tjhammer

At the suggestion of some others, this is a spin off of the debate in the United Way thread.

BobWhite said: You will read more gay bashing remarks in this forum than you ever have or ever will hear from the BSA. I urge you to go to the BSA national website and read what the BSA's stand on homosexuals really is. It is represented very poorly in this forum.Bob, I don't think most of the people who debate here are "gay bashing", though I grant you that has occured (though it's gotten much less offensive since the removal of DedDad); there's obviously good, honest Scouters that feel strongly on this issue. And this forum is a worthwhile place to exhibit that.

As I have said before, I really respect your contributions to this forum, which have real value to helping other leaders with the program. Your knowledge and experience of Scouting methods is considerable. I realize you rarely bounce over to this Politics and Issues area. Those that have argued on both sides of this debate have been accused (and maybe rightly so) of having too narrow of a point of view, refusing to look beyond that perspective. I think there's really a third side to this debate: those that oppose the ban, those that support it, and ALSO those that think its irrelevant. You seem to be arguing that its pointless and irrelevant, and respectfully I say that is perhaps the most narrow point of view of all.

I have to really strongly disagree with your assessment that the BSA's official position is less strong than any of the views expressed on this board. It certainly is less offensive in language, and much more vague than some of the people that have argued on this board. Which in itself is a real problem... the BSA Inc. policy is poorly articulated, poorly distributed, and inconsistently enforced. Lack of clear leadership on the policy has probably caused as much damage and frustration as the policy itself.

This debate becomes so repeititive; I believe that's because the arguments are pretty straightforward and simple, and ultimately boil down to "your opinion versus mine". And since I recognize this, I'm willing to continue to restate my arguments with the hope that it effects the opinions of people who may not have thought out this issue much. Frankly, it's not those that support the ban that I expect to influence. It's those that believe the ban is irrelevant; I hope to convince them of how wrong that point of view is. And the more members of the organization that can be influenced to pay attention to this debate the sooner the BSA will hear (and measure) the will of the parents of this organization which, IMHO, will lead to the inevitable solution of "local decision".

Scouting's gay ban policy is specifically this:Scouting removes from membership avowed homosexuals and those that advocate that gays are not necessarily immoral people (if they advocate such in front of boys who are members or of membership age).For more background discussion on this, you can refer to previous debates titled Scouting's Real Gay Policy (which explains the Supreme Court arguments) and also Why it's relevant... (which argued why its worth debate). I would also encourage reading Now that we disagree, can we agree?, which summarizes the arguments and suggests that the current decision power of local Chartering Orgs and parents should be enough to get us out of this mess.What this means is this...Scouting signals to gay youth who are coming to grips with this fact that they are immoral and unworthy of membership, contributing significantly to the crisis in this young person's life (I know, I've seen this happen to one of my dearest friends, a young Eagle Scout)

Scouting would eject a 16-year-old member who works on camp staff and answers honestly to a question posed to him by camp leadership and confirms he is gay (another true story, though the Scout was later reinstated because the leadership violated the "don't ask" practice of the BSA)

Scouting will eject a member (youth or adult) who publicly disagrees with the BSA Inc. policy (whether they are gay or not)

Scouting will eject long-time leaders who grew up in the organization and have served with astonishing contributions back to Scouting, if it becomes publicly known that they have formed a committed, life-time relationship with another man (I know, I've seen it happen to one of my closest friends, an Eagle Scout and 10 year leader)

Scouting will pull the charters of a Cub Scout pack whose parents write a letter to their Council Scout Executive stating their opposition to the policy and their willingness to accept a gay leader if one applies (yet another true story)

Scouting (for no reason other than leadership believes gays are immoral) teaches all of its youth members that this is a true statement and it is acceptable to discriminate against gays

Scouting's policy doesn't ban gays, it just forces them to remain closeted or get out, which is not healthy for the individual or the organization.

Scouting violates its own declaration of religious principles, forcing young members to accept the teachings of one Church over another.

BSA Inc. has adopted a policy and is forcing that point of few on every leader, sponsor and parent that supports Scouting, forcing them to choose between their principles and the incredible value of Scouting

Scouting is becoming very stigmatized and jaded in the view of many young parents with kids coming of age, and is becoming positioned as something we're not (a religious, specifically Christian-only, organization)

Folks, this is NOT a policy that has effected only a few. BobWhite, you asked in a the thread that spawn this "What does this topic have to with delivering a scouting program to our community? How does useless debate over gays in scouting or any church get you to know and use the scouting methods?" It has a great deal to do with Scouting program in your community and mine, and the policy is contrary to the methods AND ideals of Scouting. As such a strong advocate of Scouting's methods and ideals, I would think you would share my outrage that they are being violated.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)(This message has been edited by tjhammer)(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

OK, this is a good opportunity to spawn another thread. So I will do so.

Christ was a historical figure. His teachings (and more specifically, the teachings in his name) are pretty simple, pretty clear and documented. I don't believe in a God that micromanages. I don't believe in a God that is vengeful. (That is the God often reflected in the Bible, and I reject those depictions of Him.) I do believe in a God who created man and measures us on our ability to preserve humanity, a "foundational lesson" taught by Christ that "love" is above all else. I suspect this is a more spiritual approach, than a specifically religious one.

Let me be clear... I have not said that I reject the Bible as a source for solid religious principle, not just for you, but also for me. I have chosen to be a Christian, but I don't believe that those around me that are Buddhist (or whatever) are wrong... religion (IMHO) is a way to live your life, not a means to an end (some of you may disagree?). I think some Christians are "crucifixion Christians" and others are "resurrection Christians"... depends on what you find most meaning in.

I have said that I believe no part of the Bible (when taken in pieces or as a whole) is the literal, infallible word of God. In other words, the Bible, IMHO, is a good book to live by, but I don't believe it's sacrosanct and divine; it represents man's evolving attempt to articulate a religion.Rooster said: Does your proposition mention anything about the morality or legality of the behavior? Actually, it does not. Even if it did, that would be counterintuitive to your defense of homosexuality. Of course my proposition is about morality. Homosexuality is not immoral. (I argue pedophilia is immoral simply because it subordinates the will of a child who is incapable of consent and breaks down our humanity; how does homosexuality break down our humanity? How is it immoral? This is the essence of the same repetitive debate we've had for months on here, which is to say the only viable argument placed forth on the "immorality of homosexuality" is that "the Bible says its so".tjhammer said: It's inconceivable to me how anyone could believe that and still permit the Bible to be translated, revised for political correctness and updated time and again.

Rooster counters: Most bibles that have not stayed true to the original text (and "were revised for political correctness") are the liberal translations that condone the sinful lifestyles of the day (i.e., homosexualityLet's take, just for example, the current NIV edits to use non-gender-specific pronouns. That's the kind of "evolving" I'm talking about. Do you think that's inappropriate? Do you think God literally meant just man, or is that too literal of an interpretation.Rooster said: if you read the Old Testament carefully, it does not condone slaveryI disagree, and this has been debated here many times before where the scripture was even cited.

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

Rooster said: While I would never claim that all homosexuals are pedophiles, I do believe both are sins of a sexual nature. Furthermore, I believe once a man descends down a road of sin, particular of a sexual nature, he is capable of becoming even more corrupt.According to the Catholic Church, so is masturbation (in fact, it's mentioned in the same catechism as homosexualitly). I hope you don't believe masturbation is the same a pedophilia, or a slippery slope toward that.

Rooster I do respect your right to an opinion and your style of discussion. I can usually count on you to be a consistent and honest defender of your point of view, and quite knowledgeable about your religion.

Pedophilia is by its nature an adult who takes sexual advantage of a non-consenting (read not capable of consent) child. It is therefore immoral and also illegal (this gets back to the earlier debates with DedDad). Homosexuality is not predatory and does not require subordination of will by one party for the other.

God made homosexuals. God also made pedophiles, schizophrenics and cancer victims. You see commonality between gays and one or more of the later three. There is, however, no commonality. Gays are neither immoral, criminal, mentally deficient or diseased. They are quite simply the same as heterosexuals in every way save one: they find intimacy (companionship and sexual) with same sex partners. You view that as deviant; gays view it as simply more natural for them. Most can't even explain why.tjhammer said: official doctrine of that Church has come to grips with the innate nature of homosexuality... it's a step in the right direction to reckoning man's bigotry with God's will.

Rooster said: Are talking about God's will or the homosexuals' will?God's will. Which is to love one another. Which, in my opinion placed a diverse culture of man into this world to see how we can come together as one to glorify him. Sooner or later (probably sooner, if the official Catholic Church is already starting to acknowledge this) man will realize that God made one out of every ten or twenty people to be homosexual. Once that realization hits you, how will you reconcile your previous position?Rooster said: The God of the Bible does not defend homosexuality; it condemns it. Anyone who says otherwise has twisted Scripture to serve his/her purposes.The "God of the Bible" you speak of is not one in the same with my God. And the "God of the Bible" that you follow did send a NEW Gospel to man. In the same scripture you cite (mostly Old Testament) it also condones slavery, sacrifice, punishment (eye for an eye) and a lot of other things most Christians believe were abandoned by the New Testament (or just by time). Personally (as I have said before), I don't believe the Bible is the infallible word of God (my God or yours)... It's inconceivable to me how anyone could believe that and still permit the Bible to be translated, revised for political correctness and updated time and again. The Mormon Church believes in an entirely new gospel, one that succeeds even the New Testament and was "God given" earlier this century. Do you accept that?

My point is, you accuse me of picking and choosing what parts of the Bible I want to believe or ignore. In fact, I don't really believe ANY part of the Bible is infallible, I only believe in the foundational teachings of Christ. I believe YOU are picking and choosing what parts of the Bible you want to accept to defend your position against gays... You surely don't accept all of the Old Testament as relevant and literal? You most likely don't accept that the Book of Mormon is God's word (unless you happen to subscribe to that religion).

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

Slontwovvy... wow, thank you very much for that research and posting that. It's very informative as to the Catholic Church's opinion (and frankly even more "liberal" of an approach than I had thought the Church has articulated).

Basically, as I read the catechism of the Catholic Church the position is this:They accept that homosexuality is "not a choice", and "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."Homosexuals (who as NJCubScouter has said so eloquently before, God chose to make as about 5% of mankind) should live chased lives (no sexual intimacy with others) in order to avoid "sin" (like masturbation).It's almost as if teh Church is saying that homosexuality is a innate defect, like mental illness.

I find this to be very encouraging, actually. I believe it is an indefensible position to maintain over the long-term, of course. Homosexuals are not mental defects, that's thinking that was abandon by the physch community decades ago. It's also intellectually (and religiously) dishonest to believe God made a being with the expectation that they would either "be a sinner" or be sentenced to a life absent of sexual intimacy. But it is at least refreshing to realize that official doctrine of that Church has come to grips with the innate nature of homosexuality... it's a step in the right direction to reckoning man's bigotry with God's will.

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

you sure dropped the ball on that last comment. Wasn't it just a little bit less than politically correct? In fact, some might say it was outright bigoted.More sarcasm from tjhammer. It must be the springtime weather!OK what are you basing your belief that homosexuality isn't a sin on? If you read the Bible, there are numerous references to homosexuality being unfit behavior in God's eyes. Ergo, a sin.I've answered this question a few times before, but here goes again, in summary:Those are references to scripture harvested from the Old Testatment, and I have already said as a Christian I believe the Old Testament to be mostly irrelelavant, the precursor to Christianity.I do not believe the Bible is the infallible word of God, but rather man's interpretation of God's will, edited, translated and evolved by man time and again.I do not belong to any Church that teaches homosexuality is a sin, maybe you do.Scouting, by the way, does not require (or even prefer) that I believe contrary to the above statements.That's the quick answer. And ScoutParent, welcome to the debate. I encourage you to read the previous threads on this topic to get a better understanding of the positions. In general though, no one wants to dictate who you have to associate with... most of us advocate local decision to leave this control up to the parents and Chartering Partner, which would not force you to associate with anyone.

I am, and will forever be, amazed, that the news regarding the church, and its public call for exclusion of gays, has not garnered the condemnation from those who condemned the BSA. In the instance of the church, the call for that exclusion was based on abuse of childrenI'm not sure that's true... frankly, the Catholic Church has not said any such thing... only a few of the leaders of that clergy have stated their opinions out loud that gays should be excluded. And there has been a response from society that has cautioned it is inappropriate to blame gays for the current crisis in the Church (no matter how much they want to blame someone or something). I think we can all agree that the Catholic Church has bumbled their response nearly completely on this tragedy. I doubt very seriously if the Church will, in the end, ban gays from the clergy. This is the same group that has yet to figure out how to apologize to the victims and who seem much more consumed with the preservation of their power and jobs than the well being of their flock. This is the same group that has struggled to come up with a policy in response that ranges from "on strike and your out" to the current "well, just don't make a habit of it". In other words, that group has said and done a lot of silly things in response to the crisis surrounding them.

The fact that gays are being blamed by a small percentage of the Church leadership shouldn't surprise anyone as we watch that group continue to grope for an excuse for a scenario that would never be possible in the BSA. Haven't we all, at some level, wondered why the Church couldn't simply have adopted Youth Protection (and Priest Protection against false allegation) policies?

Rooster, I don't believe the Catholic Church position on gays is that they are unrepentant sinners. Specifically, the American Catholic Church has long allowed gay priests... they have just expected them to remain celibate (as is their expectation of all priests). Gay is not an act, it is a state of being, and the Church has released a great deal of doctrine coming to grips with this fact in recent years.Yet, I'm certain that this is NOT the driving force behind their exclusion policy. Is there an exclusion policy already? I follow the news pretty carefully, and Ive only heard about a few of the clergy that have floated this idea as a solution and place to lay blame. I know that Rome would like this to be the case, but so far (and I doubt ever) the ruling Catholic body in the US has not adopted a ban on homosexuals from the clergy.homosexuality is a sin. That being the case, why would the Catholic Church allow someone who professes to be an unrepentant homosexual, to enter the clergy?Welll, of course I dont believe homosexuality is a sin, but I do see where that is the belief of a majority of Catholics. However, so is drunkenness (in their minds), yet Ive always heard that you can often count on a Catholic Priest to be a great drinking buddy.Even if the said homosexual were repentant, the Catholic Church would still need to assess that person's fitness to serve.Again, Im not sure that they expect the gay to be repentant to be a priest, just celibate. (I dont much agree with the celibacy argument for gays or straights in the Priesthood, but hey, its not my Church).Good judgment demands that they evaluate the nature of the sin and the potential risks associated with it.OK, lets accept for a moment (for the sake of argument) that gays are in fact sinners just by the very nature of being gay. You make a very good point here, Rooster, one that I believe is relevant to the BSA. Your argument on why gays should not be allowed to be priests seems mostly focused on the risks associated with it. The BSA does not claim this as a valid reason for banning gay leaders (because to do so would be to admit that YP doesnt work, which it does). I suspect that many of you who support banning gays from Scouting (and teaching that lesson to our Scouts) do so (if not forthrightly) because of the risks associated with it that you perceive. If those risks are not real (and they arent), then the only other reason you can claim is the gays are bad role models approach, which again boils down to your opinion versus mine, or your Churchs teachings versus mine.Maybe the reason you don't feel you get the respect you deserve is because you have a very condescending attitude toward other members of the board, almost DD-esque.Slontwovy... Sorry, it was late when I posted, and my comment was intended to be a bit lighthearted. I really wasn't pulling a Rodney Dangerfield routine. Frankly, I don't worry too much about whether I "get respect" (with the exception of the disrespect that our departed DedDad used to spew). I'm really very comfortable that I have acted in an honorable way in my debates on this board (with the exception of a rather dark period where I allowed myself to get drawn into a personal contest with that now banished member). I have not intended to be condescending to anyone. I suspect that you may feel as if I have "talked down to you" because we strongly disagree on this issue; I can relate to those feelings, as they are quite similar to how I feel when lectured by my opponents who argue that Im just plain wrong because I dont agree with them and their Church."it's a shame many of those posts were spent repeating yourself to those that just keep missing the point!"Again, this was not intended to be an insult... it was a lighthearted remark to NJCS. However, I apologize if that was seen as a personal attack by anyone... maybe I should retire the "new sarcastic, lighthearted tjhammer" in favor of the return of the "passionate, articulate tjhammer" .

Wasn't it one of the more liberal members of the forum who decried the thought of religeous organizations having too much influence on scout policy.I had to chuckle a bit when I read this, as I have found myself doing on more than a few occasions debating on this board. It's fascinating to me that many of you who stand in agreement with the BSA policy banning gays insist that you're in an "us versus them" battle. From the earliest debates that I have had on this board I've been viewed as an "outsider" (far from it), a "gay activist" (hardly, except where someone else forces to speak on my behalf when I disagree with what they are saying), and now "liberal".

Granted, I believe it is wrong to discriminate against gays, and wrong to teach that lesson to the boys entrusted to us. And I suppose that is a more liberal view than many (though no longer most) in society. Ironically, this is one of the few "liberal" issues (of those traditionally considered "far left") that I embrace (along with some of the more rational environmental issues that have also been labeled "liberal"). Beyond that, I think you may be surprised, Weekender, just how politically "conservative" I am. Never once voted for a Democrat; been very active in Republican political campaigns since I was 16. I'm not "anti-liberal" (gosh, some of my best friends are even Dems, though a few of them are closeted!), I just think that the far left are wrong on most of the issues they champion. I'm starting to believe the far right is even farther off their rocker.

Don't be afraid, my conservative comrades... we are you! (social re-engineering tongue in cheek).

(PS -- Congrats! NJCubScouter... I see you've been deemed a Senior Forum Member... it's a shame many of those posts were spent repeating yourself to those that just keep missing the point! )(This message has been edited by tjhammer)(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

At the risk of allowing this thread to go off topic ("The issue is religion"), I think that this particular offshoot is also at the fundamental aspect of this issue and most relisgious people would abandon the religious principle if they were to conclude homosexuality is innate...

eisley, do you consider heterosexuality a "behavior"? Or are you specifically just referring to some of the behavior traits commonly perceived with homosexuality (promiscuous, etc) and not homosexuality itself? I don't believe homosexuality is a lifestyle, I believe it is a life. Not one single gay that I have met indicated ever remembering a choice they made to "become gay", so conflicting science aside, I think I'll side with the folks who have said "it's just who I am from the earliest days of my recollection"... that seems awfully innate.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

While I agree with Bob White that Scouting is only as good as your last meeting or campout, I also want to second the idea of cozying up to Madison Avenue. BSA Inc. has practically no public relations or marketing skills... it's as if they've been stuck in pre-1960's ways of promoting their organization (and have ignored, for the most part, the mass media age). For the life of me I have never figured out why we didn't really use our resources to package high-impact and repetitive "spins". If I ever donate a million bucks to Scouting, I think I'd be torn between earmarking in for perpetual camperships or for marketing.

When you've had the likes of Spielberg as an Eagle and national resource (though hes stepped down while he waits for the BSA to correct its gay ban) it just seems like you've not been using your resources as well as you could to enhance the image of Scouting. Mass corporations have used product placement in movies for years, but BSA has been content to allow Hollywood to define Scouting characters in its own way, or not at all (with the exception of Spielberg's Indiana Jones, Scouting characters are rarely flattering). Is a forty year old Follow Me Boys (whose rare Disney replays still cause media desperate Scouters to huddle to Nick at Night just to catch a glimpse of something resembling Scouting) really the best we can do to present the real value of Scouting?

Weve done a few decent TV spots and magazine ads (way too few, given our resources), but theyve not gotten much play time. I also suppose that the Madison Avenue approach is made difficult because Scouting would still most likely have to pay for its Super Bowl slot or magazine ad... Scouting's not as politically correct as the Boys Club, etc, and so media is less likely to be comped to Scouting as a PSA.

Put another way, NJ, you and I view Scouting as being politicized by one church (I say only one, because only one has threatened to abandon Scouting if the policy is changed). Opponents of our view believe it's just the opposite, that it is those churches and others that want to eliminate the ban that are "politicizing" the BSA.

I've been debating this issue on this board for nearly three months now, and I dont think I have influenced a single person who supports Scouting's policy with the logic that I've presented, which really reinforces in my mind how fundamental of a religious issue this is... it seems that those relating to the "majority" don't want to be confused with the facts, and can not accept that the BSA is violating its own Declaration of Religious Principles. It is a blind approach that tolerates other religious views only until they deviate from their own, but few will honestly admit that. It is also a view that says it's OK to violate the rights of other religions, just so long as my own religious rights are protected.

I do also agree (and think anyone who does not is simply being disingenuous) that this issue is ALL ABOUT religion, despite a few peoples attempted claim otherwise.

You have to recognize that Scouting has always been politicized by Churches. In the early days, the Catholic Church strongly opposed Scouting and its use, because it viewed the movement as largely a Protestant outreach (a YMCA program). It was years before the Catholic Church recognized that the aims of Scouting were not necessarily synonymous with Protestants, and began to welcome it into their religion.

The BSA, from its very earliest days, used Churches to grow its program, and the Churches used Scouting in a symbiotic way to reach out to young people. It was a decidedly different approach than B-P and the British Scouting Association.

The BSA, not B-P, added "reverent" to it's Scout Law, and modeled the Scout Oath ("physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight") almost exclusively on YMCA/Protestant mantra ("body, mind and spirit"). This was a calculated move by Boyce and the early founders of BSA in order to create a program that would grow through COs, the primary path of which to would be Churches. And while even in those early days BSA was claiming to be completely non-sectarian, it was in fact pandering to different religions in order to get what it wanted (faster growth over competing programs like Wood Craft, etc). And because of this, throughout the history of Scouting we've had to allow the organization to be a pawn played by religions against each other.

I've said it before, but it's just so unfortunate that B-P's glorious game of Scouting has to be caught up in the politics and preferences of religious institutions who's own bedrock values are prone to change (the one church that's threatening to abandon Scouting and has such an ardent opposition to gays is the same church that didn't accept black members until the late 70s). Scouting really should rise above all of that, and leave the religious teachings to the parents and Churches. It couldn't do that in 1910, and judging by how resistent to hearing any other view our opposition has been, I worry that it won't be able to do it today.

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

Bob, I imagine that we agree on more than we disagree on. I hope that doesnt frighten you. Respectfully, I think you've received my critique of BSA Inc. and my desire to see a specific change in policy as somehow a betrayal of Scouting. Quite the contrary, I believe that BSA Inc. is betraying Scouting through this policy, and Im trying to convince you and others of this fact. You and I both strongly oppose the outside pressures of activist groups and courts, and believe that we should have the right to self-determination as an organization.

This whole off shoot over professional Scouting is a bit remarkable to me, too. The only reason I brought up Critical Achievements and an over emphasis on count numbers, to the exclusion of other things, was by way of explaining how we became a "numbers driven organization". Trust me, you and I are in complete agreement on the role of a volunteer and their responsibilities to the program. The only real area of disagreement between you and I on that subject has been a differing perspective between how things are suppose to function (of which we agree) and how things actually function (of which we disagree).

Because Learning for Life is not the glorious game of Scouting invented by B-P and is yet another attempt by the BSA to inflate it's numbers through a watered down, semi-related program, often based in classrooms.

there are others who are not welcome to join scouts as boys - atheist boys are not welcome in scouting either - neither are liars, theives, or others whose actions or beliefs are not in line with the scout law and oathYou are correct on atheists being not welcome in Scouting, that's been a fact from the very early days, when we determined a Scout was reverent. That's been a "policy" that has been very clearly expressed and is fundamental to the Oath and Law and is really not open to misunderstanding or interpretation.

As for Scouting banning liars, etc... you are wrong. There's no specific national policy that automatically rejects members who lie or steal. The expulsion of those members is left up to the local parents, leaders and CO to be handled on a case by case basis, factoring all the circumstances. And while I agree that liars and theives as a rule are not conducive with Scouting, there are obvious exceptions to those rules, and we've got a good mechanism for dealing with those (local control). I suggest no less of a mechanism for dealing with gay Scouts and leaders. See, here is a fundamental difference of opinion... I do not view a gay Scout as any less moral than a heterosexual Scout. I also believe that both gay and heterosexual leaders can be bad role models, and there is already a mechanism for dealing with them on a case by case basis. No it doesn't - it says that avowed homosexuals are not appropriate role models for scouts - nothing moreUnfortunately, the subtlties of that message are unclear, as is the policy itself. I assure you that the Eagle Scout who killed Matthew Shepard thought he was killing a lesser human, and it's unfortunate that Scouting reinforces that idea, even if just in a small way.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

(I have no idea why Scouts Canada's membership is dropping... I know nothing about their Total Available Youth or any other possible causes... I do know that their acceptance of gays is not particulalry new, and like the British Scouting Association and most of the world, there's never really been a "ban" to overturn.)

Bob, I have not said that the drop in membership (for the first time in more than 20 years) was conclusively linked to Scouting's very public battle... I just said that it coincides with the timing of that battle (1998 through 2001), and I observed that younger parents may be supporting Scouting less than those with prior experience with the program. It certainly could be coincidental, but I have not yet heard another reasonable explanations.

Frankly, I believe Scouting's membership statistics are a complete embarrassment, and not just because we're slipping a little bit. We should be serving many, many more kids than we have been, and we should be retaining more kids for sure. The turn over rate in Scouting is high, and to maintain the membership at 3.3 million or there about, we have to rely on a huge number of new recruits every year. We brag about how our membership has climbed steady for twenty years, but in reality I wonder if it has even outpaced the population of available youth. Scouting does a poor job (and has, long before the public battle over banning gays) of getting its point across to those outside our organization. We're the finest youth development program in the world; we teach leadership, citizenship, character, personal reliance and a host of values and we do it better than any other group in America. Yet we can never manage to keep the attention of the majority of our current members or reach out to the vast population that doesn't even consider Scouting. (And Bob, before you respond and say that's not true in your unit, or your neighborhood, realize this is not a personal attack on you, just a fact, and it's supported by the numbers. And before we say "well, Scouting's just not for all kids"... surely we can agree that it ought to be for at least a much higher percentage of kids than we reach right now.) We should all be ashamed out how poorly we attract and maintain membership (the "success" we claim now is just not good enough, by any stretch of the imagination).

I'm very uncomfortable arguing about membership statistics and using that as a justification for correcting the wrong policy. Frankly, those that support the policy have wrapped themselves in a "well, Scouting's just as strong financially and in headcount as before" position, and I wanted to at least show the real facts dont support that.

However, wrong is wrong, regardless of what membership statistics tell us. The BSA policy to kick out kids and adults who avow that they are gay is harmful to Scouts. It tells a Scout who is gay (or is coming to grips with this fact) that he's the only type of human that BSA feels necessary to have a specific national expulsion for.

It also tells the millions of boys in the program that it's OK to discriminate against gays (I know I said this before, but we should all agree that sometimes kid don't understand the nuances of what we say and do, just the underlying message). Did you know that one of the two killers of Mathew Shephard, the boy brutally beaten in Wyoming a few years ago that got so much national attention, was in fact an Eagle Scout? Is the BSA policy teaching our kids to hate gays so much that we encourage brutal murder? No, of course not, but it is teaching that some degree of viewing gay kids as second class citizens is acceptable, and it can be a slippery slope to more profound hatred.

So, we can continue to review the membership statistics (which regardless of their linkage to this gay policy or not I think are worthy of concern). And we can explore all sorts of suspected causes. But in the end, I feel no more comfortable hiding behind a drop in numbers as reason for correcting a wrong policy than I am in allowing others to hide behind an increase in numbers as justification for maintaining that policy.

Well, I can not disagree with the fact thatScouting should reach out more to minorities. I'm not sure that's the culprit for drop in membership, because Scouting launched an aggressive inner-city out reach nationaly in the later part of the last decade. So they're already trying to reach out more, and while I'm not sure how successful those efforts have been, I don't think we can blame our lack of action in that arena as why TAY is outpacing Scouting membership.

This was originally a post buried in a separate thread. However, I think the topic (membership slipping) is signficant enough on its own that I wanted to start an off shoot thread. Many of you have questioned why this debate over Scoutings gay policy is relevant... here's yet another answer to that question.

I've done some further research now, and can expound on the 1996 statistics I first provided...

Scouting enjoyed about twenty years of consistent membership growth following the Vietnam War through 1997.

The growth in membership started to slow in 1998 and worsened again in 1999. In 2001, for the first time in more than two decades, membership actually decreased (though this fact is very hard to find, it is in annual reports).

2001 Membership--------Members------------Units

Cub Scouts.............. Lost -3.6% ....... Lost -1.6%

Boy Scouts.............. Lost -1.2% ....... Lost -1.2%

The changes above are the loss of members in just one year, from 2000 to 2001. But the pattern since 1998 coincides with Scouting's very public battle against avowed gays, and while no survey or poll is likely to conclusively prove a corollary, I would ask if anyone can come up with another possible explanation.

The decline last year and slowed growth since 1998 has happened despite an increase in Total Available Youth (TAY) that could have joined the program, according to the US Census.

I suppose BSA Inc. looks at the slight loss (if you can call 1% to 3% in a single year slight) and considers it better than losing the 12.7% represented by the Mormon Church (behind the gay policy) when they abandon Scouting (I wonder if that's inevitable or just an idle threat, regardless of what BSA Inc. does on this policy).

I personally believe we're lucky, and the only reason the membership is holding steady (or slightly slipping) is because of the continued support of people who know the real value of Scouting.

I worry that the most important demographic out there should be the young parents of kids approaching the age of five, who have had no prior contact with Scouting and only know it from its positions in the news on discriminating against gays. Difference of opinion on the morality of homosexuality is very generational; you can assume that many of the young families that will be BSA Inc.'s market of the future don't agree with BSA on this issue, and without any other knowledge of the value of Scouting, I am greatly concerned that membership trends could turn dramatically south over the next five to ten years (are we already seeing this in the loss of so many more Cub Scouts than Boy Scouts in 2001?). And undoing that public image will take decades to repair.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

Bob, we'll just have to agree to disagree on which of us really understand how Scouting works. I'm pretty comfortable that my knowledge is "deep and wide", as they say. I've been to national committee meetings and I personally know past members of the national executive board. I do thank you for at least acknowledging that I'm not some radical outside activist trying to destroy Scouting, which has been suggested here by others to my dismay.

I can not stress enough however... I have never said that I have little need for professionals or that the organization would benfit from doing away with them (ref: my comment that national may become chaos but Bob's neighborhood Movement would survive). I have said that the way we measure and reward professionals is a problem, and correlates to the way we value numbers over program and principle.

And as for Green Bar Bill... he spent his life arguing against the boypower, manpower philosophy of valuing M&Ms (Money and Membership) without valuing Program... I remember a speech he gave at our OA lodge banquet where he said "I've always argued that there are 3 Ms, not two, and the third is "margorP".

I finally, for the Chief Scout Exec to say that we would "revist" (call it what you want, it's still indicating that they define morality and principle by the number of folks that support them or at least don't oppose them) is all the signal you need that it boils down to numbers.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

I've done some further research now, and can expound on the 1996 statistics I first provided...

Scouting enjoyed about twenty years of consistent membership growth following the Vietnam War through 1997.

The growth in membership started to slow in 1998 and worsened again in 1999. In 2001, for the first time in more than two decades, membership actually decreased (though this fact is very hard to find, it is in annual reports).

2001 Membership--------Members------------Units

Cub Scouts.............. Lost -3.6% ....... Lost -1.6%

Boy Scouts.............. Lost -1.2% ....... Lost -1.2%

The changes above are the loss of members in just one year, from 2000 to 2001. But the pattern since 1998 coincides with Scouting's very public battle against avowed gays, and while no survey or poll is likely to conclusively prove a corollary, I would ask if anyone can come up with another possible explanation.

This decline in membership also happens to have occurred despite the Mormon Church increasing their membership since 1996 by 7% (number of units) and 3.6% (number of boys). The decline last year and slowed growth since 1998 has also happened despite an increase in Total Available Youth (TAY) that could have joined the program, according to the US Census.

I suppose BSA Inc. looks at the slight loss (if you can call 1% to 3% in a single year slight) and considers it better than losing the 12.7% represented by the Mormon Church when they abandon Scouting. I personally believe we're lucky, and the only reason the membership is holding steady (or slightly slipping) is because of the continued support of people who know the real value of Scouting.

I worry that the most important demographic out there should be the young parents of kids approaching the age of five, who have had no prior contact with Scouting and only know it from its positions in the news on discriminating against gays. Difference of opinion on the morality of homosexuality is very generational; you can assume that many of the young families that will be BSA Inc.'s market of the future don't agree with BSA on this issue, and without any other knowledge of the value of Scouting, I am greatly concerned that membership trends could turn dramatically south over the next five to ten years (are we already seeing this in the loss of so many more Cub Scouts than Boy Scouts in 2001?). And undoing that public image will take decades to repair.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

I will, however, provide the quote, in context, that your requested. I know that he was also quoted saying something pretty similar in a Rotarian magazine I think... but can't find that right now. I note that these rare public remarks were made shortly after the Supreme Court decision, and I suspect that this kind of candor has not been uttered much in public since.National leader of Scouts says group's future is bright Roy Williams says his organization will continue to thrive despite its controversial ban on gays

Sunday, September 10, 2000

By Janie Har of The Oregonian staff

The future of the Boy Scouts of America is brighter than ever, said Roy Williams, the nation's top Scouting executive, during a visit to Oregon on Saturday.

"We're in the best shape financially we've ever been," Williams said. Nationwide, the organization's 320 councils have a total budget of "almost half a billion dollars."

Williams, who was in Oregon to lead the evening ceremony for "Scoutrageous 2000," responded to the controversy surrounding the group ever since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that the Scouts could legally exclude gays. That decision prompted a number of private companies, public agencies and a dozen United Way chapters nationwide to pull, or to consider pulling, funding and other support from the Scouts.

In Oregon, a group of board members of the United Way of the Columbia-Willamette chapter are pushing for a new anti-discrimination policy, which could end the chapter's donations to the Scouts. The chapter contributed $252,000 this year to the Cascade Pacific Council of the Boy Scouts of America.

Williams said he doesn't know much about the local United Way debate. But he said the issue of banning gays from Scouts is not new. The Boy Scouts of America has been defending the ban for 20 years, he said. And in that time, the Scouts have continued to thrive.

The group has attracted 100,000 new recruits each year for the past several years, Williams said.

Not that the controversy has been easy.

"Obviously, we're concerned when people call you names and things like that," said Williams, who became chief executive June 1. "That's never pleasant. But I guess it comes with the territory when you take a stand and have a set of values people can take a shot at."

The "single most important person" in this controversy is the parent, he said.

"They chose Scouting to help their children be better people, and when they start walking away from us, that's the signal to tell us to revisit the issue," he said.

"I don't see that on the horizon."It's unfortunate that we aren't following Roy's advice and leaving this decision as close to the parents as possible (local control). And as has been commented in other threads, for him to say that continued participation in Scouting signifies endorsement of this policy is intellectually dishonest and tries to argue that the only signficant value offered by Scouting is a safe haven from gays.

Bob, I sense that you're a very good man and a genuine asset to Scouting. I'm going to drop this specific debate with you, because I feel like you can not accept that my criticism of the way we measure a reward professionals, the way we rely on numbers at a national level to influence our principles, and the way that we allow a few of our chartering organizations to impose their values upon us.... I'm sorry, but I feel you can not hear those remarks without believing that it's an attack against you personally and your role in Scouting. And sense I have come to respect your contribution to this forum and your contribution to Scouting, I have no desire to debate this further with you. Can we just agree that we have different perspectives and understandings about how BSA Inc. is run?

Paraphrase: The ORGANIZATION and the MOVEMENT are one in the sameI couldn't disagree more with this thought. The BSA organization, with it's headquarters, it's 6,000 professionals, its 327 councils and field service staff could all disappear tomorrow, and Scouting would live on in your troop, Bob. True, it would be chaos nationally, but the great game of Scouting created by B-P doesn't take much support to be successful in a neighborhood.

Bob, I'm sorry you feel my understandings of the inner mechanisms of the BSA are shallow... I assure you they are anything but. I know how things are suppose to work, and I also know how they really work. I don't ignore the role of volunteers in Scouting, and celebrate the contributions made by us volunteers.

The fact of the matter is the BSA is the only member of the World Organization of Scout Movements that has a professional Scouting infrastructure like we do (that's one out of 147 countries). In fact, you'll find many quotes from B-P criticizing the BSA's emphasis on professional Scouting and he even said late in life that his distaste for the "organizational traits" of how structured the BSA was becoming had a lot to do with why he didn't visit the USA as often. Now, some would say (and I'm not sure I would disagree) that the reason the BSA is so structured, successful and constitute roughly 20% of the 16 million member worldwide WOSM is precisely because of our professional structure. It is certainly true that BSA beat out Wood Craft and many other competing programs in the early days because of our professional structure. It is also true that the United Way may not have every come to be (started by BSA and YMCA) if it were not for the BSA and our professionals. So I'm not against professional Scouters, I just think we do a poor job of measuring and rewarding their real contributions to the organization.

It was B-P's opinion, and my own, that professional Scouters are to be utilitarian only... essentially clerical and support staff for the volunteers that lead the organization. I suspect that you may even agree with that sentiment a bit, as your suggestions of how the system works seems to embrace an idealistic, symbiotic relationship like this. In reality, though, that's not entirely how the BSA actually functions.

Your suggestion that volunteers run the National program is also naive. While it is true that the National Executive Board and sub-committees are comprised of volunteers, it is also true that the vast majority of those folks are on those committees because of their position in life (money, successful business, etc), and not necessarily because they know much about Scouting in the field. Many of you already recognize this happens at the local council level sometimes, where council executive board members (while genuine and good hearted and entirely necessary) can be extremely insulated from the actual program of the units. This is not a blanket statement, but it is a common fact. And at the national executive board level, I would be so bold as to suggest that at least 75% (if not much higher) of the members have not seen the inside of a tent or worked with an SPL in decades, if at all. So to suggest that the folks "running" this program are just like you and me is far from true.

Bob, the whole point of this tread was to discuss whether Scouting -- thats the organization of Scouting that currently has this ban on letting avowed gay kids and adults be members (not a WOSM policy, to be sure) -- whether that organizations principles are swayed by numbers, like money and membership. To accept the plausibility of this fact, you have to acknowledge that YOU (Bob) are not the same as THEM (BSA, Inc.). BSA, Inc. is all about the numbers... that organization had a $57 million operating surplus in 1997 (the last year that their tax returns were actually made public, and yes, that's "operating surplus" not endowment income) and spends hundreds of millions to support a professional staff whos top Chief Executive was quoted as eseentially saying the BSA would have to reconsider its principles if the membership numbers were really impacted. It's the same "organization" that's affirming that policy under the threat of one single Church that has said it would abandon Scouting.

Come on, does much if this sound like it has to do with the Movement of Scouting that you share in your troop?

I don't know your scouting background back it I can say it isn't real strong when it comes to proper district operations or professional scouting.

To start with it's 3 M's, money, manpower, and membership, and even that terminology is outdated.Bob, the terminology may be dated (and there's good reason to phase it out), but the principles still permeate Critical Achievements.

I'm sure you're referring to the illustrious Boypower, Manpower programs of the 1970s. You are correct, that's where the motivation to focus on numbers really began, but it didn't end when that campaign became dated. There were a lot of bad ideas to come from the Boypower, Manpower days, and unfortunately many of those ideas are still lingering. Point in fact, all of the older Scout professionals that now serve in the higher ranks of regional and national Scouting were young pros in the 1970s, and got their entire basis for what makes a successful pro from the training and indoctrination they received back then. Slowly, those people are retiring from the organization, but the mentality remains.

This was not intended to become a "bashing on the pro Scouters" thread, and I hope all will read the first thread to understand how the discussion has evolved to its current stage. The question that was originally posed was how it's possible that Scouting principles are driven by numbers. You're all correct when you say that you don't see that much in your local troop program, because it has very little to do with local troop program.

Bob, I saw in another post you made that you invoked the name of Bill Hillcourt and his insistence that Scouting was a Movement, not an Organization. I couldn't possibly agree more, and if you note I often refer to the Movement of Scouting in my posts. The Movement of Scouting is worldwide, spans the generations and exists on so many levels. The Movement of Scouting is mostly what you practice and participate in with your troop. However, there is also an "organization"... that organization is headquartered in Irving, TX and has 327 councils, and is not always synonymous with the Movement. Whenever I disagree with Scouting (which at present I only have one disagreement, and everyone on this board knows what that is), I'm really only taking issue with the "organization" of Scouting, which in this particular case bears little resemblance to the "Movement".

Numbers don't influence the Movement of Scouting one bit. Numbers influence the Organization of Scouting completely.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

Let me preface all of this by stating: "In my opinion..."

I was raised in a Methodist Church, though occasionally we attended Baptist, Presbyterian and a local Christian Church. To tell the truth, I never noticed a single difference between any of them.

I do not attend any church regularly today... I'm not anti-church; really, I just find that organized religion has a lot of rotten apples in the barrel and does not draw me closer to God in any real way. I would consider myself Christian, in that I believe in the historical Christ as a martyr who made a sacrifice for the world, who taught the supreme lesson of "love one another" above all else and who stood up to the persecution of the world around him because he did not conform to the way that world believed or acted. I believe Christ is the most significant figure in the history of man, and worthy of my worship. I also believe in an afterlife, though I'm not certain what that is, I know it's closer to God than we are now... and I believe Christ lives on through that afterlife, so worshipping him is intellectually honest to me.

I'm certainly no Biblical scholar, but I reject most of the Old Testament as irrelevant... the precursor to Christianity. I also realize that a great many people have been persecuted in the name of the Old Testament, and more evil has been wrought on this world under the cover of that text than most any other. I don't accept the Bible as the infallible word of God, as much as man's interpretation of the word of God... I'm not sure how anyone could believe that and still allow the Bible to be translated, edited and made politically correct by publishing corporations over time (NIV evolving to replace "man" with non-gender specific "people", etc). I also don't know how anyone could believe the Bible to be infallible while at the same time honestly saying to Buddhists or Jews or Muslims or Mormons that they respect the fact that those folks use different "words of God" and that's OK.

Religion is a very personal thing... it's quite easy for intellectually or emotionally weak people to be manipulated into just about anything in the name of religion. I believe that, in this instance, the BSA organization has been intellectually and emotionally weak, and allowed zealots to force them into a position that is not consistent with the values of Scouting.

Would you find my religious beliefs to be inconsistent with a Scouts Duty to God and Reverence for Him?

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

(This is an off-shoot of another thread.)

Ask any district executive to honestly explain "Critical Achievements" to you... that's the checklist of their job performance and the sole basis upon which they are evaluated for promotion. Ask them to show you ONE component to Critical Achievements that measures their contribution to program... it's not really there. BSA professionals excel based on three things above all else: did you meet or exceed your fundraising goals (which are an increase over last years), did you increase the number of new units, and did you increase the number of registered members. Those three things, the infamous M&Ms (Money and Membership) dominate professional Scouting from the entry level of field service. True enough, measuring M&Ms is much easier than measuring a pros contribution to Scouting program.

Now, the standard response from professionals is that their real contribution to the program of Scouting is to "put the boy into Scouting so that others can put Scouting into the boy" (they learn that at PDL training, catchy). And I suppose that would be a good thing. But the problem is this: it's usually not the pros alone that start new units and recruit new members; and a HUGE percent of the money raised by the pros pays for the bureaucracy of paying to have pros.

Now, before you all come running to the defense of your local DE, let me say that none of this is intended to be an indictment or attack on specific professional Scouters, but rather an indictment of the system. We all know an awful lot of DEs that are very, very involved in the program of Scouting... they spend time planning Camporees, they hang out with local units, the run Day Camps and Advise OA lodges... but ask them how much of that contribution to the program of Scouting they're getting professional credit for in their Critical Achievements... the answer is not much.

If you're looking for the explanation of why Scouting is influenced by numbers (even at the highest levels of the organization), you need look no further that the Critical Achievements philosophy at the lowest levels of Scouting.