Prairie_Scouter

A couple of thoughts... First, Bob White, regards your comment about schools not teaching character, physical fitness, etc, etc. I don't know where you live, but this is absolutely not true where I live (Il). Our Schools have a program called Character Counts, physical fitness classes are required, knowledge of citizenship is required for graduation, a requirement for community service before graduation, etc. Second, about these comments in regards to ""we" have our beliefs. Why can't you just leave us alone?" or words to that affect...First, BSA is always very adament about this, ie, don't force your beliefs on us, and yet, they think nothing of denigrating groups like the United Way for refusing funding simply because they are standing up for THEIR beliefs. And, who is "we"? I know many, many people in Scouting who don't agree with BSA National's policy on gays. I've seen many comments here stating that the gay policy is in keeping with the religious beliefs of the members commenting. BSA is not supposed to be a religious organization, is it? Why are particular denominations, then, allowed to let their beliefs take precendence over others? Not all churches who sponsor Scout units agree with this policy. We have a debate almost every year with our sponsoring church over whether they will recharter with us, because they do not agree with BSA's policy on gays. However, they believe, as many of us do, that the local units do such good work that they will try to look past what they see as the errant policies of the national organization, and hopefully work from within to enact change. I won't get into a debate about statistics; too easy to slant however you want. I will say, tho, that our Council, in 2004, releases the results of the latest BSA survey on policy, and it said that something like 65% of Scouters agree with the BSA National stand on gays. A high number, to be sure, but not exactly overwhelming. In addition, I was told by someone in the Council (although I can't substantiate it) that if you look at the demographic breakdown of those results, older Scouters agreed with BSA policy to a very high degree, but by the time you got to younger parents, the agreement was substantially under 50%. This is something to be concerned about, if true, whether you agree with the policy or not.

Not to go off on too much of a tangent, but I'd have to say that Israel isn't an "innocent victim" when it comes to the violence in the region. Yes, they bear the brunt of "not being welcome" in the region, their land having been created after WWII by taking land away from the "losers". But, the government of Israel has hardly been an innocent; they take fine advantage of the military tools provided by the U.S. Israel seems to be the poster child for the pre-emptive strike policy which GW has taken such a fondness to. They have shown restraint mostly when the U.S. has exerted political pressure on them. When it comes to the Middle East, you're taking on issues that go back centuries; they're not going to be addressed by giving Israel the biggest guns, or by the U.S. invading the region, thinking that we're somehow going to "fix it" by forcing democratic reforms on them. Regards the Pope.... I think it's possible to separate the man from his mission. I think the Pope was a wonderful leader for our times, but I disagree with much of what he stood for. As far as praising him now that he's gone, that, I think, is just human nature, although he was given plenty of credit during his life. It's not like this is something new.

Eamonn, I have a couple of Scouting friends who are believers in many of Grassfire's issues, and so I get email from them pretty regularly about whatever the current petition is. That's how I originally became aware of them. They're an interesting outfit, but they tend to be a "one-side only" organization, which so many special interest groups are, unfortunately. I'm one of those folks who may have a point of view, but I still want to understand the opposing side. There's no way to get to a mutual understanding if you only know one side of an issue.

Anarchist, Not really meaning to crusade, just discuss. Regards this... >>What is being missed here? The organization says...homosexuals are not eligible for >>leadership or membership in the organization/movement...take it as a personal (corporate) >>belief...what is so hard to understand? Not hard to understand, just wondering who in BSA gets to decide where the line is drawn? What happens if they next say, "blacks are not eligible for....". Would that be ok, too? If their whole argument falls back on the phrase "morally straight", then you have to go back to who decides what is "morally straight", and in that case, I think anyone could make a strong case that BSA is violating its own statements on being non-sectarian by espousing a policy that is directly aligned with some groups' religious beliefs, and not others. The fact that BSA "says so" doesn't necessarily make it right. If, as you say, it's a "corporate belief", I'd say that no other "corporation" in the U.S. could get away with something like that. Part of the problem, I think, is that BSA plays pretty loosely with the rules it likes to live by, in effect, their own little view of the universe. They say "how dare you question our policies? We have a right to make our own rules.", while at the same time denouncing organizations who deny them funding only because they are following THEIR own rules. Don't THEY have a right to live under their own rules, too? That's why, in the big picture, I think the whole issue of touchy subjects like gays and athiests has pretty much nothing to do with some sort of "moral obligation" BSA has to protect some set of beliefs as much as it is a political game for power and money. That's why I'll stick with the local units, where the REAL work of Scouting is done, and where the most worthwhile work is done, and let the national organization do it's game playing, hoping that it doesn't do too much damage in the process. And no, I won't call names, or try to denigrate other folks here. I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind, and that's not really my intent. I just like the discussion, mostly.

Anarchist, Well, I can't disagree with you. I was pretty clear in my last post that I have my own points of view on where Scouting is and where I think it should be. The point of my examples wasn't to explain what bias I have, but to bring some examples to light in the hopes that somebody will say, "well, that's true", or "well, no, that's not quite right". We all have biases based on things we think we know or just our own personal beliefs. I *think* what I was trying to say was that "I've got this view, and here are a couple of examples that lead me to believe that I'm correct in that view; what do you guys think of these examples?". I'd be perfectly happy to be able to say, "you know, I understand the BSA policy on gays and where it came from. From their perspective, it makes sense; I just don't agree with it". Where I am right now, tho, is looking at what BSA says about gays and not seeing any sense to it, or having any historical perspective of how it got that way. What I see are arguments from BSA that seem to conflict with their own policies, or are just arbitrary findings, like "gays aren't able to be "morally straight".

Torveaux, sorry, I don't have time right now to go back and look up those sources, I am certain of 2 things. One, before the war started, the media was allowed to interview high ranking military leaders, and they clearly stated the need for troop levels far beyond those that were eventually deployed. Two, in the time since the war, every interview I've seen in regards to troop levels has been with the civilian defense leader, Sec. Rumsfeld, and he consistently has said that he has asked his generals if they have everything they need, and that they always reply "yes". At this point, politics takes over. No general is going to publicly disagree with the Secretary. Just ain't gonna happen. And, for political reasons, I don't expect Sec. Rumsfeld to ever admit to error; the opposing party would have a field day. Unfortunately, the troops on the ground are the ones that bear the brunt of this political warfare. I don't consider this "drivel"; I consider it to be well-deserved criticism of an Administration not acting in the best interests of the citizens or the troops. As far as the UN goes, while I'd question whether there were "many" that were in financial cahoots with Iraq, you are correct that at least some, and some in positions of political clout, who had a financial interest in seeing the diplomatic debate continue. I think that their motives were misguided, but on the other hand, I don't think that there was an imminent threat to the U.S., one that would lead us to have to take unilateral action. The fact that the vast majority of nations thought our actions were wrong should at least cause us to pause and think about that. Yes, the sanctions against Iraq were a complete failure as far as our aims were concerned; all we succeeded in doing was killing off an entire generation of Iraqi children (credible sources put the number at something like 500,000 deaths directly attrituable to the sactions over a 10 year period). That doesn't mean diplomacy failed; it means that that attempt had failed. We've gotten to the point over the past 20 years or so that we have fallen back to using the military as our primary method of diplomacy. Real diplomatic skills seem to have eroded just the same as our once potent intelligence skills. When your only tool is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail. I'm not sure what "success" you're referring to. The initial invasion went fairly well, but it sure seems like inadequate planning for everything after that is causing us to suffer losses that could have been prevented. Wow, the Iraqi's being forced out of power are fighting back; who would woulda thunk they'd do that??? I think we'll all agree, tho, that the whole idea of going around and ripping down the yellow ribbons is just insanely stupid. You can support the troops without supporting the war.

Fuzzy, Well said. I agree with those sentiments 100% I think that the "gay issue" in Scouting has 2 segments to it. One, there is the idea that gays are somehow a danger because of their lifestyle. That is to say, the thought that they are mostly pedophiles or are somehow otherwise dangerous to Scouts in a very objective way. I believe that this notion is almost entirely false; statistics just don't bear out these notions. I'm sure that some percentage of gays are pedophiles; so are some percentage of heteros. Everything I've read says that there is no difference in the rate of pedophilia in gays vs heteros. This is exactly the place where individuals should be judged on their individual merits, and not excluded as a class. If we were to use that same "class judgement" philosophy and apply it to any group that has any history at all of a "dangerous tendency", we'd have no leaders or Scouts at all. Two, there is the religious belief in some denominations that there is something "wrong" with gays and are therefore not suitable role models. I've had one Scout leader tell me that gays are, quote, "an abomination". There's really no argument against something like this, because it represents a religious belief, which, by it's nature, is beyond the realm of logic. But, if BSA is the non-denominational organization it says it is, it absolutely cannot make a religious argument about the exclusion of gays. A recent memorandum issued by BSA said that gays do not fit the part of the Scout Law stating that a Scout is "morally straight". So, the question becomes, where would something like this come from? (that's beyond the question of who gets to decide what "morally straight" is? According to a Time Magazine article a few years ago, the LDS Church said it would leave BSA and take its 400,000 Scouts with them if BSA were to change their stance on gays. If that's true, then particular religious denominations are pressuring BSA to take particular stands on these issues. Is that how Scouting should be run, I wonder? (LDS has its own problems, of course, given their history of discrimination against women and African-Americans, along with gays).

Grassfire represents views of the conservative Christian movement. They will support BSA policies when it suits their purposes. I've seen several of their petitions, and like many groups do on both side of some issues, they will "spin" news items to their own ends. As I've said in another thread, Grassfire is happy to support BSA as long as BSA is doing things that supports Grassfire's goals. If BSA were to make a change, Grassfire could easily become anti-Scouting if it suited their purposes. After one of their petition drives recently, I contacted them, asking why they couldn't present both sides of these issues, even if they used that information to support their cause. I never received any sort of response. Apparently, they think that it's better to only educate people on one side of an issue. Of course, Grassfire isn't the only group that works that way. I've had the same debate with other groups that represent my interests, like Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, etc. I've just always thought that if your view is correct, then it should be able to withstand scrutiny by opposing views. Just showing one side of the story doesn't accomplish that.

I think I'll try to steer back to my original question a bit. I think I've got a better feel now for the position on atheists. What about the position of BSA on gays? I know the court case is fairly recent, but was there a time when BSA started to actively move against gays, or is that a historical "thing" as well?

Hunt and Acco.... You know, you're right. I wasn't sure what term would have been better, so used "discrimination". You're absolutely right that we discriminate all the time to protect our families, etc. And, BSA should discriminate against those who have a proven history of activities that could be dangerous to our Scouts. But, I'll go with Acco's assertion that BSA would be better served by judging people based on their actions, not on some nebulous judgement of who's good and who's bad. Kinda nice to have some folks around who seem to understand my thoughts better than I do! :-)

I think at this point we all agree on the essence of the thread, which is, we need to be sure that we support the troops and that they know it, regardless of what we think about the war itself. Regards an earlier post, diplomacy does not equal inaction. Had diplomacy pretty much failed at this point? Yes, but mostly because the U.S. has lost the critical skills needed to have diplomacy work. In the past 20 years, we've chosen to let the military do our diplomacy for us. They try their best, but it's really not their job. Bless'em for the work they do for all of us. The failure I see has nothing to do with the military, but with the President. He needlessly placed the troops at risk by not listening to his military leaders. We should remember that when the casualty figures come out each week, and be thankful everytime some of our boys make it home.

Remember that the race is for the boys, not the parents who want to get going as soon as they can. There has to be a balance between giving the boys as much race time as possible without having it get "boring". We've always used lane rotation. It's the only way to eliminate fast and slow lanes. In the "good old days", ie, pre-computers, we used to use brackets, but had a losers bracket so everybody raced at least twice, and that helped to eliminate the problem of having fast cars eliminated just because they were in a fast heat. Now, we use Derbymaster and display it on a projection system. To keep up the excitment, we only display overall actual results at the end. Derbymaster displays all of the individual race results, so the boys can try and figure out where they are until the final results are in. We race about 50 cars each year. We have a preliminary round by rank, a final by rank, and a final for the pack. Each car races once in each lane, so everybody gets at least 4 races. Since we race by time, we don't have to worry about a car getting eliminated just because it was in a fast heat, which is a real problem with brackets unless you have a 2nd round losers bracket. It's not a science, but we get a little better every year. This past race, we started registration at 10am on a Saturday, started racing at about 11am, and were completely finished by about 2pm. When we ran brackets without the computer system, we were lucky to finish by 4pm. Whatever you do, just make sure you're doing what you think the boys will enjoy most. Doesn't matter what the parents think, really.

A comment was made about how the uniform looks better on people who are "trim", or something to that effect. One thing that I find a good deal of entertainment value in is to take a look at most of the adult leaders, and wonder how it is that BSA is willing to go the Supreme Court to support the part of the Scout Law that says a Scout is "morally straight", but doesn't seem to care much about the "physically strong" part. Then again, I have a friend who attends a lot of Roundtables and has some concerns about the "mentally awake" part.....:-)

Anarchist, I guess your question about "who's history am I reading" is part of my quandary, which I've opened a separate thread to discuss. There is more than one point of view on where BSA has been, how they fit into the overall concept of "Scouting" (and that, again, depends on who you read), and where it's heading. I don't pretend to know the answers, but I have points of view based on what I've read and my own beliefs as to where BSA should "be". There are a number of sources that would lead me to believe that BSA is not as inclusive now as you would have me to believe. And, I suspect that there has always been a difference between what BSA puts into print and what they actually do. From what I've read, BSA seemed to be more liberal, at one time, in its membership policies than it currently is. Here's an example. The Mormon Church, a long time ago, apparently pursued a strong position in BSA because, at the time, BSA was seen as a mainstream organization, while the LDS was seen as "out there" because it's beliefs in the subordinate position of wome and polygamy. The LDS apparently wanted to be seen as more mainstream and saw BSA as a way to get there. BSA welcomed them because of what was once a more liberal admission policy. Now, that's one perspective on history; I'm not supporting it or defending it, just reporting it. Then again, I think the uniform pants don't represent anything except income for the Scout Shop, so I guess I'm just a radical :-)

Eamonn, Thanks again for your thoughts. Couple of thoughts.... In regards to why people who don't like BSA just don't find another organization... I think that BSA, at the local level, does a wonderful job, and that work of the local units far outweighs the damage that I think is being done to BSA at the national level. It's matter of being able to live what I figure is the "5% bad" to get the "95% good". I can live with that, while I try to make change from within. I doubt that I'll have much impact because I don't think the I have the resources to dent the national hierarchy. Regards your thoughts on what happened when the UK accepted gays.... Probably the same as what would happen here if changes were made to BSA policy. I think the vast majority of Scouters are kind of "middle of the road" folks who are willing to compromise. If BSA were to go from a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays, to a "all welcome if you support BSA" policy, some people at either extreme would probably quit, but the vast majority would continue on just as they have. I honestly believe that the same would happen if athiests were included. You don't have to remove "God" from BSA in order to do that, necessarily, I don't think. Athiest activists might consider that the only route acceptable to them, but if BSA were to enact a similar "don't ask, don't tell" policy there as well, I think most people would be ok with that. Of course, BSA National isn't about to ask us what we think, I don't think. There is a concern I have about particular religious groups forcing their beliefs on others, and how this might make some religions "more equal" that others in the eyes of BSA. What if you're a religious group that approves of gay inclusion, for example? The topic of gay marriage is a good example of this, I think. Let's say you're Catholic (not to pick on them, but only for purposes of example). The Catholic Church is against gay marriage. That in and of itself if fine, and they can rightfully say that the sacrament of marriage is not open to gay couples. No problem there. However, once the Catholic Church starts to use it's political clout to enact their beliefs into law, they are infringing on the religious rights of every other group that doesn't agree with them. I wonder sometimes if similar things are happening in BSA. Other groups have figured out ways around this dilemna; you would think that BSA could as well. Regardless of what I think one way or the other, my original purpose of posting this question was to try and find some sources of information that were somewhat unbiased so that I could better understand how BSA got into this quagmire. The issue of God in BSA is pretty clear, although how they got there seems to be more a "political victory" during its founding than something that was done because it seemed "right". The issue of gays in Scouting seems less clear. Thanks to all to their contributions to this discussion.

I'm probably in the minority here, but I have great respect for our men in uniform while at the same time being disgusted by the government policies that have led to our actions in Iraq. I didn't serve in VietNam, although I'm in that age group. The VietNam troops were treated very badly coming home exactly because the American public couldn't separate the political motives of the government from the soldiers forced to take action in support of those motives. We can argue all day whether Bush was justified in invading Iraq when he did. My disgust with him centers on the fact, well documented, that he and his secretary of defense ignored the advice of his military commanders as to what level of troop deployment would be needed to insure a swift end to the conflict, and instead deployed what has been demonstrated to be inadequate troop levels, with inadequate equipment, resulting hundreds, if not thousands, of needless deaths both on the U.S. side, and the Iraqi side. That is something that cannot, and should not, be forgiven. And this president, in the last election, sold himself as the "more moral alternative". So, yes, I'll continue to pledge my support to our troops at every opportunity, while at the same time holding this Administration accountable for the almost unimaginable damage they have done to our country's integrity, credibility and prestige both at home and abroad. Our Scouts will be paying the financial cost of this Administration's failings for decades to come.

Rick, I guess I was with you until right at the end. Thanks for your comments. I'll have to disagree with you on your last statement. If the struggle of gays and atheists is a test of what Scouting really stands for, I think I interpret that as saying that it's a fight for BSA's right to discriminate. Regardless of what any Supreme Court ruling says, I teach my sons that discrimination is wrong. It's wrong in general society and it's wrong within BSA. Getting a Court to agree that they're some sort of private club doesn't change that. Gays are almost an easy target for BSA because the country is so split over them. Say that Gays can't be good leaders because of what they are will get a good deal of support. But, let's go the next step. Catholic priests can't be considered good leader material because of their obvious problems. African-Americans? Sorry, very bad crime statistics. White males? Sorry, by any measure, the vast majority of pedophiles are white males. Women? Lucky to get in at all; I know someone who swears that all Girl Scout leaders are lesbians. It was news to my wife, believe me, she being a Girl Scout leader and all. People are going to believe what they want to believe; it's unfortunate that they have to use their beliefs to exclude those who don't agree.

fgoodwin... You make good points. I think that my answer to your very valid comments is that I'd like BSA to recognize that a belief in God isn't a pre-requisite to being a good citizen. I think that that's just incorrect, and I believe that in the history of Scouting, Baden-Powell thought the same thing, but lost that battle when BSA was being founded. That doesn't mean that they will change, but that's my hope. Merlyn... Yeah, I've seen that BSA said that. To me, it just shows how far they are willing to remove themselves from the original precepts of Scouting to meet their political ends. Comments like that just help paint themselves into a corner. My grand hope in all this, a pipedream most likely, is that BSA's leadership can eventually be changed to a group that is willing to look to the future, and recognize that just because something was said 100 years ago doesn't make it correct. Just as it was wrong to discriminate against women in Scouting, I hope that Scouting will eventually see that any form of discrimination is wrong. Yes, that would require some changes, and there are those who don't want that, and want to keep Scouting as a private party for those with conservative religious beliefs. I'd rather not have that. I spend a good deal of time telling my 2 Scout sons that while lots and lots of what Scouting does is good, their discrimination policies are just wrong. On balance, I think that Scouting benefits youth otherwise I wouldn't be putting the energy into trying to make it better (well, at least what I see as better :-)) OGE... Regards your stats on non-Western religions, I think you're right on the numbers, but I think that the philosophy that's encouraged within Scouting is decidedly conservative Christian, which has its roots in Western religious philosophy. At least, I think so. People are so polarized by these issues. Maybe it's because the leadership is from Texas or something. Like our present administration, perhaps they see everything in terms of black and white. :-)

First of all, we should probably recognize that politicians like Frist will support anything that will get them a few votes. That's not just because of his party affiliation. One of the 1st things I learned in PoliSci class was that the job of every elected official is, first and foremost, to get re-elected. Frist sees an issue that will be popular with his constituency, and that's the extent of it. Second, we should be careful about groups like Grassfire. Grassfire is a conservative Christian organization; taking their support endangers the non-denominational character of Scouting. And I can tell you from my visits to the Grassfire site, that if BSA was to say that they supported an "open to all" environment including gays, Grassfire would jump down their throat just as quickly as they now support them. Personally, I don't have a problem with government facilities being used for Scout activities, nor do I have a problem with government groups sponsoring Scout troops. I just don't see this as an unconstitutional support of religion. But, BSA could help its own cause by stopping trying to look like a religious group. It's not supposed to be. (of course, I think that those guys who sue to get rid of Christmas trees and such have too much time on their hands, but that's just me :-))

To Anarchist (from a few posts back)... Actually, I *don't* want BSA to roll over on its principals. I would like BSA to get back to what those principals once were. Scouting was once much more inclusive than it now is; at least that's what history seems to indicate. I don't necessarily agree with Merlyn, but I'm trying to see his point of view, even tho I'd have to agree with those who see a lot of anger in his approach. No, I don't want to destroy BSA. In fact, I'm trying to work from within to make it the organization it once was. My feeling is that BSA has been co-opted by special interests intent on turning BSA into a religious organization. I don't think that's what Baden-Powell had in mind for Scouting. But, that's just my opinion; doesn't make me correct, just opinionated :-)

I can tell you that the Eagle requirements in our Council aren't being diluted, as far as I can tell. The Scouts are doing significant projects to meet their Eagle requirements. As far as the numbers go, I think there have been enough stories about "cooked books" to know that it's happening. On the other hand, the systems that our Council uses are so archaic that I can't imagine how they get an accurate number from it. Also, there's some sort of "outreach" program going on with schools that I think gets counted in the Scout totals, although I don't think that the participants are actually Scouts. To be honest, in my own troop, I'd rather have 15 kids that want to be there, than 30 that are there mostly so that there parents can get 90 minutes to shop each week and we're used mostly as a babysitting service. I think that that applies at the national level as well. The problem as I understand it is that the BSA staff are rated at least partially on their Scout totals, so there is a lot of incentive to inflate the numbers. We should be more worried about whether we've got a quality program going. We get contacted all the time to "run another recruitment night". We've got 20 Scouts in our troop; the boys don't really want it to get much bigger. We know lots of other troops that have lots of Scouts, and they don't even know each other. We're a small group, but we're a good team. I don't worry about how many Scouts we have. If we've got a good program going, the Scouts will come to us.

Wow, thanks, guys, for all the thoughts. Very interesting. To Bob... No reason to be in "awe", those comments of mine weren't "conclusions" as much as they were observations based on BSA national's behavior. And, not just "saying" I'm asking questions; I'm looking for somewhat objective sources of the history behind what appears to be BSA actions. What my own feelings are as I look into that information are really kind of irrelevent. And, as far as the Bible Belt goes, there's the geographical center of the Bible Belt, and the cultural center; I don't really know where either is. Regardless, I only meant "center" as a figure of speech. Regards the move to Texas, they could have gotten the location donated for any number of reasons. If it was donated by a conservative group based on some implicit agreement by BSA to go along with their agenda, I think that that would be a problem. But, that's what I'm trying to understand. Thanks for your thoughts, tho; they are appreciated. To Acco... Yes, I did mean BSA, not worldwide Scouting. Everything I've read leads me to believe that at least on some aspects of the topics that have caused the political firestorm, BSA is out of step with Scouting worldwide. I agree that BSA does slowly change with the times, to some extent, anyway. I'd like them to become less of a political firebrand. I'd also like them to really be non-denominational; it just seems to me that these days they are anything but that. To Merlyn... Thanks for the links. I've actually visited those, and others. Their information is certainly interesting, but like many of the environmental groups I support, you don't go there to get unbiased views, or even both sides of the story. The truth is in there somewhere, I'm sure. To Hunt.... I think the questions I were asking weren't so much that these policies came along recently, although I could see where it could be read that way. The religious issue was always there. The gay issue came about, as far as I can tell, more recently, and as a result of a particular interpretation of Scout Law. I'm really just trying to track the history, and perhaps dig into the "whys" along the way. Not to alter my own views, necessarily, but to better understand how BSA is thinking. To Eamonn.. THANK YOU! What an interesting post. Actually, I just recently got Scout's Honor from the library, but haven't had a chance to dig into it yet. And thanks for the historical perspective. I'm going to need to read that a couple of times I think :-) As you indicate, history is always written by the "winners", so you're not going to get an unbiased view there until very much later.

There are always plenty of discussions in regards to the participation in Scouting by gays and atheists. I'm trying to step back from that a bit and look into the history behind it, and find out how it got to be this way. I understand that some of the original wording that formed BSA talked about a "belief in God" or "a god" or something like that. Correct? Has BSA always been so vehement,tho, in it's actions to make sure that atheists aren't allowed in? Is that more recent? Similarly, for gays, I don't believe that there's anything explicitly said anywhere that gays can't be good Scouts or leaders. I'm told that it was "kind of" always there, but that it really got "hot" sometime in the 1970's. I've heard stories about the Mormons forcing the issue at some point. BSA's headquarters used to be in the NorthEast, I think, and used to be run by people that were fairly moderate in their views, I think. If that's correct, than how did we get to a point where we've got what appear to be conservative Christians running the organization to the point that there were able to move the headquarters to the middle of the Bible Belt? I've heard that the Board is mostly a figurehead, and the real decisions are made by some sub-committee that makes up all these policies. True? Close? How could change be enacted within BSA, if there was a desire to do so? Anyway, I'm looking for thoughts; I'm looking for unbiased sources to try and figure out what's going on.

As with all court rulings, the Supreme Court ruling in favor of BSA only lives as long as this Supreme Court is in existence. Should the Court change to a more liberal group, it's quite possible that the case could be re-initiated and the findings be quite different in the end. The ACLU strategy, as someone else mentioned, could end up having some unanticipated, and very bad, consequences. Carried to it's logical end, the ACLU will force BSA to become a private religious organization, and that is exactly NOT what I think most people in Scouting would want. BSA is already heavily slanted towards Western European religious beliefs. Those of us trying to work from within to enact change aren't helped by the actions of the ACLU. In fact, it only helps to further confirm the beliefs of the ultra conservatives in Scouting that everyone is "out to get them". I'm in a Council in the suburbs outside of Chicago, and we already have people here who refer to anyone who opposes BSA policy as "the enemy". They use prose that sounds an awful lot like what you hear from people who eventually "go postal". From reading Merlyn's posts, I get the impression that he would rather destroy BSA than change it; at least that's my interpretation of his posts. That's unfortunate, because I think the reality is that, although BSA is run by people who I think are more interested in their political self-interest than the health of BSA, BSA at the grass roots level does a great job with the Scouts, and provides excellent programs for them. From my point of view, BSA has gotten away from the true meaning of Scouting, but declaring war on them isn't going to help anything. The organization needs to be saved from those currently in charge, and made more open, and more accomodating. No particular religious belief should hold sway over BSA, but that's what has happened. That needs to change if BSA is going to be able to survive. If ACLU wanted to help BSA, they could figure out a way to go after the head without killing the body; what they're doing right now has no affect on BSA national, and only damages the local units, where the good work of Scouting is being done. For what it's worth, I don't believe that there's anything inherently "unScoutlike" in either a belief in Atheism or a gay lifestyle. There should be room for all in Scouting, and I think there would be if it weren't for a few people at the top of BSA who are more interested in political agenda than BSA itself.

I wonder if there might have been a better way to use such a list in Illinois. By giving it to the ACLU (a group who does good work, mostly, but also never saw an issue they couldn't get a press release out of), it will force the schools to drop their charters, which only ends up punishing the kids. Just think, for example, of the political muscle that could have been generated by working to build a nationwide list of sponsoring organizations that are technically breaking policy, or law, or whatever, by sponsoring Scout units, and then using the list with BSA to try and get some action. Imagine the press. Instead of "ACLU forces schools to drop BSA units", you could have "BSA refuses to change policies regardless of impact on large numbers of Scouts".