3 million children

[red feather 10]

Not too many years ago, blacks were not welcome in scouting. (unless they had their own troop) Women, even fewer years ago were not welcome.

 

Beyond the rules and regulations, the pamphlets and handouts, the bottom line of scouting is what scouting can do to enhance the lives of boys who join.

 

To inform a boy that he is not welcome because of his color, accent, religous beliefs, single parent or dual parent situation, (or guardian) situation is not what we, as scout leaders, are about. At least to my thinking and understanding of what scouting is for..

 

Of course if a sexual predator wants to join scouting it is our obligation to prevent that. A good friend of mine is an avowed bachelor, Eagle scout, Silver Beaver recipient, SM for 20 years (off and on) been on Staff for camp, staff for one international jamboree and two nationals. Should he be banned from scouing because he does not fit the 'norm'?

 

I understand what the policy is and I will suport it. However, this policy is in transition.

 

I hope I would not deny a gay adult the chance to participate based only on preferences, but on attitude and their philosphy.

 

Asked my youngest son about this, he said he didn't care. (almost 18) "When he was young he just wanted to learn scouting stuff."

[tjhammer 10]

I won't get too far into the debate over whether the numbers are correct or not -- mostly because it is irrelevant -- other than to point out that this survey was conducted for business purposes to measure the value and size of a particular market, and rarely, if ever, would those commissioning such a study seek "inflated" results... theyre trying to decide whether money should be spent to pursue a market segment, and it seems pretty logical that they would want fairly reliable information upon which to base such a decision. I also think it's absurd to suggest (as the BSA's own top executive has done) that ours (BSA) is a position that would sway if the numbers were against us (BSA); to such an extent, this policy is wrong regardless of whether it affects one family or millions. It is, however, interesting to note the rather muted response to this particular line of thought... perhaps several of the more ardent defenders of the BSA position had not until now considered the question from this perspective or with this number of affected people? It may just be easier to be complicit in discrimination when you believe the people your affecting are neither innocent nor a part of your mandate/mission, it must be a bit harder for some who now realize that to be untrue.

 

BobWhite... I called your previous post mostly "hogwash" because of this: I can not, for a moment, see Baden-Powell, Bill Hillcourt, or even my own Scoutmaster saying "some kids just aren't worth our time and effort" or "some kids Scouting just can't help" or "some kids we should ignore just because we disagree with their parents and church on one highly politicized issue"... your cavalier attitude (and you've made this point several times before about how Scouting doesnt have to serve all kids) is elitist, arrogant and completely contradictory to the principles of Scouting.

 

I wonder, using your logic, if one of your own children were to refuse to follow your rules or believe the same as you, would they, too, be not worthy of membership in your family? Just how far does your "not all kids are worth my time" attitude carry? If your own son revealed to you that he was gay, would he eventually be booted from the family if he refused to "change his mind"?

 

The BSA may just not be for all kids, but Scouting damn well is. And in the USA, you can't do Scouting unless you do it through the BSA... a congressional charter guarantees that.

 

B-P founded an organization specifically as a response to what at the time was becoming a plague of young boys -- hoodlums if you will -- that were starting to populate in large numbers and terrorize the streets of England. B-P was specifically commissioned to find a useful purpose for these packs of boys, and the plan he came up with involved teaching the boys about character, leadership and citizenship through a unique game of Scouting. It's insulting to his memory, and the memory of millions of wonderful adult volunteers over the decades, to now flippantly suggest that some kids are disposable and just not worth the effort.

 

OGE your post was eloquent and right on the mark.

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[NJCubScouter 1389]

BobWhite says:

 

The BSA is not for all children. it never has been. It is for any child that meets the joining requirements and not every child does. There are millions of children whose parents are heterosexual who do not meet the joining requirements.

 

This is absolutely correct. Note the use of the words "child" and "children." Also note the use of the present tense. To my knowledge, all "children" will at some point meet the joining requirements, but at any given time there are millions who do not.

 

They are girls below the age of 14, and boys below the age of 7 or who have not started first grade.

 

And of course even the 14+ girls can only join a Venture Crew.

 

That's what you meant, right, BobWhite?

 

[Bob White 20]

Congratulations NJ, you and Rooster saw beyond the anger. In addition to the conditions you mentioned there are also behavioral, moral and religious conditions that would restrict membership. So to just say there are 3 million children who can't be scouts without acknowledging that even if they or their parents were heterosexual many still couldn't join is misleading.

 

TJhammer, I am amazed (though I probably shouldn't be) by the total misrepresentations that you insuated into my post. "some kids just aren't worth our time and effort" or "some kids Scouting just can't help" or "some kids we should ignore just because we disagree with their parents and church on one highly politicized issue"..

Not only would you not hear BP, Hillcourt or others say that, you have not and will not hear me say that (or see me write that).

 

To suggest that I did was an out an out fabrication of truth (polite for lie). I made an observation in my original post that attacked no one, a simple observation, and look at the totally distasteful way that you personally attacked me. No asking for clarification, no thinking, just knee JERK reaction because I was the one who wrote it.

 

Bob White

[tjhammer 10]

Now, BobWhite, don't back away... certainly what you and NJCub are saying are different things... he, I suspect rather tongue in cheek, opened the door for you to a possible explanation of your comments (suggesting rather cheekily that all you meant was age requirements could preclude membership for a child). You took that as cover for your opinions, and then appended "there are also behavioral, moral and religious conditions that would restrict membership". (Certainly what you say is true, as a matter of fact, but the interpretation of what "behavior" or what "immorality" or what "religions" should be excluded, when left to you, is narrow indeed.)

 

I'm not misrepresenting you... without going back through all your posts, I can recall at least a couple of occasions where you were quick to "kick a boy out" of Scouting so we could focus our attention on the other members that actually "behaved" (like the boy who harassed the younger boy at the lake, mentioned in a previous thread, where your earliest position was that he would be booted from your unit).

 

No, this is not a personal attack, BobWhite, just an observation about how we differ in our views of Scouting, its purpose and its obligation to be open to as many as possible, without bigotry, apathy or fear.

 

And lest this become just a flame war (I really don't wish to attack you BobWhite, just using your position, which is hardly rare, as an example of the larger issue at hand)... the real issue is still whether Scouting should be for all kids, or just some kids. And the underlying question that prompts this issue, is whether we're failing to reach out to a large population of kids (or soon will be as they come of age), because of our close-minded opinion that their parents are unfit.

 

I say again: The BSA may just not be for all kids, but Scouting damn well is. And in the USA, you can't do Scouting unless you do it through the BSA... a congressional charter guarantees that.

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[tjhammer 10]

It may just be easier to be complicit in discrimination when you believe the people your affecting are neither innocent nor a part of your mandate/mission, it must be a bit harder for some who now realize that to be untrue.In addition to this observation I made earlier, I would also like to observe how another important point revealed in the survey... a large part of the gay population have coupled and formed families and are raising kids... an even larger part of the gay population indicates a desire to do that. This is a remarkably different view of gay life than what some of the defenders of the BSA position have portrayed on this board in the past... I think it's easier to believe that gays are incapable of being good role models when you believe they are all deviants tearing apart society. Does the reality that many, if not most, are either in stable families or seek to form stable families change some perspectives at all?(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[Bob White 20]

read the guide to safe scouting there are other behaviors besides homosexuality that would keep a child or adult from being able to hold membership in in scouting. what Nj said was exactly my point. It was inferred that scouting was for all children and it is not. Scouting has always had membership requirements that excluded some children from participation. Age,sex,religion etc. If a town has only one troop and that troop is sponsored by a Methodist church and they want to serve the eligible members of their church then the only kids in town who will get boy scouting are Methodist boys ages 11 to 18 who meet the value standards of the BSA.

 

Just because you have a group of 3 million children doesn't meen you have a group of 3 million potential scouts. Some portion of that is female under 14 some are children over 18, some are under 7 some have no interest in scouting. My main point was the number in question is irrelevant to the argument of membership. We are a private organization and have never served the enter youth population.

For decades we didn't serve boys under 12. It was deccades later before girls 14 and over were added. Our membership has changed to better meet our mission and aims. It has not changed due to moral or religious shifts in the population. I would not expect future membership changes to occur for those reasons either. Scouting in the USA is what the BSA's national executive board of volunteers says it is, not some rude, naybob who says scouting should change because he says it should change.

 

Bob White

[tjhammer 10]

If a town has only one troop and that troop is sponsored by a Methodist church and they want to serve the eligible members of their church then the only kids in town who will get boy scouting are Methodist boys ages 11 to 18 who meet the value standards of the BSA.Excellent observation (though in my expereince only one Church/Religion seems to accept only members of their own faith into their Scout units).

 

Oddly enough, if a town has a troop sponsored by the United Methodist Church (a large portion of which publicly disagreed with the BSA before the Supreme Court), that troop, that chartering org, those parents and that town has no option for allowing a gay Scout to be a member. Regardless of their own local perspective and beliefs, the BSA still tells them "not in my organization!". And the question is, why does BSA the organization have such authority to do something that Scouting the Movement would not?

 

[yaworski 10]

On this matter, I agree with "Bob White."

 

 

[CubsRgr8 10]

Questions for tj:

 

1) Do you really think your hypothetical "gay" scout would not be allowed to join his UMC troop? On what basis? The COR not signing his application? The council doing a background investigation? National kicking back his application because he checked the wrong box?

 

2) Can you please provide all of us with the scientific citation to support the implicit claim you make that boys "know" that they are "gay" before they are done going through puberty? After all, only boys age 11-17 can join a troop.

 

3) Isn't the main argument (oops, I mean discussion) in this about the BSA policy regarding registered adult leadership? not a non-existant policy about the sexuality of youth members?

 

All too often the "change BSA" crowd redirects the discussion by appealing to emotion (oh, that poor, deprived boy!) instead of keeping the disussion on target and focused on the facts. Yes, scouting should be for every kid, but the reality here (and throughout the world) is that he has to be a member of a community of adults willing to offer the program. There are tens of millions of boys who can't join because there are no willing adults, not because BSA has restrictive youth membership requirements.

 

 

[DeMann 10]

"Oddly enough, if a town has a troop sponsored by the United Methodist Church (a large portion of which publicly disagreed with the BSA before the Supreme Court), that troop, that chartering org, those parents and that town has no option for allowing a gay Scout to be a member"

This statement seems, at least to me, to show that a study was done, and that either actual numbers of respondents or percentages thereof are available to support the statement that a 'large portion' of the membership of the United Methodist Church publicly disagree with the stance of the BSA. Where can I obtain a copy of this finding? Can I find the actual number who make that statement?

[Zorn Packte 10]

It's insulting to his memory, and the memory of millions of wonderful adult volunteers over the decades, to now flippantly suggest that some kids are disposable and just not worth the effort.

 

The fact is that some kids aren't worth the effort. Our society thinks that children are precious but they really aren't. There are children that cannot be saved and will never become a useful member of society.

[SR540Beaver 116]

Zorn,

 

Do you speak from personal experience?

[firstpusk 10]

"The fact is that some kids aren't worth the effort. Our society thinks that children are precious but they really aren't. There are children that cannot be saved and will never become a useful member of society."

 

Sorry, all kids are worth the effort. Can you or I reach all kids? No, but that doesn't mean someone else can't. I've worked with too many kids that other adults have given up on a kid that is a great kid. There are some that will not be saved, but none that can not be saved.

[tjhammer 10]

your hypothetical "gay" scoutRegrettably, this is hardly hypothetical. I've already related the story of one very close to me personally who, after making Scouting the most important thing in his young life, wrestled with the fact that he was being labeled an aberration, unworthy of membership. This in part contributed to a very dangerous and foolish breakdown and crisis in his life. And many others, not known personally to me, have already made headlines... take, for example, the 16-year-old camp staff member who was dismissed from staff because his Camp Director asked him if he was gay (not correctly enforcing the BSA's "don't ask, don't tell" type policy... the boy was later reinstated after the council realized the jeopardy they were in. This is hardly a hypothetical situation... and perhaps worse than the stories that make the headlines, are the boys we drive away in silent agony.would not be allowed to join his UMC troop? On what basis?He'd be able to join. But if he also happened to be a member of a Gay Student Alliance in the school, the BSA policy, argued before the Supreme Court, would be that this boy was advocating homosexuality and would be unsuitable for membership... and if the local Council Executive saw fit, he could send this person a letter revoking their membership... doubtful that this will happen with a boy, just because it's too politically charged, but the silent exclusion is just as effective with boys as the formal letter of exclusion is with adults. Can you please provide all of us with the scientific citation to support the implicit claim you make that boys "know" that they are "gay" before they are done going through puberty? After all, only boys age 11-17 can join a troop.Are you suggesting that boys of that age don't realize their sexuality, gay or straight? Wow, do a little reading... you won't have to search far for the answer to this question.Isn't the main argument (oops, I mean discussion) in this about the BSA policy regarding registered adult leadership? not a non-existent policy about the sexuality of youth members?Yes, that's the main argument. (However, if you read the transcripts of the Supreme Court arguments the BSA put forward... which may be the closest thing to a full articulation of the BSA position... you'll find that the policy is not narrow and does not apply just to adults. In fact, the policy extends to heterosexual boys and adults who publicly disagree with the BSA and advocate that there is not immorality in homosexuality... in other words, BSA could expel me right now just for having this discussion... that's the "policy".)This statement seems, at least to me, to show that a study was done, and that either actual numbers of respondents or percentages thereof are available to support the statement that a 'large portion' of the membership of the United Methodist Church publicly disagree with the stance of the BSA. Where can I obtain a copy of this finding?You can find that the UMC had different factions filing opposing briefs before the Supreme Court and that this church, which is the second largest sponsor of Scouting units, has internal division of the BSA's stance.

 

 

By the way, I just discovered this site, which seems to be a well organized gathering of commentary, news releases and legal briefs on the BSA's position...

 

http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/

 

I have not spent more than a few minutes on the site yet, but it seems well thought out.