NJCubScouter

And the visitors (including parents) do not even have access to the entire area (like Basementdweller says) even if they DO buy a ticket. Right?

Pack: Yeah, I don't think that's what he meant either. "Mook" sounds like something that Detective Briscoe would have called someone on Law & Order. I had never heard of MOOC before. The article about it on Wikipedia has charts and graphs and everything.

Scouter99: What's a "mook"? Horizon: Have you actually had an openly gay Scout in your troop, or was that discussion just hypothetical?

aph5, first of all, welcome to the forums! Second of all, I understand what you are saying about privacy and confidentiality, but personally I think it is worth giving up my SSN to the BSA in order for them to do a criminal background check on everybody else who volunteers. (I say everybody else, because I already know I don't have a criminal record.) If there was evidence that the BSA misuses this information, it would be a different story, but I have never seen any such evidence. (And I suspect that if such evidence was out there, someone would have posted about it in this forum, just as we have read many times over the years about inflated and fictitious membership figures, etc.) The fact is that every once in awhile, the criminal background checks DO "catch" someone, sometimes because the person apparently thought the conviction had "expired" or something, and probably more often because the would-be leader looks at the application, realizes that a background check is about to happen and that they are going to be "caught", and they themselves raise the issue with unit leaders before submitting the application. We have had a few threads in this forum over the years about what happens next, whether the 25-year-old conviction for "possession" or simple assault is enough to prevent someone from being a leader, etc. I also don't think there is any need to "compare" the background checks with the youth protection training/guidelines (including 2-deep leadership) in terms of which makes the kids "safer." It's not a competition. Both methods work in combination with each other. Yes, the YP program probably IS more effective, because it regulates the behavior of everybody, whereas the background check doesn't tell you about the hidden intentions of someone who has never been convicted of anything. But I think the background checks provide some additional amount of effectiveness in the overall effort to protect the Scouts.

quazse, I am not hearing much discussion of this in "real life" Scouting at all. There were flurries of discussion (not involving Scouts) when things were actually happening, that is, back in January-February and then before and after the big (non) decision in May, but other than that, people in my troop are focusing on Scouting. As for what people on the district and council level are talking about, I don't know, I try to stay as far away from them as possible. (No offense to district and council Scouters who are reading this, but my experience is that conversations with district and council people are often dominated by "office politics" and money, rather than day-to-day Scouting.)

Really? That would be news to a whole bunch of Buddhist (and a bunch of people of quite a few other faiths). Though I guess you could be one of those people that don't believe Buddhism is a real religion. And after reading that, I wonder whether you are actually an atheist or not, yourself. It's up to you, of course. But there was a time in my life when I believed I was an atheist, when it probably turns out that what I didn't believe in was the anthropmorphic, involved-in-our-lives version of God. I eventually came to the conclusion that the Universe had to have been created by something "bigger than us" (us including your alien octopus, the Romulans, the Vulcans, Jedi Knights and whatever or whoever may inhabit the apparently habitable planets circling the star Gliese 561, etc.) I call that something "God" for sake of convenience, so I don't have to go through this whole explanation when the word "God" is sufficient for the occasion.

Skeptic, why can't someone fulfill their role(s) in their unit(s) and/or district, council, etc., AND come here occasionally to discuss the issues facing the BSA as a whole? That's what I do, and I think it's what most of us here do. Posting here does not have to interfere with other activities, including "on the ground" Scouting.

Scouter99, the letter from the departing South Carolina SE is very carefully and cleverly worded, and I think you may be drawing incorrect conclusions from it. In particular I think your words "despite the rule", which he did not use, suggest something that he did not mean. What he said was, "I have never kicked out (or denied) a kid for being gay." He then goes on to (correctly) distinguish between a policy excluding all gay Scouts (which the BSA did not have) and a policy excluding OPENLY gay Scouts (which the BSA DID have, but is now changing.) To me, this suggests two possibilities: One, that he has never encountered an openly gay Scout (that is, a youth member of the BSA) and therefore never had to make the decision to exclude (or not exclude) such a person. I would suspect that this is the case for most SE's in the country. A second possibility is that he HAS excluded an openly gay Scout -- but he does not regard that exclusion as "for being gay", but rather for being OPENLY gay. Either way, the words "despite the rule" would not apply. Then of course, there is a third possibility, that he did encounter an openly gay Scout but decided to defy BSA national, and not enforce the policy. Based on my reading of his entire letter, and based on the whole history of this issue, I don't see this as being very likely, especially since two much more likely possibilities (see above) present themselves.

Jblake: Interestingly enough, Einstein identified himself as an agnostic.

While we're putting labels on people, my question is: What label should we put on people who insist on putting a label on everybody else? In the past we have had this issue with ideological labels like conservative, liberal, progressive etc. (this was a particular pet peeve of our departed friend OGE), but I guess there is no end to the kinds of labels, categories, overgeneralizations, etc. that people can think up for each other. Some descriptive terms can be helpful, though I find this is most often true when it is label applied by someone to themselves. In other words if someone says "I am a ____________" I usually tend to believe him/her unless there is evidence to the contrary. But "That guy over there is a __________" is not so useful most of the time.

AZMike says: "Would it be moral for me to contribute to a fund for, say, a Jewish temple? Sure. They are more right than wrong, in my view." Ha. Well, I suppose, relatively speaking, especially against the long backdrop of history, that counts as a "positive review."

Leaving aside prayers that may occur at ECOH's (ranging from the very generic to the very specific depending on what clergyperson, if any, the Eagle-candidate has invited to participate), and the "prayer" we have at the end of each meeting (Great Master of all true Scouts...), and generic grace before meals at summer camp... if you are asking about actual "discussions", I would say virtually never. I have never heard it discussed at a Board of Review for any rank nor at any meeting. There is no emphasis on the religious awards program - some of the Scouts have the knot from Cub Scouts, and I believe most of those were in a pack chartered to a Catholic school where it was emphasized. Occasionally a Scout will go for a religious award on his own initiative. Just to add after reading TwoCubDad's post: I do not recall any sort of religious service ever being held at any district or council weekend overnight event - that goes for both my time as a Scout (60's/70's) and as a Scouter.

I laughed at the Laziness poster for about 20 minutes. That is one of the funniest things I have ever seen. Do those really get sold in packages like that? I have never seen one.

I agree Merlyn, but if the worst thing that came out of this process was an obnoxious and unnecessary statement, I would have said that on the whole, the result was positive. But it's NOT the worst thing, in my opinion. The worst thing is that the policy on openly gay adult leaders has remained what it was, and in my view that prevents this outcome from really being a positive one. It could be the "first step" toward a positive result, as Terry says in the other thread, and as my council said in their official statement on the subject (supporting the resolution on youth members but stating that work should continue on changing the policy for adults.) As for me personally, I'm not sure how many more "steps" I am in for, especially now that I am only making decisions for my self, with all of my children being adults. But we'll see. As for how inappropriate behavior among troop or crew members (youth and/or adult) should be handled, I don't think anything has changed. It has nothing to do with whether the individuals in question are gay or straight.

"Thomas Jefferson", I would like to ask you (as a fellow forum member and not in my role as a "moderator") to please not write "in character" as the historical Thomas Jefferson. I think others have commented before on your use of the name, which I don't really have strong feelings about, because many of us here (including me) write under "assumed names" and you aren't deceiving anybody because we know you aren't the man who died in 1826. So your account-name is fine with me. But, as I said, you're NOT the "real" Thomas Jefferson, and for you to write as if you were is kind of annoying, and to some degree disrespectful, and distracts from what you are actually saying. I am sure there are re-enactor or role-playing-game sites where this sort of thing is common, but this isn't one of those. So, please, I think we'd all be better off if you just be yourself.

Krampus said: "I even asked an ASM to remove his "I Voted" sticker at a meeting last fall. Rather than invite argument or debate I thought it best remove it. He did...without question." I would say that's going a little too far. Obviously if it said "I voted for Smith" (or whoever), that should not be on the uniform. But if it's just "I Voted", and it's one of those temporary stickers that you wear once and throw away, and it's Election Day, I think it's a good example for the Scouts participating in one of the rights and obligations of citizenship. And that's one of the things we are supposed to be "teaching", in a non-partisan and non-political manner.

Barbara Eden, huh? For me, I'd say it was probably more like Barbara Feldon. Not to mention I remember getting a Raquel Welch poster at some point. I don't remember choosing to like that poster, or choosing to like Barbara Feldon. It just happened. Heck, I think I even liked Marlo Thomas on "That Girl." Point is, the idea that orientation is a "choice" is just contrary to everything that I have seen, heard and experienced. And there's no reason it should work differently for people of a different orientation than mine.

And so WHAT begins? I remember discussions of this subject when I was a Boy Scout, 40 years ago...

Unless I am misreading the article, it does not say a lawsuit has been filed. It says some parents have hired a couple of attorneys and that the issue COULD end up in court. As for Packsaddle's comment, if he is saying what I think he is saying, I agree. As a former boss of mine used to say, Irony can be so ironic.

BadenP says: "Time for a restructure of the National Office starting with the CSE and giving the power back to the CO's." I am curious about your use of the word "back" in that sentence. When, if ever, did the CO's actually have "the power" in the BSA? I don't mean in the theoretical sense (which I believe has always been the case) but in the actual sense. When I think back to when I was a Boy Scout (late 60's to mid 70's), my general sense then was that National was "in charge", with some intermediate role for the councils, just as is the case today. (While I was a youth and therefore didn't know everything (even though I probably thought I did), I think I did pay enough attention to get a somewhat accurate sense of what was going.) On the other hand, the CO's of the two troops I was a member were definitely CO's "of convenience" -- just like the CO's of the pack and troop I have been involved with starting in the late 90's through today. I am doubtful that the fundamental balance of power in the BSA shifted after the mid-70's and then shifted back before the late-90's, so what time period are you talking about? The 50's? The 40's? I doubt you are that much older than me.

Hey! A new topic! But what's the actual topic, other than the fact that you have been able to post a new topic?

Rick, if you click on the first reference in that article, it will take you to the decision itself, all 98 pages of it. I'm not going to read it. The first sentence of the decision says Curran's "application to become an assistant scoutmaster was rejected by defendant, a regional council of the Boy Scouts of America." I assume that "regional council" is what someone who doesn't know the structure of the BSA might call a "council", which is supported by the fact that the defendant in the case was the Mount Diablo Council. But the question of who first "blew the whistle" may or may not be answered further down in the 98 pages.

There was one major case involving a would-be assistant scoutmaster who was kicked out in 1980, about 10 years before the Dale case started. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curran_v._Mount_Diablo_Council_of_the_Boy_Scouts_of_America. This was a case out of California. It was decided by the California Supreme Court in 1998, 2 or 3 years before Dale was decided. It WOULD have been the "big case" instead of Dale, if the Cal. Supreme Court had decided that the BSA was violating the state's anti-discrimination statute. They did not, and instead found that the BSA was not a "business" (and maybe not a "public accommodation" either, the article doesn't mention that but I would be surprised if it was never brought up.) That decision effectively made it impossible for the plaintiff to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, because the decisive issue was an issue of state law, not federal law. (That problem did not seem to faze a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Bush v. Gore, but that's another discussion.) The reason the Dale case became "the" case is that the New Jersey Supreme Court became the first state highest-court to rule that the BSA was violating a state anti-discrimination statute (based on their decision that the BSA was a "public accommodation.") That allowed the BSA to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court based on their argument that the NJ anti-discrimination statute (as interpreted by the NJ Supreme Court) violated the BSA's First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court bought that argument by a 5-4 vote. None of this really changes the point made by Packsaddle and Rick, with which I totally agree. It just affects the timing a little. I believe that the BSA "started it", when they kicked these guys out.

Acco, I don't think the BSA would do anything that results in an UNDERcount of members. Maybe they could count the straight people as 1.666666_ of a member, and gay people as 1, so it balances out to three-fifths. And since gay people would probably only be 2 to 5 percent of the membership (as they are in the population), that would really improve the membership numbers. They would go up by almost 66.6_ percent without doing anything. But you may be on to something in another way: Looking at the results of the surveys (well, the narrative results, there are very few actual numbers), maybe they counted certain people's responses (both straight and gay) as being worth three-fifths of a "vote." I certainly don't feel like my opinions were fully taken into account.