Prairie_Scouter

Eamonn, Why would any parent come to a forum dedicated to opinions and discussion to find out about Scouting? A search on Boy Scouts would more likely take them to the BSA sites, where they can find all about what BSA believes in and their policies. They can either accept those or not. Coming to a discussion forum really provides nothing of value for a person looking for information about Scouting, unless they are actually looking for opinions, in which case, they are likely to see a wide variety of divergent views. An intelligent person can choose which opinions to place any weight in. If they did come here, they'd be more likely to visit the forums on Cub Scouting and the like, not opinions forums like this one. Regards my opinions on BSA National, they are just that, opinions. I think that BSA's National office acts like a political action committee, working to get their views sanctioned and protected. BUT, it is just my opinion, and nothing more. I also believe that the local units are the true heart of Scouting. The program lives and dies there. I have been happy to serve as a Scout Leader for many years now; know that there is a "wall" that separates my personal views from what is presented to the Scouts. The fact that units I have served have always grown and been praised by our Council points to me doing something right. Yes, I don't agree with the gay policy, and work from within for change; on the other hand, I also think the Climb on Safely training is inadequate to provide real safety, and work from within for change in that as well. I've spent a lot more time on Climb on Safely. They are all important, but some aren't going to change in the near term, and honestly, the gay policy really has no major impact on my work, while the safety training does. I just find it a more interesting topic for discussion. So, why don't I just go away? From this forum, because I didn't think it was just a place for those who already agree to come and talk about things they already agree on. From Scouting, because the program and the value to the Scouts is too important to let any single issue get in the way of that. BTW, I have been through the link you provided, previously, as I've looked for various sources of information. It does a good job of describing the BSA view of things. Sorry about screwing up the spelling of your name. Not intentional. And thank you for presenting your views in a civil and polite manner; I do appreciate it. Makes for a much more pleasant discussion.

I thought that the Issues and Politics forum was EXACTLY the place where discussions like this were to be held. Saying I don't agree with a BSA policy doesn't mean they are being "slammed". I see people here saying things like "BSA is out of touch"; I don't see anyone calling them names or anything disrespectful. As a matter of fact, I agree with BSA National on probably 99% of their policies. Their policies on gays implies things about that group that are largely open to debate. I don't agree with that policy; that's the sort of thing I thought we were here to discuss and banter about. Yet, there are those here who aren't satisfied with just disagreeing; they have to go on to impune people's integrity. I don't mind being told I'm wrong; that's part of the debate. It's not enough to be told I'm wrong; I have to be accused of "making things up". Discussions can be held while still remaining civil. I see it all the time on other forums. Maybe that's not possible here. I thought we were all interested in making Scouting the best that it can be. Much of what's discussed here is theoretical because BSA is not going to easily change. But nothing will ever change if no one is willing to talk about it in a civil manner. Maybe those who dominate here have no interest in change, and so feel the need to shout down anyone who disagrees with them. Is a bit of civility and politeness too much to ask? For the record, In My Opinion, BSA National is a political organization espousing the agenda of a group that may not be the majority of Scouters. In My Opinion, the local units represent the real value of Scouting. I have supported that for years and will continue to do so. It is the best program for youth anywhere that I have seen. And, I do meet the requirements for membership.

OGE, when I wrote my original comment, it wasn't my intent to "pull anyone's chain". I don't post that way on purpose. My comment was merely to the point that you and Bob seemed to have gotten really riled up over it. I meant it as a somewhat lighthearted remark. I apologize if you took offense at that line of my post; it wasn't meant to do so. There's a certain frustration, however, in trying to discuss issues with Bob White, who seems to relish in taking things out of context or simply misreading my statements, or extracting meanings our of my statements that aren't there. I did make a mistake in my original post in regards to women in Scouting. I meant to say that they weren't allowed to "fully participate", but left out the "fully" while typing. Right now, there is a response from him about a comment I made that the gay policy from BSA national seems to have it's roots in Christian doctine. His response talks about discrimination of gays going way back in history; I was simply talking about BSA policy; he seems to be talking about where Christian doctrine got it's underpinning on this issue. Fine, but not what I was talking about. And so on. EagleinKY accused me of describing America as a country that favors slavery, wife beating, etc, which is something I never said, and certainly not something I believe. I don't mind being taken to task for statements I make. I can defend them, or admit error; all the same to me. However, being taken to task for statements I didn't make, or on tidbits of statements taken out of context, is a bit much and I think unfair. I could understand someone saying "did you mean this?", but making an assumption about a phrase in a post and then running with it just doesn't seem right. And Bob, I've said previously that it's very difficult to find sources of information that aren't in some way or another biased. I started a thread looking for sources of information and there wasn't exactly a tidal wave of response; perhaps others have the same problem. So I'll throw out a couple of easy ones that I know for fact are biased in their views, but I have no real way of knowing if the information they provide is being slanted or not, since they do link to other sites. The first of these is Scouting for All, and the second is the news site for I think Mercury News, which has covered several Scouting stories in the past. I don't have the links available right now. I've searched the World Scouting site for information as well. Scouting for All quotes the World Scouting site as saying that of 152 national organizations, 2/3 either have policies prohibiting discrimination against gays, or have no policy at all about gays. I haven't been able to verify that, although every national site I've linked to so far from the World Scouting site either says nothing about gays, or specifically says that they welcome their participation; These are mostly European sites. So, there you go. You can find opposing views at Focus on the Family and Grassfire, equally slanted in their views. I give them all the same amount of credence, which isn't all that much. I've even written to Grassfire, suggesting that airing opposing views could be in their best interests from a credibility standpoint, but they have expressed no interest in doing so.

Vicki, I agree with you that the way we do things ends up defeating the purpose of the dual signatures in the 1st place. It's just one of those things that's happened along the way. Doesn't make it right, just the way it is.

Well, Old Grey, I suppose if what I offered was the #2 outrageous thing ever said on this forum, what was #1? That all gays can be classified as a group to be poor role models? :-) I seem to have hit a nerve. Good. Makes life more interesting. My statement comes from what I suppose is personal experience. If you look at the stand on gays, for example, that has it's roots in primarily Christian religions, and my guess is that the people who originally made it an issue within BSA were from Christian religions. If you look at the vast majority of sites that support this stand, you are going to find conservative Christian websites. I've yet to see a Buddhist website promoting petitions in support of the BSA stand on gays. Bob, I never said that other religions aren't active in Scouting. What I said was I thought that BSA (and by that I meant the BSA National leadership) would be happy to make the group into something restricted to believers in Christian religions. I can't see how anyone could think that conservative Christian views are not being given prominence by BSA national. The rest of your comments are difficult to respond to because while I could locate concrete sources of information, I expect that anything I mentioned would be attacked because of its source because, unfortunately, there are very few unbiased sources of information on these kinds of subjects, as we all know. So, it would just fall into one of those categories of "oh, well, if you believe THEM...." And, even Webster's definition of "tradition" doesn't disallow the possibility of traditions changing over time. EagleinKY, I think what's distorted is your reading of my post. I never bashed BSA in total, although I will and do criticize the national leadership for being out of touch with the overall membership, although even that is a matter of opinion. Never, ever did I say that today's Americans value slavery, pollution, and wife-beating. That is not even close to what I said. I DID say that there was a time that the values of the nation found those to be acceptable behaviors, and that, as you said, is a sad memory of our great nation's history. I ALSO said that values that cause these behaviors have changed over time, and, as you said, over time, the good guys win. I hope the same will be true of BSA, although that depends on who you think the good guys are. As you said, all men are created equal; I wish that BSA believed that in the context of participation in Scouting. If you and Bob think I'm wrong, I will turn the challenge back to you. Find credible sources for the Worldwide Scouting movement that says that the majority of other national Scouting programs actively block gays from participation.

As a SM, I really just try to emphasize to the Scouts that the journey is every bit as important as the destination. It shouldn't be a race, and every Scout should know that they can advance as far, or as little, as they want and still enjoy Scouting. I'd like them all to get 1st Class, since that involves learning the basic outdoor and leadership skills, and that to me is a safety issue for our outings, but beyond that, it's really up to them.

It would be wonderful if BSA did embrace a philosophy that included all religious beliefs. Unfortunately, that's not what they seem to be doing. IMHO, I think that the current BSA National leadership would LOVE to be able to say that BSA is open to everyone who has a belief in Christ-based religions; everyone else may happily go elsewhere. Politically, they are unable to do this, but as I said, just MHO. As far as being an organization based on "traditional family values..... "Traditional" is a changing model that evolves over time. American values, over the years, have included such wonders as slaughtering native peoples, driving native non-human lifeforms to extinction, forcing non-whites into slavery (using the Bible as their basis, in some cases), polluting the air as a means to profit, and laying waste to our lands. Much of this has been in keeping with items of Western religious belief, ie, the idea that they are the stewards of the things that their God has given them; they have interpreted that as a blank check to use these resources as they see fit, and treat those who don't share their belief set as "savages" to be either subjugated or exterminated. "Traditional family values" in the U.S. has included the subordination of women and the beating of children, treating both as property. Fortunately, as the country has progressed, we have made progress in at least some of these areas. Things once seen as "traditional values" are now recognized as being, at the very least, mistakes. Minorities still have a difficult time relative to whites in the U.S., but their situation is improving, thanks to changing value systems. Women, until a short time ago, weren't allowed to participate in Scouting in the U.S., while they have been welcomed in Scouting Worldwide for a very long time. BSA corrected this error, recognizing that this "traditional value" was a "mistake" that was no longer a "traditional value". So, BSA does change with the times, slowly, to be sure, but it does change. Maybe, just maybe, the problem is not with the people who would advocate change. Maybe the problem is with the people who demand that BSA retain outmoded relics of old "traditional values" that no longer reflect the values of the nation, and instead only reflect their own desire to remain in some set of 19th century values.

Bob, I don't know for sure, but now I'm kind of interested in finding out. I've read that "the vast majority" of other countries Scouting programs have no problem with gay leaders, but I'll see if I can find some exact figures. I'll post the answer if I'm able to find it.

I agree one zillion billion per cent. Now, if we could only get BSA to agree.... :-)

Bob, What other Boy Scout organizations do in their countries is relevent because we are all a part of the worldwide Scouting movement. If BSA is out of step in a large way with what is going on in other Boy Scout organizations around the world, that should at least cause us to pause and wonder if BSA is right. Not that we necessarily have to follow in lockstep with what the rest of the Scouting movement does, but there should be a snicker test, and I have to say, whenever virtually ever other Scouting organization, and Scout-like organization, has managed to come to terms with this issue, I have to wonder if BSA has the right answer.

Semper, This is just a wonderful post, and it capture your beliefs very well. Your particular beliefs and your comments about how they should be inserted into Scouting are part of the issue that swirls around Scouting all the time in regards to God/gods. Your beliefs define a particular "God" and the way "he" should be treated within a Scouting environment. That's all well and good, but there are a lot of people who believe in a "God/god" and there are many different definitions that quantify that God for them. Who's to choose which definition and set of practices to use? I have to admit that while I was raised Catholic, I'm pretty much at the point that, while I continue to agree with the theological beliefs, the organization itself, and organized religion in general, does as much harm as good. I agree with your assessment that many people treat their God as a sort of afterthought. I've always felt closer to God during my times in the mountains than I usually do in church, surrounded by people who walk out the door and forget about God until same time, next week. Scouting should be non-sectarian; particular religious beliefs should not enter into Scouting, and yet special interests have pretty obviously held sway. That is, I think, unfortunate.

Bob, if foto has commented to you privately that he does indeed consider all priests to be a "problem", then that isn't information I had available, and I once again stand corrected. I didn't read his post that way. Regards your other comments, I never said that allowing gays in Scouting would result in BSA getting only the "best" gays. I had commented that there seemed to be a perception that allowing gays into Scouting would result in a bunch of gay leaders coming to meetings in drag. That's no more true than saying that all gays are good, or all straights are good, etc. Each leader should be judged on his/her own merits. I wish BSA did make their leader policy based on character and not on sexuality, as you say, but I think that that's not what the policy is. BSA has clearly stated that they do not consider gays to be appropriate role models as leaders and disallow them. There is some talk of a policy of don't ask, don't tell. Now, if BSA really did believe that gays should be judged on their character, they wouldn't be saying that they consider them to be poor role models, would they? Personally, I think if the "pro-gay" community is smart, they'll build a population of "don't ask, don't tell" gay leaders who are doing an excellent job, and get them recognized for that. Then, at some point where the evidence is undeniable, go public with that information. It could effectively destroy the "poor role model" argument.

I don't know of any formal prohibition in Safe Scouting. Especially in the context of summer camp, you have lots of other leaders around, so I don't think you'd have any problems. It's just a shame that we even have to worry about that kind of thing.

Vicki, having worked in banking for 30, I've come to believe that the General Ledger is the root of all evil in the universe :-) but I digress............ MajBob, Just one more troops way of doing things...... We have a dual signature account, but the reality of it is, the treasurer usually asks one of the other signers to sign a few checks each time we meet to avoid logistical problems, Granted, opens a fraud hole, but we've all known each other for years and years, and it's not like emptying our account is going to let someone start a new life in New Zealand or something :-) We do our accounting on a spreadsheet, and while having a single bank account, do divvy up the total among some internal accounts for capital expenses, long term funding, etc. We do have individual internal accounts for each scout to keep track of their credits for fundraising, etc. Awhile back, I tried to find some guidelines on how much money you can carry over from year to year. There doesn't seem to be anything written in stone, but the guidance I've gotten is that it varies from troop to troop based on size and need. Large troops have more long term capital expenses, so they could carry over thousands each year. Smaller troops normally wouldn't have so much, but if they are nearing a high adventure trip, which are usually very expensive, they could have quite a bit in reserve for a short period of time. Seems like you're ok as long as you can justify why the money is being held. We meet each month and go through the treasurer's report at each meeting.

Bob, I read foto's comments, and then read your response, and then read his comment again, because you seem to have read something completely different. Foto was clearly speaking in very broad strokes, and this was clearly indicated by the comments at the end of his post. The point, I think, was not about what percentage of those groups might be "bad" or whether as a group they are "dangerous", only that you can't universally categorize people, as BSA has done with gays by stereotyping them as bad role models. You yourself indicated the problem with making broad statements about any group with your sarcastic remarks about teachers, athletes, etc. If we all agree that making generalizing statements about any group is not the route to take, then why would we want to do exactly that to gays?

Bob, We're getting too far afield from my original comment, which was simply that if, say, in the case of a child abuse problem in a unit, BSA could be sued, and the local unit could be sued as well, even tho the BSA insurance is supposed to provide a "shield" of sorts. That was all. Regards the "deep pockets" and BSA, my comment about popcorn and such was not a criticism of BSA, just a response to your comment about BSA having the biggest pockets because of the number of employees they have. I stand corrected on who gets the popcorn money, but that's really unrelated to my original thought about who could get sued. I do know that it's an issue because lawyers for the church that charters us have brought up that very issue, so it's not entirely conjecture. 'Nuff said on this, I hope :-)?

Read my post again, please, Bob. I didn't say that someone might sue a CO with deepER pockets, I just said deep pockets, and by that I meant that a lawyer could choose to go after a reasonably wealthy CO if they thought they'd have better success in court than against BSA. Besides, the number of employees and members BSA has has nothing to do with with what assets they might have that could be acquired in a court settlement. If BSA is as well as off as you seem to think, they shouldn't be taking a cut of our popcorn money and sending out FOS agents every year.

So, when you say "BSA", Bob, is that "BSA" representing all of us, or some small group of decision makers in support of their own, possibly politically motivated, agenda? Since the stance on gays in U.S. Scouting is contrary to the philosophy of the majority of the members of Scouting Worldwide, I have to wonder if something else is going on.

As Trevorum said, since sexuality has no place in Scouting, whether the leaders are gay or not is irrelevent. So, I'd go with the trained leaders. As an aside, I think that there's this perception that gay leaders would all be running around in drag or something. I wouldn't want to be in a troop with gay leaders openly expressing their sexuality anymore than I'd want to be in a troop with hetero leaders who stand around fondling each other during meetings. Neither provides an appropriate role model image for the Scouts.

Bob, I didn't say anything about who provided insurance to BSA; makes no difference if they are self-insured or not. My point was that if someone decided to sue in regards to some BSA action, they might not only go after BSA, they could choose to go after the CO as well, if that organization had deep pockets. We do follow the rules in regards to Safe Scouting to the letter, to the best of our ability. That doesn't guarantee protection from litigation, regardless of what BSA says. They can try their best to shield the local units, but they may or may not work. Regards red giants and such, all that really protects BSA from policy changes right now is a sympathetic Supreme Court. It could just as easily gone the other way, and may at some point in the future if the makeup of the Court changes.

OldGrey, In the America of today, people are going to sue no matter what you do. The BSA National insurance covers you to a point, but the CO can still get sued if someone thinks that they have deeper pockets. Hasn't BSA National pushed responsibility for the background checks on the CO's anyway? Seems like the leader apps indicate that. And they could still provide whatever background checks they do even if they changed their policy on gay membership.

What an excellent question, Semper! I, for one, would continue on in Scouting, and encourage my sons to do so as well. I think the vast majority would continue as well. As you say, and as I've said on several occasions, the overall program, especially at the local level, is excellent. The gay issue gets a lot of ink (or electrons, or whatever) because it is a social hotpoint. From Scoutings point of view, you'd think that the Guide to Safe Scouting should cover what we need to know to provide a safe program. The members who would leave are probably those who see Scouting as a reflection and extension of their religious beliefs. When Scouting says that they are non-sectarian in their views, I always thought that they meant that they would not promote the religious agenda of any particular group. That's clearly not true in the case of gay membership, and those are the members who would probably move on.

Some in this thread haven't distinguished between the "uniform" and the "pants", and I think it makes sense to separate them for this discussion. In our troop and pack, we require the Scouts to wear the uniform shirt, and neat pants or jeans; no sweats or windpants, etc. Just a point of reference. To our mind, the shirt carries all the symbolism important to Scouting. The pants have nothing of value from a uniform standpoint. They're just pants. Beyond that, you get into issues of cost, wearability and growth of the Scouts. Besides, I've yet to see anyone who actually looks good in the shorts and those dorky socks :-)

You're right, Bob White. You probably won't see an "official" representative of BSA say something publicly against UW; they've gotten too politically savvy for that. I've seen many petitions passed around at Roundtables trying to get UW to change their policies in favor of BSA, however. I didn't say that the BSA said their gay policy is based on religious beliefs; I said that the members commenting here said that. BSA policy seems to be based on some interpretation of "morally straight", which in itself would seem to be open to all sorts of interpretation. >>Follow the rules until the rules change. Accept the rules until the rules change. Speak >>positively of the organization you belong to if you choose to belong to that organization. I always comment positively on the local units; that's where the true nature of Scouting resides, in my mind, not at the National office. If the local units devised overall policy, at least for themselves, and relegated the National office to logistical support, I think we'd all be a lot better off. I work within the system, hoping for change. And, when the opportunity arises, I remind my own boys that although we're Scouts, we need to remember that not everything BSA says it true, and not all of their policies are correct. Learn their concepts on outdoorsmanship; that's where their expertise is, but they don't know anymore about moral or social issues than anyone else, and what the National office says is primarily their opinion, and nothing more. >>A Scout is Loyal and Obedient. But not mindless.

Like Packsaddle, I've been going to Yellowstone for a long time. Since 1970, I've probably been there 15 times at least. I actually prefer Grant Teton Nat Park, which is just to the south of Yellowstone, because it is usually less crowded, but Yellowstone will certainly be a highlight for anyone who loves the outdoors. In contrast to some other posters, I'd say don't avoid the tourist areas. This will probably be the 1st trip out there for many of your Scouts. You can always go into the backcountry, but Yellowstone has things that no one else has. See them, even if they are "touristy". Check out the visitor centers, go on the ranger led hikes. Do not skip Old Faithful even tho it will be crowded; the Geyser Basin can keep you busy for days, and some of the longer hikes there will let you see things with no people around. A couple of years ago, we hiked to one geyser that only erupts about once every 8 days, and we just happened to be there to see it; actually shoots higher than Old Faithful. Go to places like the Fountain Paint Pots and the Mud Volcano. Visit Yellowstone Lake; fish. Go up to Yellowstone Falls, the drive up goes through areas devastated by the fires; it's amazing to see how they've recovered. Most summers, you can still see snow up there. It is an amazing place, and will amaze your Scouts. If you have the time, drive down to Grand Teton; it's all part of the same entrance fee, so it won't cost you anything more. You can take the hike up Cascade Canyon, which starts with a boat ride across Jenny Lake. If you want to take a long walk, it's 15 miles, or so, round trip, up to the head of Cascade Canyon. You can climb up Paintbrush Divide and look back down the canyon; a very impressive site. I was in the canyon a couple of years ago, and there had been an avalanche that took down big lodgepole pines like matchsticks; the Scouts will be impressed, and that's only about 2 miles or so up the canyon. Shorter walks up the canyon will take you to Hidden Falls, and Inspiration Point, both very nice spots and good "starter" hikes. Depends on what your troop is into. And, if you crave civilization for a day, take a drive into the town of Jackson or the ski village at Jackson Hole. In town, have lunch at Mountain High Pizza Pie; in the ski village, have lunch at the Mangy Moose. You can take the Gondola to the top of Rendevous Mountain and then hike down; about 7 miles, I think. I was actually thinking about taking my troop out there next summer. Let us know how it goes.