tjhammer

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.

 

(It seems to me this discussion has now wandered away from the original topic sufficiently to justify a new thread, so I'll cross post this to a new thread and hope that this part of the discussion can jump there.)

 

As far as my VAST posting on other topics. Welcome to America my friend. A free exchange of ideas is what we are all about.Bob, I think you misunderstood me. I was paying you a compliment, I respect the knowledge you have contributed to this forum, and the huge number of posts that you make indicate a willingness to help your fellow Scouters. I'm not sure why you suspected sarcasm in my remark. Yes tjhammer there really is a poll! "A Louis Harris poll found that 95% of U.S. parents want the Scouting program and its values for their children"Of course... that Louis Harris poll is fantastic, and has been used for years to prove the value of Scouting. I used to photo copy charts from it and hand out during recruitment. I encourage everyone to read it -- it probably was some of the best public relations data we have generated as an organization. But Bob, that data was not a poll on whether 95% of Americans thought Scouting should ban avowed gay Scouts. Come on, as I said in my previous post, just about everyone (except those that have threatened to abandon Scouting) agree that Scouting's value is not based in its exclusion of gay Scouts.no one and nothing in scouting has ever asked that you or I follow the teachings of the LDS Church... How come none of the national board members are screaming "foul" if they feel their input is overshadowed?I've already stated above that the Methodists have discussed inflating the number of units (notice, not necessarily members) so they could carry more influence in this specific debate (which they find themselves opposed to the Mormons on). I've been clear that many of the people that know the inner workings of the National Relationships Committee understand who controls that committee (largely the Mormons). This is the exact same fight that was had with the Mormons when they tried to block women Scout leaders (for years) and the age for Cub Scouts (both of which ended in compromise that allowed the Mormons to have different standards than the rest of the BSA, in effect, local control). If you disagree with all of these statements and still insist that the Mormon Church is not wielding any undue influence over Scouting, why don't you tell me where you think this BSA's policy DID come from?Why aren't more scouts leaving than joining if this were an LDS controlled organization?Because the ban on avowed gay kids and adults is one of the few broad ranging effects of LDS pressure and it's not felt by a majority of the organization. And because a lot of people sympathize with the LDS church on this issue (recent polls are showing the country is about evenly divided on homosexuality, Scouting members tending to be a bit more conservative on the average). And because most rational people believe Scouting's worth a whole lot more than just being a safe haven from associating with avowed gay kids and adults.Why aren't there more LDS youth members if the program was pushing LDS beliefs?Because they already have every boy Church member registered in Scouting, or at least they do until they decide to bail on Scouting and start their own internal program.I'm sorry but the whole thing smells of a red herring.Red herring? Heck no, I don't want to divert attention away from the flawed policy and damage it causes. I'm just trying to explain how the policy "became"... understanding that is fundamental to eventually correcting the situation. I do not begrudge the Mormons their right to a different belief on the morality of gay Scouts. I just dont like them dictating to me and other religions what the belief should be.

BobWhite... have you read any of this discussion that's already been had in either Why it's relevant... or Scouting's Real Gay Policy? I realize you did not contribute to those discussions (and I respect the VAST amount of your posts to this board that are made outside this debate), but most of the points you raise now were already covered there.I agree with the Supreme Court decision, which was about self-determination for the BSA, I just worry we'll die on the sword we picked to fight that battle (an inarticulate, vague and intellectually dishonest ban on avowed gays from being Scouts or Scout leaders).You're claim that 95% of America agree with the BSA on this policy is absurd, and no poll has ever shown that.You say that this policy has not affected our membership... well, I suppose that is yet to be seen, but I'm certain that it won't have a major effect because that vast majority of people (like me) recognize the real value of Scouting has nothing to do with banning gay Scouts; it seems really the only people who dont understand that are the LDS Church and the zealots who have drawn a line in the sand and said that they would abandon Scouting and all of its value if we stop agreeing with them on this one issueYou say I am welcome to disagree with Scouting values and I say that banning avowed gay Scouts is NOT a Scouting value... I embrace all Scouting values; I was raised by the Movement and teach those values to Scouts today.Stand on atheism.... Bob, I know you don't intend to equate homosexuality with atheism... obviously a fundamental tenant of Scouting is Reverence and Duty to God, and atheism is not acceptable in Scouting, but homosexuality has nothing to do with belief in or reverence for God... if it did, there would be an awful lot of Churches and very religious people who disagree with the BSA ban (and even said so in court briefs) that you would be linking to atheism.I am discriminating against LDS? No, Bob, I'm just not LDS. And I don't like the fact that their influence is being used to force me to adhere to their Church's beliefs.

It's actually a shame that BSA doesn't publish this information themselves. It seems that in recent years the membership details have become much harder to locate (I suppose there is a conspiracy theory in there somewhere). On the whole, membership data paints a pretty good picture... usually increasing our membership year after year, if only slightly. I suppose if I had a theory on why the information is becoming increasingly less public it would be a paranoia by that national professional staff that would fear showing ANY membership trends to the general public, good or bad. The Annual Reports of the (recent years of which are available on the BSA's web site at http://www.scouting.org/excomm/) seem to publish less info as the years go on, or they pick just a few statistics to emphasize (Cub Leader registration has gone up x%, etc). My own information from above was transcribed from a National Relationships Committee newsletter from 1996 highlighting the top 30 COs.

 

I would suggest that you MAY be able to receive this information by calling External Communications department at the BSA National Headquarters, but I'm doubtful that they will make it available to you.

 

OldGreyEagle said in another thread: Once again I refer to my comment, "I must be out of the loop". When did the LDS tell national that it had to make a rule no gay leaders? What documentation is used to support this claim? I am not disputing it, I just want to know where this information may be found as I am constanly reading things on this foum that I never knew (Thank you Scouter.COm for this forum)and these facts are presented in a manner that makes me feel I am the only one who doesnt know this stuff.

 

When is this stuff discussed? Not at any committee meeting I have been to or round table or even at the national jamboree have I heard this topic brought up by any adult leader. The only reference I hear to the no gay policy comes from scouts who usually tell me they dont understand why gays cant be leaders. Other than this forum, where do you guys discuss this subject? OGE, I think the fact that you (and all but a small few of the rest of the adult volunteers and parents in this organization) feel "out of the loop" is further indication of just how insular this ban on avowed gays is.

 

I have explained before, this is a policy that was born out of the National Relationships Committee. The recent affirmation of the policy from an "independent task force" was in fact made by a group appoint by the Nat Rel Committee (this national committee consist of representatives of the top COs in the country, which is strongly dominated by the LDS and other religions). They claimed the task force that recently affirmed this policy was a true representation of all of Scouting, consisting of parents, clergy, and leaders from a broad cross-section of America covering many geographic locations, religions, education levels, etc. They failed to emphasize that somehow they "achieved" this diversity with just 12 to 20 members on the "task force". And that those members were hand picked by the Committee that was seeking validation for their policy.

 

I would challenge you to find one Council Scout Executive, or one Council Board, or a Unit Committee, or any group for that matter beyond the National Relationships Committee that has officially contributed to the debate on this policy (the only examples you'll find are of councils, etc, that have come out AGAINST the policy). It's quite insular, indeed. Unfortunately, the recent strongly worded affirmation (the first really since the BSA fought the completely right but different battle in the Supreme Court for self-determination) now makes any eventual change in this policy seem like a major compromise of principle (and casts the nine major metro councils and others that are publicly campaign against this as "anti-Scouting").

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

Bob White said: I'm confused! Why is it that the LDS's representation is "skewed", when as a national sponsor it has the most units and the second most number of youth served? Who do you thing has the most Representatives in Congress, California or Rhode Island. If other organizations used scouting as completely as the LDS church they would have more representation.Im not sure its fair to say the LDS church "uses Scouting so completely"... they have a lot of units, but theyre awfully small by comparison to other COs. As you said yourself, representation on the National Relationships Committee (which is behind the current policy banning avowed gays and was behind the banning of women Scout leaders, etc) is influenced by the number of Scout units that a CO sponsors.

 

Your analogy of the way we determine congressional representation is a good one, and illustrates my point well. The Mormon Church represents only 12% of the BSA membership (less than the UMC), but more than 25% of the number of units (against the UMC 10%). Which CO is doing a better job of using Scouting?

 

This would be akin to Rhode Island having twice the congressional influence despite having fewer citizens. I think there's no doubt that statistically, the Mormon Church's influence over the BSA is skewed.

 

But the influence goes much further than just statistics... the Mormon Church more aggressively exercises their influence than most of the other COs... they're the primary driver behind this current policy.

 

The Methodist Church is much divided over homosexuality and specifically over the appropriateness of gay Scout leaders... major bodies within the Church filed opposing views before the Supreme Court, and the National Board of the Church has no official position either way. And while they have never threatened to abandon the Boy Scouts regardless of BSA policies, they have learned that they need to beef up their influence. I recall reading a statement about eight months ago from a group in the UMC (General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church?) that wanted to aggressively expand the number of Scout units they sponsored so they could have more of an influence over this BSA policy (which they opposed).

 

I think there's no doubt that the BSA is being influenced by numbers (numbers of units and money associated mostly). As mentioned before, the Chief Scout Executives comment that the BSA would have to reconsider it's policy if it started to see a significant drop in membership because of it speaks volumes, and frankly is a disconcerting position for what is supposed to be "all about morality".

Bob, I'll respond on the other thread, where this subject is more appropriately discussed. The original purpose of this current thread is to explain why debate over Scouting's ban on avowed gays is so relevant and worth discussing.

As you see in the other post, it is more accurate to say that the Mormon Church constitutes 25% of the BSA units, not 35% as I previously stated. Regretably, their influence is skewed by a large number of small units.

CubsRgr8:

 

Sorry, I know you asked for this information before, and then I got distracted with work for the past two weeks. Let me give you the info I have most handy right now, which unfortunately is from 1996. I am compiling additional information for more recent years.

 

 

 

 

Chartering Organization

 

1996 No. of Youth

1996 No. of Units

% of Total BSA

Units

% of Total BSA

Members

Avg Size of Unit

 

 

United Methodist Churches

407,243

11,587

10.25%

13.00%

35.1

 

 

LDS Churches

397,824

29,315

25.92%

12.70%

13.6

 

 

Public Schools

396,126

11,163

9.87%

12.65%

35.5

 

 

Roman Catholic Churches

344,063

9,590

8.48%

10.99%

35.9

 

 

Parents Clubs in Schools

186,032

4,032

3.57%

5.94%

46.1

 

 

Lutheran Churches

146,390

4,340

3.84%

4.67%

33.7

 

 

Presbyterian Churches

144,200

3,940

3.48%

4.60%

36.6

 

 

Parent Teacher Association

110,952

2,229

1.97%

3.54%

49.8

 

 

Baptist Churches

108,584

4,799

4.24%

3.47%

22.6

 

 

Lions International

106,359

3,248

2.87%

3.40%

32.7

 

 

Industry/Business

76,864

3,478

3.08%

2.45%

22.1

 

 

American Legion

75,449

2,482

2.19%

2.41%

30.4

 

 

Fire Services

71,488

3,400

3.01%

2.28%

21.0

 

 

Law Enforcement

56,097

3,160

2.79%

1.79%

17.8

 

 

United Church of Christ

51,899

1,448

1.28%

1.66%

35.8

 

 

Rotary International

51,752

1,443

1.28%

1.65%

35.9

 

 

Kiwanis International

48,349

1,349

1.19%

1.54%

35.8

 

 

Episcopal Church

48,314

1,374

1.21%

1.54%

35.2

 

 

Hospitals, Clinics

46,381

1,378

1.22%

1.48%

33.7

 

 

Veterans of Foreign Wars

40,319

1,225

1.08%

1.29%

32.9

 

 

Christian Church (DOC)

36,058

1,094

0.97%

1.15%

33.0

 

 

Private Schools

33,227

1,280

1.13%

1.06%

26.0

 

 

Elks Lodges, BPOE

29,644

871

0.77%

0.95%

34.0

 

 

Community Centers

26,489

1,216

1.08%

0.85%

21.8

 

 

Housing Authority (H.U.D.)

19,642

1,164

1.03%

0.63%

16.9

 

 

Optimist International

17,316

440

0.39%

0.55%

39.4

 

 

Camps, Parks, Recreation

14,714

748

0.66%

0.47%

19.7

 

 

Homeowners Associations

14,056

428

0.38%

0.45%

32.8

 

 

Church of Christ

13,208

465

0.41%

0.42%

28.4

 

 

Loyal Order of Moose

12,624

408

0.36%

0.40%

30.9

 

As a Scouter, regardless of my position on this specific issue, I would caution you to be very careful about supporting a site like the one above. I do not know much about it, but it does not have the BSA's blessing, it is collecting cash donations and is operating as its own non-profit entity with an implied (but not regulated) mission that the money you donate to it will be used to support Scouting and fight against gays. I think the BSA and I would both argue your money is better served donated directly to Scouting.

 

 

Quixote, the observation that was made by one of the briefs filed before the Supreme Court that even some clergy within the SBC were gay was I think made to show just how far reaching disagreement is on this issue. It appears there is even some disagreement within your Church. I think more relevant than that, though, is the larger explaination of other major religions and sects within them that are on disagreement.

 

This is at the heart of my entire point, first raised some time ago: you and I disagree on the morality of homosexuality. I do not begrudge you your beliefs, nor should you begrudge me of mine. I just do not believe that an organization so large, and so spread throughout society as the BSA should have a policy like this. I believe that there is but one real viable choice, and that is to follow the same path we chose on the issue of women in Socuting and the age of Cub Scouts (explained above) and make this a matter for the local chartering partner to decide, leaving this decision as close to the parents of the child as possible.

 

Evmori, from one of my earliest posts:Amicus briefs (filed with the Supreme Court) in opposition to the BSA policy were submitted or joined by the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, The Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and the Unitarian Universalist Association. One brief noted that even some individual churches within the Southern Baptist Convention have ordained gay clergy.

 

Do you believe all of those folks to be mistaken Christians too? Or just me?

 

>Secular v non-secular.

 

Sorry, if I fire off my responses without slowing to type that's what you get. Yes, my point from the very beginning (and still) is that the BSA is secular (not relating to any specific religion) group.

 

>singled out Christian conservatives as having a moral agenda? Why

>haven't they included Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and all of the other

>faiths that disapprove of homosexuality? Perhaps Christians (being a majority in this >country) have spoken up more than others.

 

Rooster, you slide between the term Christian Conservative and just Christian. I do not believe that those two are all that similar, and certainly not the same. I myself am a Christian, though I am often repulsed by the views, statements and actions or the decidedly more conservative Christian sect (like Falwell, Robertson, etc). Specific to this conversation, I believe the Mormon Church is far more conservative than the majority of Christians in this country, and it is that Conservative Christian element that exerts too much control over the BSA.

 

>Regardless, their views on this issue among faiths are hardly that of a minority.

>Most of the world's major faiths disapprove of homosexuality.

 

Thats not entirely true. As weve cited before, major churches filed briefs against the BSAs position in the Supreme Court. And even within some other religions (like Methodist) there is considerable disagreement.

 

Well, I am a little closer to the "inside" than some; I've stated here before that I have been participating in high level debates on this subject for a while. And it interests me enough to make me want to understand it completely.

 

But the information I cite is not exactly secret. The BSA actually explained the National Relationship Committee in their recent press releases. They don't go so far as explaining the dynamics of that group, though.

 

As for the pressure excerted by the Mormon Church, you can find that clearly outlined in the Supreme Court case and briefs filed by the Church. As for the statement that the BSA is controlled by "money" and "members", you need look no further than your friendly local professional Scouter and ask him whether his Critical Achievements (those things he's measured on to determine whether he is doing a good job as a pro) measure his role in the "program" side of Scouting or the money he has raised and new units/members he has recurited.

 

 

>Hmm. If I defend my faith here, will I be accused as being unScoutlike?

 

Rooster, I think you have plenty of latitude to defend your faith and your point of view without becoming unScoutlike. You've done a fine job of that to this point. I'm sure your message was a direct response to the recent removal of DedDad from these boards, but I think I can speak for most everyone here (except maybe you and one or two others), DedDad went way beyond "defending his faith". In fact, he never really claimed to be "defending his faith"... he avoided as best he could the inclusion of religion or God in arguing his point of view, which I feel was disingenuous. At least you have always been honest about what motivated your point of view.

 

>Implying that some concerted right wing conspiracy is at work crafting the

>policies of the BSA, leads me to think that someone is looking for black helicopters.

 

Guys, there's not really ANY doubt that this is the case. Whether it should be the case can be argued maybe. We've been through this part of the debate already, buy to summarize: the National Relationships Committee, which is the committee of representatives of the major chartering partners, is dominated by the Mormon and Catholic Church. When the Mormon Church made Scouting its primary boy program, they became the largest group within Scouting (by a landslide). The National Relationships Committee is the behind the BSA's ban on gay Scout leaders, and it was under specific threat from the Mormon Church that they would pull out all of their members (about 35% of the BSA) if the BSA changed their policy. The recent "affirmation" of the BSA policy was prompted by a "task force" of 12 to 20 members (all appointed by the National Relationships Committee).

 

This is the exact same process that we went through in years past: women were not allowed to be Scout leaders, largely blocked by the Mormon Church and the National Relationships Committee. It was not until the BSA said to the Mormons that they could set their own special rules to block women in leadership rules that they gave in to the pressure and allowed a change in that policy. A similar process also happened regarding the age of Cub Scouts, and the Mormons finally conceded when they were, once again, allowed their own rules.

 

There is no doubt that the BSA is controlled by money and members, and the Mormon Church controls both.

 

Suggesting that Christian conservatives are in the driver seat with the BSA is NOT an attack on Christian conservatives (thus I find the calls to "defend the faith" a bit extreme). Making such a statement is not necessarily an indictment of Christian conservative beliefs... I have simply maintained from the beginning that it is wrong for any secular belief structure to control the BSA, a decidedly non-secular institution.

 

I wish to apologize to members of this forum for allowing myself to "get personal". I have tried my best to remain on the issues of the debate; I believe the issues require intellectual thought, analysis and honest conversation. I also recognize that this is usually a debate between well-intentioned, honest Scouters that simply disagree on the issues.

 

It seems that I have allowed myself to be baited into little more than a bickering contest between personalities, and I regret that I took the bait.

 

 

Amazing. Talk about arguing over "what your definition of 'is' is"... the only response I feel appropriate is this:I stand by every characterization I have made of any of your statements, and any time I have restated them without using the exact words you use, I have still done so without materially changing your actual position. I didn't leave anything "unaddressed"... we completely discussed this in previous threads. You've really got some nerve hurling your accusations and name calling.

What in the world are you talking about?

OGE, that's always been one of my favorites. It's a valuable lesson that what we do is for those that follow.

 

One of my other favorites:Author Unknown: I awoke early, as I often did, just before sunrise, to walk by the ocean's edge and greet the new day.

 

As I moved through the morning dawn, I focused on a faint, far away motion.

 

I saw a youth, bending and reaching and flailing arms, dancing on the beach, no doubt in celebration of the perfect day soon to begin.

 

As I approached, I realized that the youth was not dancing to the bay, but rather bending to sift through the debris left by the night's tide, stopping now and then to pick up starfish and then standing, to heave it back into the sea.

 

I asked the youth the purpose of the effort. "The tide has washed the starfish onto the beach and they cannot return to the sea by themselves," the youth replied. "When the sun rises, they will die, unless I throw them back into the sea."

 

As the youth explained, I surveyed the vast expanse of beach, stretching in both directions beyond eyesight. Starfish littered the shore in numbers beyond calculation. The hopelessness of the youth's plan became clear to me and I countered, "But there are more starfish on this beach than you can ever save before the sun is up. Surely you cannot expect to make a difference."

 

The youth paused briefly to consider my words, bent to pick up a starfish and threw it as far as possible. Turning to me he simply said,

 

"I made a difference to that ONE."

 

I'll take my response about why this debate is so relevant to a new thread. That's an important enough discussion as to not bury in this current thread.

Respectfully, Feathers, Eagle90, and others that just want this topic to go away:

 

You live in a vacuum. Either you feel this is just too difficult of an issue to deal with, or, more likely, you just don't see it as relevant. Perhaps youve never encountered a Scout in crisis because hes coming to terms with his sexuality under the shadow of the BSA policy. Perhaps youve never known a great Scout leader, who grew up in the organization, became an Eagle Scout and spent several years as a recognize quality leader only to receive a letter from Scouting banning him because word got out that he was gay and had formed a lifelong commitment to a partner. Ive experienced both (and no DedDad, neither of the two people Im describing are me).

 

But the truth is this is an issue that has great relevance to Scouting. It is an issue that, seemingly overnight, has become synonymous with Scouting to many non-Scouting people. (Remember when we used to lament over the fact that our public image was one of helping little old ladies across the street and a refuge for nerdy kids, when in fact that was very far from the truth? Now we've replaced that public image with this one.)

 

And lest I be accused of pandering only to public opinion (the "what do we care what others think of us" mentality), the real damage that is caused by this policy is that we're teaching 4 million kids right now a very dangerous lesson. We're saying to them (some of whom are mostly definitely gay themselves) that a gay child or adult is the ONE thing we have no tolerance for in Scouting; that we consider gay kids and adults to be of such little worth that we don't want them in our organization. We're also saying to them that it is OK to act this way against gays (I'm quite certain that we can all agree kids don't always understand the intricacies of our policy, they often just see the overlying message.)

 

Perhaps the lesson we're sending to our kids is, even if you disagree with something, it's best to avoid voicing your debate for fear of offending or boring the people who think differently. And if you really disagree with something, well then by all means be quiet for fear of being labeled a radical... no one could possibly be so passionate about any subject without being an extremist.

 

Simply amazing. In more than 60 posts on this subject on this forum, I have never once resorted to a personal attack; that's pretty much all that I have come to expect from DedDad. All I have EVER argued is the logic of this debate. This thread marks the first divergence from that practice (hmmm, that must be why some think it's so wrong, because it is a perversion of my previous debate style).

 

Rooster, nearly your entire post could be directed right back at you and DedDad.

 

>They do not argue for or against any specific statements using logic.

 

Where is the logic in the arguments you have put forward? Forgive me for oversimplifying (but not misrepresenting) your basic positions: DedDad's "logic" is based completely on one premise, that gay = perversion and perversion = immoral. Though when pressed, there is no "logical" defense offered by him of these leaps. Rooster's "logic" is based completely on one premise (which I do give him credit for stating), that gays are immoral because his religion has taught him that. I have consistently limited every post I have made to only debate this issue on logic.

 

>Instead, they paint a very ugly picture of the author, their opposition.

>This is a much easier, and sometimes a very effective way to counter an

>opposing argument that has intellectual merit.

 

Again, until this thread, this is a tactic that has been used solely by DedDad, Rooster and some others on that side of the debate.

 

>Personally, I would shy away from some of the graphic depictions

 

Wow, in this and another post I'm now being blamed for being too graphic because I used DedDad's words in my subject line. Simply amazing.

 

>While DD has a very blunt debating style, I have not seen him lash

>out at any individual unless he felt he was unfairly treated.

 

That's pretty much all DedDad has ever done in his posts, I'm surprised you have missed that.

 

>TJ and NJ... time and time again, they prefer to attack the person than

>address the question. They rather make inferences about a person's

>character than state facts.

 

Again, amazingly hypocritical. Outside of this current threat, please show the "time and time again" examples of where I have attacked my opponents character. I've limited my debate only to the inconsistencies, illogic or fairness of the policy and arguments made in support thereof.

 

>When they do use logic, it is usually employed to counter a

>straw man argument. Misrepresenting DD's position is apparently one of

>their favorite pastimes.

 

>Arguing their position based on the merits of reasoning must not be winnable

 

Maybe now would be a good time for you to restate, just so we're all clear, what the merits of reasoning are in your debate. It seems, frankly, that you, Rooster, can not make your case without invoking your religious principles (and fair enough, I really, honestly, respect you for claiming such a basis, I just don't think that's a basis suitable for our entire organization). And DedDad's merits of reasoning have been to invoke (though only by stretching) B-P and Webster's dictionary.

 

 

>Guilt by association is more likely to be brought into play than any

>valid argument. Of course, it has all the honesty of a wooden nickel,

>but it can be effective. Apparently, TJ thinks all Christian conservatives

>support the Reverend Fred Phelps.

 

Wow. Rooster, guilt by association is the primary tactic of DedDad. That's pretty much the essence of this thread. If you are opposed to the BSA policy, then you must be a radical gay activist following an agenda of evil. If you are gay, then you are the same as someone who practices bestiality. These are his premises. For the first time in this debate, I have stood up and said "if I can be allowed the same hyperbole as DedDad" I would associate him with Fred Phelps. Suddenly, guilt by association is not a valid tactic.

 

>DD's debates are well thought out, employs sound reasoning, uses imagery that can

>be offensive, but above all else - is honest.

 

Hmmm. I wonder how many others can make that same statement with a straight face.

 

>I don't think you or TJ can say the same, because above all else - I

>find your debating style to be dishonest.

 

For over a month and through hundreds of posts we have debated this issue. The first time that I actually use the debate tactics of my opponents, I'm suddenly indicted for it. You don't see the hypocrisy in your response?

 

>completely inappropriate name tj chose for this thread

 

These were not my words; they were the mantra of DedDad through dozens of posts.

 

DedDad says:But really, lets talk about tactics, you have some memorable ones like 50% vote (I mean plurality) is a valid moral, trouble with telling the truth, plagiarizing gay sites for fun and profit in your spare time, murder is relative, and every bodies favorite Baden-Powell was gay!

 

Maybe I should start a stand-alone thread on your pro-perversion agenda; we havent even cracked the surface of your mistruths about BSA policy and the Supreme Court Case.

 

OK, here''s your chance to explain your attack. Let's not muddy up the other thread, but if you want to prove your point that I'm a liar, morally bankrupt, etc etc, here's the place for you (and any others that see it that way) to make their case.

 

A note to the moderator, I'm quite comfortable defending myself on this, and do not mind the "personalization" of the debate.

 

DedDad, you're a bully. Plain and simple. And if you ignore a bully, they never grow up. So I'm not going to ignore your bully tactics.

 

You think because you say something (particularly with flair and over and over) that it must be true. You've called me a liar (haven't we been through this before on this board, with you making the exact same attack and then failing to back it up?). Show where I have lied. Even once. If you can, Ill be happy to apologize. Until then, put up or shut up.

 

The only examples you have given thus far (and I assume the only ones you will come up with again) are where you feel that I have mischaracterized your statements. I stand by every characterization I have made of any of your statements, and any time I have restated them without using the exact words you use, I have still done so without materially changing your actual position.

 

You claim that I believe we should just follow whatever 51% of the world thinks. I've clearly, and repeatedly, said that it's not that simple. Yes, morality is relative. And yes, societies base their morals on a plurality of opinion. But I've explained many times before that it's a lot more complicated than just taking a vote.

 

You're still attacking me because I cut and paste a paragraph, all but the introductory and summary sentences of which was a quote by B-P, into a previous post. And you think that because I found this B-P quote in an article written by a gay writer on the very subject we've been debating somehow I'm just spewing (or lifting) the radical gay agenda that everyone who disagrees with you is pushing.

 

Murder is relative? Please, I'm not even going to justify that one with a response.

 

B-P might have been gay? Yes, I made that point, and said that there was considerable circumstantial evidence to support the case, and that three of the four most popular biographies on the great British war hero and founder of Scouting spend considerable time on the very possibility.

 

Pro-perversion agenda? I'm not sure which part of this I should argue. As I recall, the other threads have come to a halt while we wait for you to explain how you make your leap from gay = perversion and again from perversion = immoral. And "agenda"... thinking that everyone who thinks differently than you is somehow in a coordinated agenda to ruin the world is paranoid and naive.

 

I have said on several occasions that I find much of the radical gay activist's in this country to be silly. I think they are about as far out of the mainstream as you, and I dont consider myself to be any closer to their position than I am to yours.

 

mistruths about BSA policy and the Supreme Court Case -- Well, this is a new one. What mistruths about the BSA policy and Supreme Court Case? I have said on many occasions that I agree with the Supreme Court decision to allow us to decide our own standards. I provided a link to the court transcript and highlighted parts of it; I must have missed the part where I've been accused of misrepresenting it.

 

Stop trying to be a bully. It doesn't work, and it isn't very Scoutlike.

 

I feel very passionately that we are wrong as an organization, and that our policy is causing great damage to us and to the boys we are entrusted with. You believe diametrically the opposite. I have never challenged your right to believe that.

 

If you want to make things up about me, please explain them in great detail in this thread. Now's your chance. Let's not make this thread about anything BUT tjhammer's credibility, that way we can get back to the real debate.

 

DedDad, I have created a new thread for you, titled "Why tjhammer lacks any credibility". Like usual, you're trying to shift this current thread. I encourage you to take your debate to this new area, and I'll see ya there.

Let me be very clear, my first post was not intended as a personal attack on DedDad or anyone else. It was an observation about the style of debate used by him (and often you Rooster, and a few others). It was also an observation that what you so often state to be "the way it is" or "the way it ought to be" relies on a dangerous, slippery slope theory that simply isn't reality.

 

That said, this post will go a step further, and for the first time since I joined this board, I will actually use a little of that "moral equivalency" that DedDad relies on (hence, "bestiality, womens underwear and the slippery slope").

 

 

There is some deeper purpose to my thread, or direction that I expected it to go. Frankly, NJCubScouter and I agree on another thing: it is a good thing to have DedDad arguing so strongly against me on any issue; some people, I think, will rally to him and believe completely what he says. Many more people, I think, are simply disgusted by what and how he argues, and as a result they have difficulty "relating" to his point of view. It's sort of like saying "well, I don't know if Im comfortable allowing a gay Scout leader to take my boy camping, but I sure don't have the level of hate or fear that this other guy espouses". DedDad, I think, has a way of driving at least as many people away from his point of view as he does drawing people toward his point of view.

 

I have a friend who lives in Topeka, KS. Most of you probably don't know another infamous resident of that city. Reverend Fred Phelps and his "church" of followers are vehemently against homosexuality. Their tactic is extreme, by any measure. They're the group you often see in the news that shows up an funerals where a gay person has died with protest signs and bullhorns shouting "he's burning in hell now!". Their church's web site is www.GodHatesFags.com (I warn anyone reading, it's hardly worth your time to read the repulsive garbage at this web site, I only provide the link for those with a curiosity). For at least the last decade, they have wrapped themselves in the Leviticus Bible verse and used that to claim their moral ways.

 

DedDad immediately lumps anyone who believes the BSA is wrong in their position on gays into the same group: we're all radical gay activists, we're all morally bankrupt, or we are just horribly mislead and confused. If I were allowed the same hyperbole as DedDad, I would ask how far way from Reverend Fred Phelps is he? Isn't DedDads message the same, even if delivered slightly less offensively? How far away from cheering at someone's funeral is DedDad? Worse yet, how far away from that is the BSA?

 

Frankly, I'm not worried about DedDad's views, or Fred Phelp's views. They're entitled to see the world however they want. And I think both of them destroy their own credibility without need for too much help from others. Their extreme tactics are sometimes used by people even closer (slightly) to the mainstream; let's never forget Rev Falwell and Rev Pat Robertson blaming gays and liberals for the terrorist attack, and saying that God allowed it to happen because he hates how permissive we've become with gays. (Two days after the attacks on national television.)

 

And there in is really the biggest problem. Whatever the percentage of people inside Scouting that believe the current policy is correct, I think we can all (nearly) agree that very few of those folks can relate to DedDad, Rev Phelps or Rev Falwell's tactics or extreme view on the matter.

 

But as an organization, we're basically allowing that faction to speak for us. Arguably, those of us who oppose the policy should be happy that the other side can not string together a consistent, intellectual argument without using name calling, scare tactics and the slippery slope of moral equivalency. But I can take no satisfaction really in knowing that DedDad speaks for me as an organization. I can take no satisfaction knowing that his message, or the message of Rev Phelps, or the message of Rev Falwell and a "vengeful God" is the one that we're teaching 4 million youth members of our organization.

 

There's a slippery slope all right, on both sides of this issue. Before you know it, one day you wake up and realize that you've some how ended up in a pit of hate, fear, ignorance and bigotry that you never really intended to be in, and you wonder who this guy is thats speaking on your behalf.

 

 

(This message has been edited by tjhammer.)