Prairie_Scouter

Good question, Ed. I don't know what the answer would be. If you say you're a religious organization, does that imply you're supporting a particular religion? Are there any groups you can think of that specifically identify themselves as a religious organization, but don't support a particular faith? I suppose there are, but I can't think of any immediately. Salvation Army, maybe?

This is a pretty thorny issue. And it's not just about people sneaking across the border from Mexico. In the area of jobs, it's not just illegal immigrants taking resources away from citizens. The expansion of H1-B visas is taking high tech jobs away from citizens as well. Large companies would rather hire cheap overseas labor than keep experienced Americans in these jobs, under the guise of "there aren't enough qualified workers". Look at the demographics of the unemployed in this area and you'll see that that argument is nonsense. Illegal aliens who have made it here are working in jobs most don't want, and are paying local taxes while making use of local resources. They are, in many cases, being treated as slave laborers by those who hire them, because they know they've got them over a barrel. But, many have established families here, partly due to the fact it takes years for immigration status to be argued. Then, when they are deported, they are separated from their families. Do we have a problem with illegal immigration? Yes, but on the other hand, we have a Statue of Liberty that says we welcome those who come to our shores. I don't think the problem is with the immigrants, who are just looking for a better life. It's with the laws and the way they're administered. It would seem that there is a place for these people; it's a matter of getting them properly admitted to the country, rather than have them feel that they have to sneak in. If we were to do that, we might not have these horrific stories of people dying, locked in trailers in the desert near the border, or drowning while trying to cross from Cuba to Florida. Now, if you add in the fear of terrorism, that just escalates the problem and the fear. The problem is, if someone really wants to get in badly enough, and is willing to die to make their point, it's unlikely that the border guards are going to stop them, if for no other reason that they might already live here. There's a delicate balance here. We are a country that prides itself on its freedom of movement and expression, etc. We're gradually losing that in the name of "security", and the more we allow that to happen, the more our enemies have won the game.

Thanks, Merlyn. Then, I'd have to say that there's a problem. I think it's ok for the military to support Jambo, but in the context that they should provide similar accomodations to other youth groups, like Girl Scouts, Indian Guides, Boys and Girls Clubs, etc. But this gets me back to a question that's come up before. Is BSA a religious organization? And, what is it that defines an organization as being "religious"? Is there legal terminology, or is it more like "if they say they are, they are?" In which case, posts here indicate that BSA has gone both ways. My impression has always been that BSA is a non-profit youth organization that has some religious content, but that, to me, doesn't make it a "religious organization". The fact that they exclude gays and atheists reflects a particular religious view, and I think that that's a problem if you're trying to be "non-sectarian", but does that in and of itself make BSA a "religious organization"?

Well, I think what you need to do is have the committee chair contact her and tell her that if she's unwilling to talk about the situation and get it resolved, you'll have to contact the police. Just the threat might get here to cooperate. Depending on how well all these folks know each other, there might be a way to do this less painfully while still getting to the bottom of the problem. Maybe they're dealing with a family problem, etc., and your unit can be sensitive to this while still addressing the problem. However, if they refuse, I think you pretty much have to go to the authorities. Is there an attorney in your parent group who might be able provide some guidance?

Well, Matt, I'd say that if one of the "books" you're talking about is the Bible, then you and Rooster are right on "the same page", as they say. As has pretty much always been true with the Bible, there are plenty who "know" what the Bible says, and will state such things as fact. The reality, I think, is that what they are really expressing is their *belief* that the Bible is interpreted a certain way in their religious view. I find it all very interesting, actually, if you look at this from outside of a religious construct. You have a historical document that is the basis for many of the world's religions. This document is interpreted different ways to support different religious views. The document itself is a selective compilation of ancient texts that was done hundreds of years after their writing. The documents were written in several languages, and the translations of these languages to modern terms is a subject of ongoing discussion in the academic community. There are something like 3000 translations of the Bible currently available. With all this in mind, I find it very interesting that there are groups who's belief systems are based, in part, on the turn of a word here or there. I'm not saying that any of these beliefs are wrong or misguided, just that I find it interesting how people see what they want to see. When you're dealing with belief systems, facts don't really come into play. How does this relate to the topic? Well, BSA says that gays are not good role models. Those in charge believe that, but you don't seem them backing that up with anything. It just is. It's when you start asking "why?" that things get a little dicey.

Thanks, Cliff, I agree 100%, and it's exactly what I said way up at the top of this thread. Unfortunately, I closed my post by saying that BSA could avoid many of these issues by not trying to define itself as a religious organization, since I didn't believe that that's what Baden-Powell had in mind. Others spun this to become a discussion on B-Ps position on God and religion in Scouting (a different topic than my comment), and we were off to the races. It's an interesting topic, to be sure, but, as you said, not the topic here. As long as the military is willing to support all groups equally, there shouldn't be a problem. I don't know if they do that or if this is a special accomodation just for BSA. There probably *is* a problem if the military says they'll just do this for BSA, unless, I suppose, BSA is paying fair market price for use of the facilities. (This message has been edited by Prairie_Scouter)

Hi Matt, I'm certainly no expert, and not one to make use of Biblical verse very often, but I have, now and again, read books about the Bible as a "piece of history" rather than "the word of God". What I've read about the "gay verses" goes something like this. At the time some those verses were written, it was common practice in Greek culture to take young boys as sexual partners, and it was this particular practice that was being commented on by the writers. The references to Sodom have been interpreted as meaning other things than homosexual behavior. I find it particularly interesting that it seems that in the original languages of the Bible, ie, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, at the time of most of the writings, there apparently wasn't a word that corresponded to "homosexual". So, somebody's been doing some "interpreting" somewhere

In the end, you have to take the word of the parents, I think. You're not allowed to add your own requirements, so that won't work. I can see someone getting a boatload of beltloops; they are pretty easy to get, but the pins are another story; some of those are quite difficult and require some time. You might, as some other have said, figure out some facesaving way to question the parents, but in the end, you have to take their word for it, I think.

Well, I'm getting confused now. I said that I didn't think B-P would have approved of Scouting being defined specifically as a religious organization, and later added, who's views reflect those of a particular religious group, in the U.S. that being conservative Christians. fgoodwin, are you saying that B-P would have been in favor of Scouting being defined in such a way? And yes, I agree with you that it's possible to use any quote taken out of context to support almost any position. So, I'm not sure why you think there's a lot of value in doing so.

I think you just need to be aware of the potential for problems and deal with it as best you can. In regular troop settings, most things should be done through the youth leaders, so unless your son is the SPL, you probably don't need to work with him directly. Outside of troop activities, I think all you can do is present the opportunities to your Scout, and let him make his own decisions. I'm a SM, and I've got one son who's gung ho and jumps on every opportunity, and a 2nd son who has made it his life mission in Scouts to never do a merit badge. You just deal with them as best you can. The one thing to not do is somehow have your success as an SM be tied in your head to your son's success as a Scout. They aren't related.

Well, another way of reading Matt's comment is that he does understand the verse he was using, and simply was using it to make the point that the Bible is open to interpretation, and sometimes isn't meant to be taken literally (although some do take that view). Scholars don't all agree on what the Bible says. According to some histories, entire "books" were left out of it. Judaism doesn't recognize any of the New Testament. There are some who say that translations are wrong, and meanings misinterpreted. There are, what, 3000 translations of the Bible available today? The various "Good Books" out there have been used to justify all sort of terrible things, all done in the name of God. And yet, religious groups all over the world make their own interpretations, and proclaim that there's is the only truly correct one. Heck, even the verses used to create an anti-gay agenda aren't all that clear, really.

Yes, those quotes make a good case, although they are from a website clearly trying to tie BSA to Christianity. You can probably pull specific statements from a person's writings, take them out of context, and use them to support many different perspectives. Lastly, all I said was that I didn't think that B-P founded Scouting for it to be defined as a "religious organization". After all, wasn't he the one who said it was all "a game"?

Specifically, what I was thinking at the time of my earlier comments is this. IMO, I think that it's pretty clear that conservative Christians are trying to mold BSA in their image, using the existing history of the organization to do so ("See? They're just like us."). Why do I think that? B-P seemed to be pretty open about his views of what qualified as a belief in a higher being, and yet there are some religious groups that aren't welcomed within BSA. It's pretty clear that some religious groups are more "equal" than others, even if they are accepted within the organization. Can you point to BSA statistics or policy that would support that? Of course not. So, my point was that B-P probably wouldn't have been in favor of a particular religious movement claiming BSA as "it's own". I think that that's what's happening at this point in history. IMO.

I think, from a very pragmatic view, Kahuna has it right on the head. At the National level, BSA is a business, and I think Kahuna is absolutely right that they are simply comparing numbers. If they have an anti-gay policy, they lose "x" number of current or potential members; if they have a pro- or neutral gay policy, they lose "y" number of current or potential members. I think we are probably already past the tipping point on this, really. I'd bet that if you did a survey asking the right questions, you'd find that most Scouters don't really care if a leader or Scout is gay or not, given the usual caveats that would apply to anyone in Scouting as far as behavior goes. But, as Kahuna implied, you probably won't see any changes until people start threatening to leave. The other interesting point brought up in regards to gays is the idea that BSA doesn't really justify their view on gays as poor role models, they just say that they are. It's hard to argue that, to attempt change when there's no reasoning being provided to argue against. "It just is". Now, some members will tell you that it's because of what the Bible says about gays, which in itself isn't universally accepted by biblical scholars. Of course, you could take the more simplistic approach of "well, according to some, the Bible says that slavery is ok, too". Then, there are those who say that "gayness" violates some tenets of the Scout Oath/Law. That's a problematic argument, at best. Gays are "not Clean"? According to who? The genetic discussion is certainly interesting, but basically, I think it shouldn't matter why someone is gay, or whether their parents are gay. BSA shouldn't base its membership policies in such a way as to segregate whole populations but rather should look at the individuals. The way BSA judges its membership criteria, there is absolutely nothing that would stop them from categorizing any other group as being unfitting members, be they gay or black or Jewish or Catholic priests or whatever.

Richard Boone? Yikes! While I agree with Pack's comments, I'd like to explore the "genetic" issue a bit more, since Ed has asked it twice now as a part of a discussion that OGE initiated, I think. For sake of discussion, what would it mean to the various religious belief systems that view homosexuality as a "sin" (or, at least, their behavior), if it turned out that homosexuality was a genetic trait, just like being "male" or "female"? Could it be viewed, then, as a "natural state", or would it still be something that needed to be "fixed"?

I agree as well. This is more a safety issue than a MB issue, and you really need to get it reported before someone gets hurt. So, before you can do a group hug, I suppose you'll have to fill out either a Local Group Hug Permit or a National Group Hug Permit, at least 2 weeks in advance of the proposed "hug event". And, 2 of you will have to have up-to-date "Safety While Hugged" training

I'm not knowledgeable enough about the man's writings to trade quotes with you, so I won't even try to do that. In any event, my point wasn't about a basic belief in a god/God. As others have commented, there are ways that Scout policy could be interpreted to allow "as big a tent" as possible. My point was more about BSA's seeming efforts to define itself as a religious organization with policies reflecting the beliefs of some particular religious groups. That's what I think B-P would have had an issue with.

Someone a few posts back said that if a Scout were to ask them if homosexuality was a sin, they would say "yes". I don't think it's as simple as that. That answer just reflects that leader's religious views. Several posters here seem to have forgotten that there is a difference between "fact" and "belief". Answering in such a factual manner is just impressing the leader's particular religious beliefs upon the Scout, and I don't believe that that's what we're in Scouting for. "Belief" is a very powerful thing, but that doesn't make it "fact", except for those who's belief is very strong. And that's fine, but just because someone has very strong belief doesn't give them license to impress that belief on others. Perhaps a more appropriate answer would be something to the effect of "there are some, if not many, religions that believe that homosexuality is a sin. The Boy Scouts of America believe that homosexuals are not appropriate role models for Scouts, and so, won't allow them membership." Regards statistics, I have been told unofficially, in casual conversation with those who supposedly "know" (and, I really don't know if they do or not, so take this with a grain of salt), that the study on "gay approval" done by BSA shows an overall approval of the current policy, but that approval is skewed towards the older demographic group within the study. That is, the younger the responder, the more likely they were to oppose the current gay policy. In itself, that's meaningless, because I doubt that any of the responders are in any position to do anything about it "officially". But, it would seem to mimic what is seen in the general public, that is, an acceptance of gays skewed towards younger members of the population. But, as we all should know, you can pretty much make statistics look any way you want, especially if the general public doesn't have access to the raw data. It'd be interesting to see that, but I don't know if BSA would change anything even if 60% if those polled thought the policy was wrong.

I guess I feel like as long as the government is neutral in it's funding of these kinds of activities, ie, if they would fund anyone who came along asking for similar support, then I suppose it's ok. That's probably not realistic, of course; not all organizations are "created equal". Rather than trying to take away funding from Scouts, maybe they should instead be looking to speading the funding around to other groups as well, as long as there was a way to guarantee, as much as possible, that faith-based groups didn't use the funding to push forward a strictly religious agenda. I don't agree that funding Scouts is somehow funding the establishment of religion, but BSA could get around this problem quite easily by stopping the effort to define itself as a religious group. I don't think that that's what B-P had in mind.

Fuzzy, Boy, you talk about a "hype bomb". I'm wondering how many kids were tampled in the mad dash to get one of the 10.5 million copies of the latest book that went on sale today. I like the stories, myself, but the hype is getting kind of nutty.

I found it kind of interesting that Greg Shields from BSA refers to opposing views as "opinions" but to the BSA positions as "values".......nice job of "spin" Beyond that, 19 year olds, for the most part, live in a flowery world where reality hasn't quite sunk in yet. I applaud the strength of his belief, but that doesn't mean he's right in everything he says. The problem in the Teton Council, and other isolated cases like it, point to a "visibility problem" that BSA has brought upon itself, I think. When you've gone on record as being an organization that decides who's a good role model and who's not based on the segment of society that that person lives in, you're going to have to answer when your "judgement" turns out to be wrong. Rightly or wrongly, the media loves to knock people and organizations off of the pedestals they've placed themselves on. If you don't want to be attacked, don't go out of your way to paint a bullseye on yourself.

Well, if we're going to wait for overwhelming scientific evidence that gays are indeed "hard-wired", we could be in for a long wait. Religions, and I'd have to say especially western religions, have a history of ignoring plain scientific fact, and indeed, have killed and imprisoned those who didn't "toe the party line". When you're pointing out something that is part of religious dictate, scientific evidence doesn't easily come into play. For example, there is overwhelming evidence that the universe took a bit more than 6 days to come into being, and yet there are those who continue to believe this. Could they be right? Sure, anything is possible, but the science says otherwise pretty convincingly. Conclusive evidence supporting the "hard-wire" position would, as someone said, make BSA's position harder to support, but that doesn't mean they'd change it. I think what you have in BSA right now is a particular religious belief holding sway over the organization, and that is difficult to fight against because it is pervasive in the national organization. I don't think you'll be seeing them appointing board members who disapprove of this position, and so it becomes self-perpetuating. But, I continue to have hope.

Fuzzy said "From now on, let's use care and good judgment....." Why start now?

Actually, I've found that, while Bob is right that parents will many times be "polite" when asked about leaving, the Scouts themselves have *no* problem telling you that they were bored and not having fun. So, just ask'em. Other than that, the questions and methods raised above are all good ideas.

Maybe Scouter-Terry should just get rid of anything that looks remotely like a view that's contrary to what some might consider the "ex cathedra" dictates of BSA and change the name of the website to "www.StepfordScouting.com". Publications that describe views that oppose BSA policy are just information. They can be taken for what they're worth and possibly used to increase one's knowledge. Is Scouter.com anti-BSA? C'mon. This isn't a matter of "friend or enemy". We should applaud Scouter-Terry for giving us easy access to this kind of information. The more we know, the better we are.