onevoice

Just as funny as people who had an objection to the previous policy, but stayed in the program anyway, and listed their rank earned as an accomplishment all their lives

That is just a stupid comment. If the rank is earned by doing the real work, and the scout has learned the lessons from that work, the incidence of Eagle scout who "become miscreants" is probably substantially less than the general population. Same as with Christian pastors. This whole thread reads like a 99% vs 1 % argument. Just a excuse to tear down ones who put in the hard work to achieve a goal. Does anyone really believe what the thread starter said "that the accomplishments of its members can be equal parts good and bad". If so, why are you even involved?

If I hadn't seen similar things before, I would think this whole episode is a joke, but unfortunately it happens all too often. Mouthy kid gets in trouble, non-present parents can't come pick up their troubled angel because they "have plans", little angel proceeds to lie about the details to parents, they are "livid" but really don't do anything, drama parent says everyone is out to get their angel, and continue to blame everyone else for their problem child. Now drama momma wants to rejoin. I would lay odds that the troop will pay for them to go to another unit. Don't expect volunte

Posted by oldgrayeagle: "Do you think the BSA could learn anything from Habitat for Humanity" Sure they could, that a charity organization shouldn't exclude anyone, and don't stand for anything, and no one will have a problem with you. Unfortunately, we don't fit that mold, and the issue won't be solved so easily. Nearly 2/3rds of CO's are churches or religious organizations, most of whom object to the atheist/gay inclusion. A substantial part of the others probably also don't want a change. It's pretty easy really, there are less than 5 million of us, take a vote and find out wher

Posted by novice cubmaster: "The BSA can change to reflect broader interpretations of "morally straight", and acknowledge that atheists can be good people and worthy role models - without abandoning the other 11 more universal points of the scout law" Not going to happen. You will never convince the BSA to take "duty to God" out of the oath. Just how does an atheist do that anyway? Does it bother you to pledge to something you don't believe in? Posted by novice cubmaster: "I don't think any other group could ever create a national organization to equal the BSA" Why do you thi

Posted by scoutlass: "How are gay people causing the breakdown of the family" Hmmm, you tell me, I never said they were.

Posted by novice cubmaster: "And I think you can be reverent and an atheist. If you show respect for the world you live in, the people around you, your"good fortune" (what theists would call "blessings" in your life, and not take everything good in your life for granted - then I'd say you're reverent" That's an interesting opinion, and you're entitled to your opinion, but do you seriously believe that is what was meant by reverent when the scout law was written? What would really be interesting is a survey of scouters. Don't be fooled by the "but everyone I know agrees with me" line

Posted by horizon: "I don't. I level the bigot charge at people who are bigots. There are plenty who I disagree with, but when someone decides that my friends have a birth defect that makes them unworthy and unwelcome in Scouting - that person is a bigot. Period." I knew that would get a rise. But it is undeniably true. Why do you assume "defect" is a bad word? It simply means an imperfection that affects utility. Any living object that is born with a condition that impairs their continuing their species, by definition has a defect. It is unlike scoutfish's other examples, which are clear

Posted by novice cubmaster: "A large segment of the population apparently doesn't find being gay or atheist in contradiction with all the things scouts are supposed to be - brave, loyal, trustworthy - and even reverent & morally straight." What exactly does a "large segment" mean? Because I think the vast majority of the population would understand that reverent and atheist; and gay and morally straight, are exclusive positions. Even if they don't believe the terms should be in scouting.

Posted by Horizon: "I will stay and instead keep on working on changing things from within" Be my guest, try all you like. Just remember, YOU are the one trying to change things, and you may not like what the organization you want turns into. And please don't resort to leveling the "bigot" charge at anyone that disagrees with you. Posted by Penta: "What makes you think things would change even if local control were passed? Like I said before "We have been torn apart over an issue that barely exists". The issue has been about politics from the beginning. It wasn't about helping

Posted by Horizon: "To bring this back to the original topic - I have plenty of anecdotal data that our policies cost us membership among people who would normally have joined Scouting and become amazing volunteers and contributors to our program. It would be interesting if a credible survey organization was able to gather the data to find out how much our policies cost us in terms of membership and support." Yes, that info would be great, but from what I have read, it would have to be substantial. And it really doesn't matter anyway, there are people that will never change. My understand

Posted by Horizon: "I believe, and science backs me, that there is a biological basis to sexual orientation. Based on that, yes, I equate gay with black" I never said it didn't have a biological base. However, it is not the same as skin color, black is simply pigment, being gay is a birth defect that effects behavior. And yes, any condition that inhibits any species desire to recreate itself should be labeled a defect. Posted by Horizon: "As for creating my own organization? I have no need. I simply want my organization to be its best, to continue to provide the best possible opport

Posted by Scoutfish: "GRanted, all media will tweak, dressup and "adjust" info in order get people interested" You are missing the point, many other news organization poll lower numbers, why define the issue by the outlier? Also, why define right and wrong by 51%. Posted by Horizon: "It is not the number of gays who want to be in Scouts, it is the NON-gay parents who do not want to put their son into an organization that they see as bigoted. I could ban all African Americans from my Troop and it would only impact 1 Scout out of 100. However, another 99 would quit my Troop if I did s

Originally posted by Horizon: "The God/Girls/Gays issue does cost us some adult leaders, and also some Scouts. I know of more than one Eagle Scout who won't put their sons into Scouting due to the gay ban. I know several other families who won't consider Scouting for the same reason" That attitude is something I just don't understand. The girls issue is a non starter, Girls have their own organization - why would they want to be boy scouts? The answer is they don't, they just want an issue to hammer Boy scouts about because their organization is not near as successful. The issue of God

Originally posted by shortridge "OK, I guess the New York Times is lying, then." Actually, the NYT lies and spins the news the way they want quite often. A CBS poll 8/24/2010 said 40% supported gay marriage, Gallup poll says 44%, FOX poll says 37%, ABC says 47%, http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm Even the poll you cite doesn't say what the NYT says it does. The poll asks whether "Americans think the Constitution provides same-sex couples the right to marry" and a separate question about whether they think it "should". I wasn't directly asking whether they personally