement here in the US would be to confront this issue head-on rather than having everyone pretend that there weren't gay scouts out there? Even if you disagree with