NJCubScouter

FOG, I agree with that only up to a point. It depends how far back in the past, and what kind of behavior is in question.

This makes me think of a movie that my kids watch a lot, I think it is the Lion King. There's a scene that goes something like this:

Character A says that some past event doesn't matter because it's "in the past."

Character B hits Character A over the head with a stick, causing A to ask why.

Character A: "It does not matter why. It's in the past."

In other words, "past" is sort of a matter of perspective.

I could give some actual historical examples but I don't want to completely hijack the thread.

FOG says:

Why is that no one cries about the displaced Picts or about the Gauls who were pillaged by the Scandnavians. What about the Rus who ravaged the land? How about the countless Arab tribes that were slaughtered by other Arabs looking for water? The Persians stormed all over the place, enslaving and killing people. The Mongols did the same.

Why? Maybe it's because we hold ourselves, as a nation, to a higher and more principled standard than did the ancient and medieval conquerors of whom you speak -- and some modern-day marauding nations as well. The treatment of the Native Americans by the U.S. Government fails our own standards for ourselves. Even though my own ancestors were still getting massacred and chased around Eastern Europe at the time that most of this was going on, I don't consider this part our "national legacy" to be a great point of pride.

It doesn't mean that you can't help out in teaching these to your younger Scouts (with the approval of the merit badge counselor), but the counseling and signing off part needs to be done by an actual merit badge counselor with the appropriate 2-deep leadership.

Just a little note here, "two-deep leadership" is NOT a requirement for merit badge counseling. (Obviously if the counseling is taking place at a camping trip, meeting or other activity where two-deep leadership is required, then two-deep leadership is still required, the merit badge counseling is irrelevant.)

The materials provided to merit badge counseling do require that the "buddy system" be used -- though we have had some disagreements on this forum about whether this is a requirement or just a recommendation. I think it is a requirement. I also believe that the "buddy system" in merit badge counseling is another way of stating the "no one on one rule" that is one of the main elements of youth protection, but that isn't completely clear either. "No one on one" differs from "two deep leadership" in that one leader plus two scouts satisfies "no one on one," while obviously two adult leaders are required for "twp deep leadership."

Having just read this entire thread in one shot, my head is spinning from trying to figure out which answers have been withdrawn, which are in question, and which are still "in effect."

Bob, even if you had been correct that only the IH/CR can remove a boy from a unit, I would still disagree with your implication that this is not a subject that unit leaders (SM/SA/CC/MC) should concern themselves with. A good decision-maker, particularly one who is some levels "away" from a situation or who does not have the opportunity to observe it personally, will always ask those who are "closer" for their recommendation. That doesn't always mean that the recommendation will be accepted. However, I suspect that if one looked at every recommendation made by unit leaders to CO's, and took a percentage of those that were accepted, I suspect the percentage would be a large majority. So, just because one does not have "authority" to make a decision does not mean one is not part of the decision-making process.

It's possible to not embrace any one particular religion as a guidepost and still see the immorality of certain behavior.

Certain behavior, yes. But homosexuality, in and of itself, is not one of those behaviors. The BSA itself says its policy against avowed gays is based on "faith-based values."

Rooster says:

First, no one is passing judgment on homosexuals or anyone else in regard to their salvation. That is God's job and no one can take it from Him.

Rooster, you are judging them right here on Earth. You say they are immoral and engaging in "perversion." So far, that's ok with me, because you are entitled to your opinion. But when people who share your opinion and who happen to control the BSA cause the organization to exclude people based on their (and your) opinions -- and that exclusion has nothing to do with the BSA or its program or true values -- that is when I object.

Second, sexual perversion is an insidious scourge that will create more and more victims as society caves in to those who have allowed their conscience to be buried.

What you are basically saying is the homosexuality is harmful because you say it is. I have known many gay people who could not be considered victims of their orientation. They were comfortable with it, and it was comfortabled with them. What they were victims of, almost unanimously, was discrimination in one form or another. That was why some of their lives were miserable, because of the discrimination, the exclusions, the hatred and everything else they have to put up with from some heterosexuals, and some organizations and institutions.

First Rooster said this:

I think "avowed" is pretty straight forward (no pun intended). It's people who dislike the policy that want to make it complicated. If the policy were against avowed alcoholics, no one would even try to play the word game.

Then I said this:

Rooster, once again you feel free to impugn the motives of others, but if someone questions your motives, you raise a big ruckus and start new threads with peoples' "names" in them. Evidently your indignation over "personal attacks" only runs in one direction.

And Rooster responds with this:

NJ,

And once again, you accuse me of something ("you feel free to impugn the motives of others"), but you don't specify what you're talking about.

Rooster, it's right there. You impugned the motives of "people who dislike the policy." They are playing games, you say. You do this on a regular basis. You talk about "liberals" and "activists" and what "they" are trying to accomplish and how they are trying to accomplish it.

Rooster, whether you can see it or not does not really concern me. Others can see it.

Scoutmaster Ron,

Just as SPLT15's "Ropemaster" is probably really an Instructor, it could be argued that your "Gamemaster" is really a second Quartermaster -- but it also doesn't sound like the "Gamemaster" would qualify as a whole "position of responsibility" -- whereas the Ropemaster/Instructor sounds like it would qualify.

NW:

I agree. (My ideological leanings prohibit me from saying "Dittos.")

I would just add (for about the 25th time in this forum) that the BSA's own Declaration of Religious Principles say that the BSA is "absolutely nonsectarian" on religious matters. It cannot base a policy on religious beliefs that are not accepted by many people, and be "abolutely nonsectarian" at the same time.

In my last post, him = Him, if you like.

I personally feel much more comfortable leaving the issue of the morality of consensual conduct in His hands. The very fact that there is such deep division among mankind on this issue suggests to me that we are not really up to the task.

Rooster says:

So, we can debate this til the cows come home, but in the end - He will judge us all and it will be a righteous outcome.

So why not just let him? And save the judgment of mankind for those people and acts that do actual harm to others?

Rooster, once again you feel free to impugn the motives of others, but if someone questions your motives, you raise a big ruckus and start new threads with peoples' "names" in them. Evidently your indignation over "personal attacks" only runs in one direction.

ProudEagle, with all respect, I think that your focus on the definition of "homosexual" in the BSA policy is misplaced. The phrase in question is "avowed homosexual." Since "homosexual" is modified by "avowed," the question as to whether one is homosexual is really only relevant if one is also "avowed." That fact allows the BSA to avoid most of the definitional issues attached to "homosexual." In other words, the BSA allows the gay person to define himself or herself as such, or not. If you say you're gay, then you are an "avowed homosexual," and if you don't, you are not, regardless of the fact that you may actually be gay.

So the key word really is "avowed," and we have had discussions here on several occasions about what that means. Again, it is almost self-defining. If people in the BSA find out that you have declared that you are gay, then you are "avowed." If only your parents and a few friends know about it, and none of them are talking, then you are probably not "avowed." The tricky situations include one that was presented by a member of this forum (who I haven't seen posting for awhile) who said that he had informed several Scouters of his orientation but he knew that these individuals would keep his disclosure confidential. It is similar to the old question about the tree falling in the forest, if nobody hears it, does it make a sound. If a few people do hear it, but they don't tell anybody, then it made a sound but the general public doesn't know it made a sound. On the other hand, if you post about it on an Internet forum that 2 or 3 billion people can read, but you don't use your real name, then did the tree make a sound? I think I gave an opinion on whether the person in question was "avowed" but at this moment I'm not quite sure what my opinion was. It isn't an easy one.

Someone else made a comment about a gay person being asked about his sexuality and acknowledging it. I just want to say that the BSA has made clear that Scouters and Scouts will NOT be asked about their sexuality. In fact, I believe there was a case where someone (a camp staffer I believe) WAS asked, in violation of the policy, "admitted" it, was fired, and then after some process was reinstated because the question should not have been asked in the first place. The implications of this are interesting. It means that one has to be "avowed" without having been asked, in order to be terminated. The BSA's policy is a true "don't ask don't tell" policy, as opposed to the military's current policy, which is really more like "Sometimes ask, don't even say anything that might lead to suspicion, which will then be fully investigated."

Of course, as I have said many times, I disagree with the policy and believe it should be a matter of unit option. But as long as the policy is what it is, we might as well all be clear on what it is.

DS,

I am aware that James Dale "publicly" avowed his sexual orientation. (Although, based on the published facts, one might argue about the word "publicly." That is probably best saved for a separate thread. I think the more important thing is to try to arrive at a common understanding of what happened in the Dale case, as some people (like me) rely on it fairly often as "the" example of the BSA policy in action.)

However, I was responding to what silver-shark said, which did not deal with what "people in general" may know, but with what a Scouter discusses with Scouts. I think that the two are different issues. The limitations on what a Scouter should be discussing with Scouts do not depend on whether the Scouter himself/herself is involved in the conduct in question.

But what I really want to get to, DS, is this:

In fact, Mr. Dale's involvement in Scouting was brought to the attention of the media because he wore the uniform to a rally while still a registered member of the BSA.

Are you saying that he wore a BSA uniform to a "gay rights" rally BEFORE he ever received a letter of termination from the BSA? I ask it that way because it was my understanding that once he received the letter, he was terminated and no longer registered. If you are saying that he did this before he was terminated, I would like to know the source of this information. It is contrary to everything that I have read about this case, and what I mean by that is primarily the published court decisions of the New Jersey Supreme Court and the opposing decisions of the majority and minority of the U.S. Supreme Court. I have read each of them several times, often to make sure that I was giving correct information when posting in this forum (and the Scouting-related forum that I was involved in before this one.) I believe they are a good source for the facts because, together, they reach two different conclusions about the case, and therefore one would expect to find both sides of the story -- and in reality there really weren't a lot of significantly disputed facts in the Dale case anyway.

The point is, never in any of my reading have I ever seen it suggested that Dale expressed any public opposition to the BSA BEFORE he was terminated. The decisions say that he attended a seminar at college (which is not located in his home community) dealing with the problems faced by gay youth, and that a newspaper published a story quoting his views on the subject and identifying him as an officer of the college's gay rights group. I believe there also was a picture -- not of him in a dress as some have suggested in this forum, and not in a BSA uniform, just in regular college-guy clothes.

And that was it. He got a letter from the SE saying he was out. There were, based on the published facts, no other incidents in between the seminar and the letter of termination. No rallies, no protests, no misuse of the uniform, nothing.

Is that incorrect? And if so, do you have a source?

Silver-shark "asks":

I'll pose this question to you and anyone else that would care to enlighten me.

When is the best time to avow anything of a sexual nature to 11 to 18 year old boys, be it heterosexual, or homosexual, or a combination of them?

Should it be only at campouts?

How about only at Troop Meetings...

or only at COHs...

or only at Patrol Meetings...

or only before the Scout Oath and Law are recited at the beginning of a meeting?

Is there any time that would be even better or the absolute best time for this?

I get the distinct impression, from the way you have asked the "question," that you asked it to make a point rather than to get an answer. But I'll answer it anyway. The answer is, of course: Never. It is not appropriate for Scouters to discuss their "private" lives with the Scouts.

Which has nothing to do with the "gay issue." Gay people have been terminated from the BSA without ever having discussed their sexuality with Scouts. James Dale, to cite the most famous example, never did so, but he was expelled anyway.

First of all: Kerfuffle? It is clear what it means in context, but I've never seen it before. Is that of your own coinage? It sounds like it could be from the language of some of my recent ancestors (Yiddish), but it isn't.

Second, I'm not sure why the fact that an organization was the victim of a crime is necessarily a reason not to donate to it. I suspect they had insurance for this sort of thing. Plus, businesses and organizations, including ones that you would figure would be able to prevent it, get embezzled from every day. Two million is a lot to steal, but I've seen and heard of cases involving more. It appears to be surprisingly (and disturbingly)easy to embezzle money; while almost everybody who does so gets caught eventually, the really "good" ones (meaning the really bad ones) manage to be beyond the bounds of U.S. criminal jurisdiction when that happens. On a smaller and less sophisticated scale, I once worked in an office where for about five years, an employee whose desk was about 20 feet from mine was giving herself "bonuses" on a regular basis, and nobody had a clue -- she got about $40,000 over five years. She probably could have gone on even longer but got a little too greedy and left the account in question short of money to make a payment that someone was expecting, and when the erstwhile employee took it up with this woman's boss, the books got examined a little more closely and the jig was up, as they used to say. She ended up having her retirement fund grabbed to repay the money, plus spending a few months in a "halfway house."

But I digress...

Mostly against my better judgment too, but...

Acco makes an excellent point that takes us out of the interpersonal sniping here and back to the main point of the BSA policy itself:

Got a beef with a particular activity, opinion, cause, or indivudual? No, problem. But don't try to smear a group.

That's the problem with the BSA policy regarding gays. It says that all gay people are of insufficient moral character to be adult leaders. Not just those who are depressed or suicidal or who have a particular "lifestyle" or who "live in a dark world" or whose lives are "driven" by sexual desire, or who have had dozens of sexual partners. All gay people are excluded. I have known gay people for whom these descriptions would be ridiculously inaccurate, and I have known some people, both gay and heterosexual who unfortunately do fit some or all of these descriptions. But the BSA doesn't exclude heterosexuals just because some are promiscuous sex addicts, and the same should be true for gay people.

Acco, that's funny because I start singing (only in my head, fortunately for those around me) a different song when I see the title of this thread. I guess it is called "Try to remember," where the singers repeat the word "follow, follow, follow." I guess it was by some folk-singing group, maybe it was in some movie too.

But, now that I think about it, every guy in our Troop 15 years and older has water skiing MB. HUMMM?!?!?

Sounds like an amazing coincidence to me.

Rooster, I am satisfied to let the words that you and I have written speak for themselves. People who read what we have written can draw their own conclusions.

But I can't help pointing this out: You accuse me of "tactics" that "impugn" you personally... but in the very same post, you again "impugn" me personally. Do you think that a different set of "rules" applies to you than to me?

Hmmm. I guess what I should have said is that, Most of all, the Lone Scout is not getting the benefit of the patrol method OR the leadership development method. I do realize that they are two different methods, but they are practiced in conjunction with each other. I also realize that, using modern methods of communication, a Lone Scout could participate with other boys to some, but I don't think the boy is getting the full application of these methods as they are intended.

SM406, you ask an interesting question about the Lone Scout program (which I believe does still exist, I just found a fact sheet for it on the BSA's official web site), but I think an argument can be made that a boy in the Lone Scout program is probably not getting the full benefit of the BSA program anyway. I think Lone Scouting exists as a last resort to allow boys who for whatever reasons cannot have access to a troop or pack to participate in Scouting. Most of all, the boy is not participating in the patrol method, and the issue of "leadership" as discussed in this thread, and the patrol method, go hand in hand. I think everybody would agree with that, right? (Boy, I almost always get in trouble making statements like that, but yet I make them anyway...)

It's like the gay topic (and NO! I'm not trying to send this thread in that direction) when some people argue about the moral reasons for the policy and others focus on the legal part of BSA's right to make that policy.

Did someone say "Niagra Falls"? Slowly I turn...

Just kidding. I'll restrain myself.

I don't even mind if you expound so long as you make reference to a specific quote and not a twisted interpretation of the same.

Well, who is doing the accusing now? What did I give a "twisted interpretation" to? I think it's pretty clear what you meant when you accused me of "dishonesty." I think it's pretty clear what Dedicated Dad meant when he suggested that I was in favor of sexual abuse of children. (March 14, 2002 at 7:06:26 AM.) I won't repeat exactly what he said. If you think I "twisted" what he said, that's fine. Just so you know, Rooster, when I talked about expressions of hate in the forum, I wasn't just talking about one person.

I think this will be my last post in this thread. It isn't about me and you, Rooster. It is about whether the BSA policy is the right policy for the organization to have at this time, and in the future. Obviously we will continue to disagree about it, and I will continue to post about it when I feel like it.

OK, Rooster. I had to consider how to respond without trying to turn this into a personal brawl, and also keeping in mind the rules of the forum.

I stand by what I have said. I never accused you of intentionally or knowingly "hating" anyone or anything. However, I know what impression I have gotten from some of your posts. The one you quote in this thread is one of them. Maybe you think you were expressing compassion for gay people, but when I read what you write, I certainly get the impression that you consider ALL gays to be of lesser moral character than you, because of what they do, or what some of them do. You base this not on the behavior of any particular individual, but on their behavior as a group, or what you perceive to be their behavior as a group. Is this "hate"? Whether it is or not, that is not the term I used. I said "expressing hatred," which in my mind covers a pretty wide range. It does not depend on what you actually think. It looks only at what you say, and the feelings that your words instill in others. I don't think I specifically accused you of "expressing hate," and I won't now. As I said before, I know what my opinion is, and others can form theirs.

You also challenge what I said about past posts. One of the great things about this forum is that the posts stay here, if not forever, then for a long time. Anyone can go back and read them, and if anyone really cares enough about this to go back and read old posts, I would recommend the ones from March of 2002. You will there find Dedicated Dad making a number of truly offensive references, and Rooster agreeing with him. You will also find Rooster personally attacking me, and accusing me of "dishonesty" among other things. (March 14, 2002, at 3:49:12 PM.)

So, Rooster, if you want to pretend to be an innocent victim, you can, but anyone can go back and read all the posts.

I could respond to the rest of what you write, but I don't see much point. I just have to laugh at the taunt of "be a man," is that how you think you are going to "win" an argument? By using the tactics of a schoolyard bully?