ThomasJefferson

The problem with the argument that modern conveniences keep boys at home, is that we know from membership numbers that at the same time that TV, air conditioning, suburban life and all its comforts were exploding, so was BSA membership.

Those "conveniences" are not enough. It is the advent of home entertainment that is the key convenience. You can't lay blame at the foot of a program that boys did not even know existed or notice as different. I was a boy scout throughout the change in one direction and then the other. I did not see any difference in any of it. I still don't see anything signficant until the ODR uniform came about (an atrocity).

What happened in the early 1970's was that TV exploded. It went from flickery, B&W lone ranger re-runs and test patterns at night to 19" color screens being in multiple rooms of the house. In the 1980's computers and video games came along and put more nails in the coffin.

Today, video games and computers are such a massive world of adventure to explore, the scouts simply have nothing to offer to compete. Call of Duty is more interesting than scouting. It's better. It isn't real, which is a problem (is it?), but it is more fun for most kids.

I stipulate your membership argument. I will also concede you could be right about the program. But having been a scout during the changes, and not noticing them, and having the handbooks from 1972 and 1980 on my shelf, I don't remember a thing changing. Which merit badges get you to eagle? Most boys didn't care. Because most boys don't even try to make eagle.

I think that was mostly an annoyance for adults seeing boys earn Eagle without having to go outdoors. and videoI think it was TV anis video games. I could be wrong, but that's what I think it is. Every kid I know prefers video games to everything.

Here's the real problem: Culture. The US no longer has the culture that supported and called for a Scouting program. It was founded in the early 20th Century by the progressive movement as a reaction to the industrial revolution and its pollution and child abuse. Today's kids don't need saving from the industrial revolution. They are no longer in need of rescue. They are not unhappy with their conditions. A kid in 1910 went camping and conditions improved for him. A kid in 2010 went camping and he was without anything he wanted around him basically suffering.

Scouting membership was buffed up dramatically by the two world wars as the US government included scouting in propaganda laced throughout media. They stopped doing that in 1948, and twelve years later, kids born and raised without that propaganda became old enough to become boy scouts - and didn't want to. And the downhill decline continues.

Here's what we don't want to face:

* Our kids don't want to go scouting. They want to be in the air conditioning and play video games

* Our kids don't want to learn patriotism. They are on the Internet talking with people from around the globe. They are citizens of the world, not this nation.

* Our kids no longer have any freedom at home. Their parents are afraid for them to walk to the bus stop alone without adults guarding them. Scouting used to be patrols with no adults going camping and hiking. Today, there is an adult for every kid.

The Boy Scouts have run out of water to sail their ship on. We can protest about values and citizenship and resumes with eagle badges all we want. The ugly, ugly truth that even I, your leftist atheist does not want to face is this: Game over.

There is no soil in which to grow scouting. It is a dying activity. Our kids are being raised in a world where very soon robots will do the work and talking, self-aware computers will teach them. You may see that as necessitating scouting for the good of the kids. But you cannot force kids to do something. They don't like it. They don't want it.

It isn't a prissy problem. It's not an advertising problem. It's really just a simple problem of we are not those people any more, and our kids don't even like those kinds of people.

Were you looking at the survey on gays? We said no, the kids - 90% of them - said yes. They don't want to be like us. They don't want to do this. I'm happy to provide what I do for the kids that do, but I'm not going to believe for a second that us talking or anything BSA does is going to fix it.

BSA has hastened the end of scouting through stupidity, but really, they can't fix the problem, because the problem isn't a problem at all. It's just a fact of life I don't want to wear a three cornered hat and stockings, and they don't want to go outside and play.

Personally I don't think its about outdoors or adventure, my scouts do and did a lot more high adventure stuff than I did as a scout. But I definitely think that scouting is more prissy. I think it's there is less freedom for boys to express themselves as boys. Adults are A LOT more guarded today about what boys can say, do or even meet. We put limits on knives and other woods tools. It was no big deal for my patrol to go on a five mile with a map and compass, but adults today would struggle to let a patrol hike through the safe parts of our town without some kind of oversite. How many boys can ride their bike accross town without getting permission? Our culture has closed in on our youths freedom of expression and freedom to move about. The culture is more prissy, and we don't have very many adults who remember how it used to be. Barry

A scientific theory is a proven out body of scientific knowledge that, while not the final word on the topic because more information is always becoming available, is fact.

Gravity, for example, is a theory. Do you disbelieve in it?

You are confusing hypothesis, which is a speculation based on observation, with a theory, which is what we get when we test a hypothesis and find out the truth.

Find me a valid scientific study on personality that shows women are feelers and men aren't. I will refer you to the work Amy Cuddy, the foremost expert on the field of Social Psychology who studied personality types vs. chemical balance in the brain, and identified four types, not two, and found them balanced within the sexes, not differentiated.

OMG science is not taught in schools in this country worth a crap. No wonder we are somewhere at the bottom of first world nations.

ThomasJefferson ... You've got too much agenda. Don't hijack this into some atheist rank. Scouting's always had a strong faith element, right from the start. Plus every man's man that I've know has had a strong faith. They might not shove it down your throat, but it's there.

 

You don't need to deny God to be a man's man. And you don't need to hijack this thread with some atheist junk.

The ACLU didn't go on an offensive. That's political doubletalk. BSA got involved in that Dale mess and never should have. They should have let the local unit decide his fate, and they should have let it go. Instead of making a case about their rights, they tried to argue the right to exclude sections of society based on labels. That attracted the ACLU like bees to flowers. It was a stupid move. Really stupid.

Incident Information Report

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/680-016_fillable.pdf

Personally I don't think its about outdoors or adventure, my scouts do and did a lot more high adventure stuff than I did as a scout. But I definitely think that scouting is more prissy. I think it's there is less freedom for boys to express themselves as boys. Adults are A LOT more guarded today about what boys can say, do or even meet. We put limits on knives and other woods tools. It was no big deal for my patrol to go on a five mile with a map and compass, but adults today would struggle to let a patrol hike through the safe parts of our town without some kind of oversite. How many boys can ride their bike accross town without getting permission? Our culture has closed in on our youths freedom of expression and freedom to move about. The culture is more prissy, and we don't have very many adults who remember how it used to be. Barry

If you study theories of personality, you will find that men and women are divided almost 50/50 between those that prefer feeling based decision making vs. thinking based decision making within each gender. Says every expert on the topic ever.

Oh, and horsehair ropes don't repel snakes, either.

ThomasJefferson ... You've got too much agenda. Don't hijack this into some atheist rank. Scouting's always had a strong faith element, right from the start. Plus every man's man that I've know has had a strong faith. They might not shove it down your throat, but it's there.

 

You don't need to deny God to be a man's man. And you don't need to hijack this thread with some atheist junk.

Today's scouting is wussified because of two things: lawsuits and the Mormons.

Lawsuits have driven BSA into a corner over faith and morality, because they took too hard of a stand in the 90's, executed a PR disaster, and lost the left wing of their membership. Now they are stuck, and Mormons have crept in quietly, and scouting has become more about "wholesome American old-fashioned virgin until marriage fun."

But that's not what it was when I was a kid, and I live in the deep, deep South. When I was a kid, scouting was an outdoor program. We never prayed at any of our events. We never had a chaplain. We never discussed if anyone believed in God. There were no faith requirements. We talked about "duty to god" as a passing thing, and viewed the law and oath as our rules of good behavior.

I never remember any of the BS that goes on today being around then. Today, you even bring up faith and you get a teary eyed protest of how Christians are oppressed, and people pray with almost vengeful hate as if their praying is intended more to outrage people who won't like it more than it is to commune with the Almighty.

Agreed. Scouting has gone from being an outdoorsman's adventuring program for boys and men with a "law" that guides behavior to being a church program with some token outdooring in it. The focus is no longer on being a capable Kudu-worthy first class scout who can make his own hiking stick, camp under a home-made tent, and shoot squirrels and shishkabob them. Now it is about having family interventions, scoutmaster conferences, citizenship badges, meetings, elections, "boy led" and getting that eagle badge on your resume.

 

Scouting was originally mainly focused on the outdoors. All of the original literature is about plants, animals, lighting fires, putting together a sleeping area, shelter, orienteering, and riding a horse. Today, it is all about church, family, faith, etc.

 

We've gone from learning to be pioneers to learning to be priests. Blech.

Agreed. Scouting has gone from being an outdoorsman's adventuring program for boys and men with a "law" that guides behavior to being a church program with some token outdooring in it. The focus is no longer on being a capable Kudu-worthy first class scout who can make his own hiking stick, camp under a home-made tent, and shoot squirrels and shishkabob them. Now it is about having family interventions, scoutmaster conferences, citizenship badges, meetings, elections, "boy led" and getting that eagle badge on your resume.

Scouting was originally mainly focused on the outdoors. All of the original literature is about plants, animals, lighting fires, putting together a sleeping area, shelter, orienteering, and riding a horse. Today, it is all about church, family, faith, etc.

We've gone from learning to be pioneers to learning to be priests. Blech.

What non-sectarian means to me and what it means to my council are entirely different. To me it means that a scout must believe in a higher power, but nowhere does it state which higher power. To my Council non-sectarian means non-denominational Christian.

 

At Wood Badge last June I was told that my religion was occult and had no place in Scouting. (I’m Druid; goddess forbid that scouts interact with people who worship nature and count the solstices and equinoxes as holy days!) The upshot of “coming out†as a non-Christian was that I was not allowed to complete my ticket. Then when our committee chair stepped down in January our Troop Committee wanted to put me in his place, but our council said they would revoke our charter if I was Committee Chair.

 

Speaking from experience I can honestly say that I hear a lot about how membership is left up to the units, but even when a unit accepts a non-Christian there can still be significant obstacles from the council and national.

I would have put my own wood badge beads on you myself if I had been personal witness to this atrocity.

This is why BSA's membership policy has to go. BSA is too stupid to enforce a policy like this effectively. The guys who run BSA all have below average IQ's.

Part of the problem is that the BSA is inconsistent in how they interpret their own policies. For example, the BSA has said the following is incompatible with BSA values (and one of the given reasons for disallowing the Unitarian religion awards):

 

http://www.uua.org/re/children/scouting/169563.shtml

 

But I think it is an excellent way of looking at Duty to God. Of course I am Unitarian, so I am biased. However, I cannot see anything in there that is "inconsistent with boy scout values".

That is said by many and frequently, but I think it is oxymoronic. You are not free to speak if the speech has consequences. Consequences negate freedom. That would be like saying you have freedom to murder, but you will have consequences.

The truth is that the US has a rather low rating for free speech amongst the first world affluent nations. We're sort of bad at living up to our ideal that Congress not making laws that abridge the freedom of speech.

I do not believe in "free speech", so this does not bother me. If you shout at the top of your lungs in front of my house, I'd like to see the police force you to the ground, cuff, you, and haul you off for a night in jail.

But the childhood myths about having special freedom in the US have to stop. It's not true in comparison to places like Germany, Norway, Sweden, the UK, and France. We are probably more free today than previously.

Frankly, I think the freedom myth is just American propaganda. Having travelled the world, there are certainly places where freedoms are curtailed and people are oppressed more than the US. But there are also places where people are less restricted than they are here.

If he's prepared to walk away from earning Eagle for his beliefs then tread lightly. Don't say anything that directly contradicts his belief system and do not, under any circumstances, call him a bigot.

 

If you or he want to be cynical; if he makes Eagle before 1/1/14 then it will be under the old membership policy.

Tip-toeing around what is wrong is not leadership.

Let's also be clear that there is nothing faith-based about resentment of homosexuals. The same people citing obscure old testament verses for their beliefs are skipping over the ones that also condemn wearing of cotton, women serving as teachers, eating pork and other unclean animals (deer, anyone?) and a host of other things such as being required to stone your wife to death when she backtalks you.

If the bigots in our society were some sort of retro-militant amish faction, I could see the faith-based argument if they tried to embrace the entire bible literally. But they don't. They ignore huge, huge swaths of it, and only adopt the parts they like. Then run around screaming, "The Bible says!" But you point out what else the Bible says, and they suddenly shake their heads and then say on those particular verses, you need master interpretation by a guru.

In 1000 years there will be no religion among humans. I firmly believe we will one day outgrow superstition.

Tell him that if he will only associate with people who agree with him 100% he will be very lonely in life. You have to take the bad with the good in most cases. There are all kinds of immoral behavior that we don't kick people out of scouting for...love the sinner, hate the sin, and so on.

REading about how there is a universal morality is tedious. There is no such thing and never has been.

The only universal truth amongst the mobs of humans who populate this world is that most of them act in their own best interest and within the limits of what their fellows in whatever culture they live in will allow.

In Saudi Arabia it is OK to behead a man for setting foot in Mecca and not being Muslim. In some countries, chopping off someone's hand is OK. In our country, the death penalty is OK, and apparently so is putting a rather disturbingly large portion of our citizens behind bars.

There is no universal morality.

There is universal negative reactions from others when you try to take their stuff or harm them. That's about it. If you want to cite Natural Law, that is all you can cite.

Everything else is just cultural rules and citing supposed holy books as part of a power grab.

Since I am Thomas Jefferson, I guess it is appropriate that I should answer this one.

 

I never intended there to be a tax code or a national treasury. My frenemies Washington and Hamilton were in favor of it. This was one of the issues upon which Federalist and Democratic Republicans enjoyed spirited conversations. As President, despite my principles and feelings on the matter, I did see to it that our great nation acquired the French and Indian territory to the West known as Louisiana by establishing and then raiding national coffers of some substance.

 

We did not institute national taxes at the time because taxation was a state and local matter. We did not want a national government with great power to create a tyranny of conformity among the disparate peoples of North America. What appeals to a resident of Philadelphia and a gentleman of Charles Town are often at odds and wholly incompatible. We sought to create a multiplicity of states which shared military responsibility and a common brotherhood of Constitutional Law and Natural Rights.

 

It is with regret that I inform you that your nation is not the nation I founded. You found yourselves facing situations I did not foresee. Who could have imagined that one day the Bear of Russia would be only a few minutes away by rocket, or that the savage people of the East would one day emerge as a world power greater than any Europe had produced?

 

Taxes must be collected to fund great enterprises, whether obtained by separated states or a federal oversight agency, the pain of payment is not reduced. The establishment of such an agency to collect revenues of such unusual size (RUS's) is also a predictable outcome.

 

Is this government agency used as a political tool? It is possible that any agency of any government can be manipulated for evil or good by those in charge of it. Some may create evil by attempting to create good. Outcomes do not always come from intentions.

 

It is also possible that a political tool may simply happen, without guidance from above or foreknowledge of intent to wield it as a weapon.

 

It is my experience that collectors of taxers and dodgers as well should be investigated thoroughly so to ensure the people's money is accounted for dutifully and with all diligence.

Since I am Thomas Jefferson, I guess it is appropriate that I should answer this one.

I never intended there to be a tax code or a national treasury. My frenemies Washington and Hamilton were in favor of it. This was one of the issues upon which Federalist and Democratic Republicans enjoyed spirited conversations. As President, despite my principles and feelings on the matter, I did see to it that our great nation acquired the French and Indian territory to the West known as Louisiana by establishing and then raiding national coffers of some substance.

We did not institute national taxes at the time because taxation was a state and local matter. We did not want a national government with great power to create a tyranny of conformity among the disparate peoples of North America. What appeals to a resident of Philadelphia and a gentleman of Charles Town are often at odds and wholly incompatible. We sought to create a multiplicity of states which shared military responsibility and a common brotherhood of Constitutional Law and Natural Rights.

It is with regret that I inform you that your nation is not the nation I founded. You found yourselves facing situations I did not foresee. Who could have imagined that one day the Bear of Russia would be only a few minutes away by rocket, or that the savage people of the East would one day emerge as a world power greater than any Europe had produced?

Taxes must be collected to fund great enterprises, whether obtained by separated states or a federal oversight agency, the pain of payment is not reduced. The establishment of such an agency to collect revenues of such unusual size (RUS's) is also a predictable outcome.

Is this government agency used as a political tool? It is possible that any agency of any government can be manipulated for evil or good by those in charge of it. Some may create evil by attempting to create good. Outcomes do not always come from intentions.

It is also possible that a political tool may simply happen, without guidance from above or foreknowledge of intent to wield it as a weapon.

It is my experience that collectors of taxers and dodgers as well should be investigated thoroughly so to ensure the people's money is accounted for dutifully and with all diligence.

Considering the description OP has presented in giving more details, I am very comfortable with the decision to remove all of the youth involved and rejection of the appeal. Sorry, but I don't want my son in a scout unit with those involved.

<< Baloney yourself, SP. The supreme court has hardly been promoting atheism all these decades. They've been pretty good at promoting religious neutrality, which some people just can't accept.

>>

 

 

The Supreme Court has busily vacuumed religion out of the public square, but leaves atheism, environmentalism, socialism, science and other philosophical schools free reign in the public square.

 

THAT is abusive. The Supreme Court and all the littler courts have written their own political biases into the constitution.

 

Nothing new about that, of course.

 

The Supreme Court is the oligarchy that displaced government of the people, by the people, whenever it chooses to do so.

 

 

 

 

Boys behave differently in the presence of girls as a matter of fact. This is simply because girls are different, and even Cub Scouts realize it. They think different, act different, and learn different.

 

A method of Scouting is Uniforming. While any boy of any background can conform to the mores and norms of a group of boys, it is a rare girl that's able to do so.

 

While I agree it can still be fun with girls, and in often cases more fun with the girls present, something is lost in the learning and development sphere when the boys are behaving in a way that conforms to a standard of mixed gender learning instead of only having to conform to the standards of "boys being boys". The best example is the silencing factor girls have on most boys. Because they realize the thoughts of girls are different, there is less blurting out of boy thoughts. Those are often pretty profound in the sense that they show where a boy's understanding of the subject matter lies.

 

If it were that reason alone, I'd continue to wholeheartedly support gender segregation in Scouting.

Do you segregate your Sunday School classes and Church services? Aren't women and men different? Don't we learn differently than each other?

Then why are you sitting together in the same service? Isn't worship of God most important of all, and doing it together probably means the men can't be men while learning about and worshipping God.

After all, men commit most of the crime in the world.

See how silly those arguments sound? They are the bigotry of the 19th century brought forward to today.

No, a sect is not " religious branch of which isn't large enough to qualify as a denomination." It is a schism from a larger branch, but in common parlance (and most dictionaries, including theological ones) it means the same as a denomination; thus, "non-sectarian" means the same as "non-denominational."

 

You claim that "BSA is filled with strictly Christians-only practices such as praying before meals in a Christian style, holding Sunday morning services at camps, removing hats and bowing heads to pray, and saying "Amen" at the end of any prayer. Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, Zoroastrians, and Shintoists do none of these things. This is all Christian behavior."

 

No. Almost all religions, Abrahamic or not, pray before meals, and most include the same elements are found as in "Christian-style" prayers: saying thanks to God for the meal, for the company around the table, and the other blessings He provides. Buddhists, Taoists, Zoroastrians, Jews, Muslims, B'ahai, Shintoists, and Hindus pray before meals.

 

Most BSA summer camps I have attended provide religious services for adherents of non-Christian faiths IF there are enough members at the camp, and IF the appropriate cleric is available to conduct the ceremony (if a cleric is required). As most camps are in rural areas, this is not always possible for all denominations or sects. If the individuals wished to conduct the appropriate observances on their own times, and on their own sabbath day or day of worship, accommodations would certainly be made. Faiths that do not remove their hats for prayer, if they are members of a troop, will usually advise the troops of the difference in modes of worship through the troop's chaplain.

 

In and of itself, "Amen" does not have any religious significance. It is simply a word of Affirmation in the Hebrew language that means, "So be it," or "truly," or "verily," or "it is so." Most religions, including non-Abrahamic ones, include such statements of affirmation, so it is not an alien concept to people of faith. It is used by Jews (in fact, it is commanded to be used at the end of any blessing, even a Christian one, outside of liturgical settings, such as a non-sectarian prayer). It is used by Muslims ( آمين‎, ʾÄÂmÄ«n).

 

BSA volunteers rarely have degrees in Comparative Religious Studies, but they do the best they can to treat people of other faiths with the respect and courtesy they deserve. If they give offense, people of good will understand that there was no intent to insult, and will forgive them.

 

You also claim that "Only the Abrahamic religions believe in a jealous God that is personable and reacts negatively to lack of belief. Buddhists don't even necessarily believe in any spiritual anything at all nor do Confucians or Daoists."

 

If by "personable" you mean a God that is a person, not a God that is pleasant at parties, many religions who believe in a God or gods react negatively to lack of belief on behalf of their god. Buddhists by definition do believe in something spiritual, in that they deny a strictly materialist conception of reality. Karma, accepted by most Buddhists as well as Hindus, Jains, and Sikhs is not a materialist concept and is spiritual in nature, as well as Buddhist conceptions of the existence and continuances of the Buddha on other planes of existence.

 

"I do not understand the Scout Law's insistence that we respect the beliefs of others. I think disagreeing with someone's beliefs is to not respect them by default. If you think someone believes nonsense, you cannot respect their beliefs. You can, however, be respectful of those people and their customs and not criticize them or insult them. And doing that sometimes means not praying or holding Sunday services...BSA is a Euro-American Christians club which says they want to welcome all faiths, but is stupid in execution and fails."

 

And curiously, an insistence on "respect" for all religions leads to a recommendation that favors atheists only. I refer you to Forrest Gump's philosophy on stupidity in this regard.

Some of these comments are hilarious.

I was a boy. I don't remember hurting for time "being a boy." I pretty much was one all the time. How does having girls present keep boys from being boys? If the boys aren't allowed to swear, go skinny dipping in the pond, or talk about girls & sex with male leaders present, then how does adding girls change anything? The program has already neutered the boy-specific activities and boy-oriented nature of the scouts. It is essentially already primed for girl participation.

As for the Cub Scouts, I have no idea why that is not co-ed now. Girls already come to everything, and cub scouts is run by women. What the heck are we resisting there?

I think BSA does not know what they mean by non-sectarian. Technically, a sect is a religious branch of which isn't large enough to qualify as a denomination. Example: Methodists and Baptists are denominations. The unaffiliated "Church of God" in your neighborhood is a sect since it isn't very big and has it's own set of beliefs separate from others.

Non-sectarian would technically mean "unconcerned with differences within a single religion." BSA uses the word incorrectly, imo.

I'm also convinced that BSA doesn't care that they use it incorrectly, and that they are only tolerant of non-Christian religions and do not embrace them. BSA is filled with strictly Christians-only practices such as praying before meals in a Christian style, holding Sunday morning services at camps, removing hats and bowing heads to pray, and saying "Amen" at the end of any prayer. Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, Zoroastrians, and Shintoists do none of these things. This is all Christian behavior.

BSA makes token efforts to be welcoming of all religions, but BSA's membership is completely untrained in religious studies and has no idea what the differences in religions are, and therefore they are completely unequipped to be truly respectful of other religions.

BSA's fear of atheism and agnosticism is also part of this Christians-only thinking. Only the Abrahamic religions believe in a jealous God that is personable and reacts negatively to lack of belief. Buddhists don't even necessarily believe in any spiritual anything at all nor do Confucians or Daoists.

BSA is a Euro-American Christians club which says they want to welcome all faiths, but is stupid in execution and fails.

BSA can't even read their own oath where it says "do my best" before "duty to God," and adopt a militant stance as if being atheist means we want to watch the world burn rather than simply abstain from teaching our children the stories of religions as if they are true. Which they are not.

I do not understand the Scout Law's insistence that we respect the beliefs of others. I think disagreeing with someone's beliefs is to not respect them by default. If you think someone believes nonsense, you cannot respect their beliefs. You can, however, be respectful of those people and their customs and not criticize them or insult them.

And doing that sometimes means not praying or holding Sunday services.

Do you think that membership for gay youth means eagle awards for gay youth? Or are we just assuming that?

Because if it does, is BSA going to apologize to all youth previous denied the eagle award and go back and award them in arrears? Will there be some sort of press conference like when black veterans of WWII were given the Honor Medal in the 1990's as a corrective action?

Essentially, that would be BSA putting Eagle Awards on grown, gay adults.

Will there be lawsuits to have them awarded in arrears to force BSA to do something like this publicly?

You think they thought of that yet? I don't.

When you are conducting a survey to help you figure out what to do, you are not "moral." You are not doing what you believe in. You are not leading. You are not standing up for anything. When you need a survey to figure out what your policy is, you are just chasing dollar bills and members.

I am an atheist, and I would like to see the policy rescinded, but I would only be satisfied in BSA rescinded all of the membership policy no matter the fallout or destruction it caused, because they realize what they were doing is wrong, and then apologized to everyone wronged in the past and made reparations to all youth denied eagle, all adults previously expelled.

The way it is now, they are just pathetic old cowards more worried about money, camps, and their little wood badge club than they are moral men taking a stand on values.

This resolution proves BSA is NOT a values based organization.

I would have had more respect for my opponents had they simply continued the policy, ignored their critics, and taken the organization deeper into Christianity. At least then they would be looking me in the eye.

This resolution, for the first time, makes me think that BSA is not worthy of my energy. Funny, it wasn't until today that instead of seeing them as misguided and old-fashioned, I see them as greedy, selfish, evil, and twisted.

Today I am ashamed of my eagle award and ashamed that tomorrow I will wear the uniform.

This may be it for me.

This weekend another scouter asked me “why do you want the conservatives to leave scouting?â€Â. I answered that I don’t, I just want them to give others the same respect they wish to receive. Why does it have to be about the other side leaving?

 

I really feel strongly about this. Ever since I was a youth in scouting, I believed one of the great things about it was that people of every faith and stripe could sit down together as welcome members of the same scouting family. I want my scouts to be able to see people of other faiths and beliefs as good and reasonable people who happen to have different beliefs, not as bad people who are wrong. And one of the best ways to accomplish that, I believe, is to have them encounter such people in positive settings. I don’t know, maybe go to camp with them? It’s much harder to think of a group of people as simple caricatures if you know some of them personally and realize that they are not idiots, or morally bankrupt, or out to destroy X, but decent people with some different opinions or beliefs.

 

I want my scouts to be able to say or think the next time they hear something of the form: “You know all those X people think that ...â€Â, they can reply “Actually, that’s not true. I went to camp with an X, and he was a decent kid and didn’t say anything like that.†That is part of growing up to be a decent citizen and human being. That is why I want my scouts to get an opportunity to meet and interact with people of a wide range of faiths, political views, nationalities, personality types, physical and mental abilities, etc. - and to learn to see them as human beings, not cartoon characters. To learn that what make someone a decent, or not decent person has very little to do with which faith, or nationality, etc. they are.

 

In my life I have been privileged to get to know and be friends with people that are deeply conservative, strongly liberal, straight, gay, Catholic, Jewish, Unitarian, Protestant, Sikh, Atheist, Agnostic and Wiccan. And to know them as good and decent people. Some are very thoughtful, some are a bit flighty, some are gentle some are rambunctious. But they are all people that it is an honor for me to be able to call them friend. Yes, some of are discussions can be filled with strong opinions and sometimes generate some heat. But we usually end with a smile and sometimes a hug, but always as friends.

 

Yet I do know people that say things like: “all republicans are jack booted thugsâ€Â, or “all democrats are socialists that hate America†or use phrases like: “liberal scum†or “#@#& conservativesâ€Â; and I say: “have you actually got to know any?â€Â

 

So when I hear scouters say things like: “I don’t want my scouts associating with Xâ€Â, “X won’t be happy until they destroy scoutingâ€Â, or “why don’t they just leave and form their own group?â€Â, it make me sad. Because if they get their way, scouting will be a poorer place, and the youth will loose one of the great parts of scouting.

I would say the opposite. Any solution has to affirmatively reject one of the two sides for once and for all. The fence sitting is what perpetuates the conflict. One side has to be told they are never going to get their way, and that they were wrong. That is how human differences are resolved. A court, an executive office, or a legislature or committee of some kind rules and says, "This is now where the line between right and wrong is. Everyone on that side, you are now wrong. The end. Too bad."