Pregnant Leader

[SR540Beaver 116]

OGE,

 

I usually agree with you, but..... Let's not forget the parable of the Prodigal Son. I understand your concern of the "good" girls getting the wrong message when the "bad" girl gets the attention. Remember the son who wanted his inheritance and sqaundered it? He returned home seeking mercy. His father killed the fatted calf and threw a feast on his return. The "good" son was disgusted that his brother got all the attention when HE had followed all the rules. The father explained to him that all the father owned would someday be his and to rejoice in his "lost" brothers return. This girl has returned to her scouting roots because she has seen the error of her ways. She will have to live and struggle with the consequences of her actions from now on. The "good" scouts still have every advantage open to them and can see why they should not stumble into the trap she has. It is up to the CO whether to accept her back or not, but good can come from it for all involved. It has long been said that the Christian army is the only army that buries it's wounded. There is truth in that statement. I don't think that it is what God expects of His army though. We should all keep in mind that, "there but for the grace of God, go I.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

KWC57,

 

I used the parable of the prodigal son a awhile back to make a point. As I said in a previous post I am not saying the Troop or Crew should turn its back on the young woman. I just dont see how making her a leader on the Charter at this point in her life furthers Scouting.

 

It wasnt long ago the topic of Cohabitation, such as Eamonn describes was discussed and I thought the consensus was you couldnt have two umarried leaders living together. Maybe its ok now and I just missed the memo.

 

Seems to me the moral high ground keeps moving so much I would swear its located on the San Andreas fault line.

 

 

[evmori 11]

nldscout,

Makes no difference how or why she got pregnant. The fact is she is & this tells the other Scouts in the Troop it is OK to be pregnant out of wedlock. To me, this flies in the face of morally straight.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

 

[Bob White 20]

"This girl has returned to her scouting roots because she has seen the error of her ways."

 

That is supported in anyhting that Matua has told us of this situation thus far.

 

We have been told she has returned because she likes scouting and that she is pregnant because she chose to start a family at this time.

 

Bob White(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Twocubdad 665]

Bob, your answers are accurate in terms of the current BSA, but you didn't answer my question: should there be a national policy prohibiting this girl's membership? I suppose what I'm really asking is why does BSA see a difference between immoral homosexual behavior and immoral heterosexual behavior? In your words, why is homosexuality a "major boundary" and heterosexual behavior open to local variance?

 

 

[evmori 11]

Twocubdad,

In my opinion, no.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Rooster7 11]

nldscout,

 

Now some of you are begining to sound like Hypocites. First off you have no knowledge of how she got PG. Can you say Artificial Insemination? Maybe she did that. I have heard nothing of a guy mentioned from Matua at all.

 

First, Lets be real. The vast majority of 18-year-olds are not likely candidates for artificial insemination. Second, if an 18-year-old did chose to be artificially inseminated, Id probably be more inclined to question her moral sense, not less. If it makes you feel any better, I certainly wouldnt question her character if she were a victim of some kind. I thought I would throw that out before you brought up rape or incest.

 

And another thing would we even be having this discussin if this was a 18 yr old guy who got his GF pregnant? I don't think so. We would just write it off as a guy thing.

 

I know nothing about you. But, youre beginning to sound like an angry woman whose been done an justice or two. You seem to think that the BSA preaches and enjoys double standards. That has not been my experience in Scouting or in most of society. I think most Scouters, and just as many men in general, would see the wrongness of an 18-year-old guy impregnating his girlfriend.

 

Kwc57,

 

I like the story of the Prodigal Son. Its a great lesson about love and forgiveness. The father celebrated his sons return. Its very moving. It gives us some insight as to how great God the Fathers love is for us. But, did the father in this story give his son a job with greater responsibilities? No. Not in any translation that Ive read. Did he lift his son up as a person who should be imitated by others? No. He did not. If I knew of a man who recently reformed himself and broke away from a sin (pick one, it doesnt matter), Id be happy for him. Id celebrate his new beginning. But, without the passage of time, I wouldnt endorse him as a leader in my church or my sons Boy Scout troop.

 

[CubsRgr8 10]

In another post, I believe Matua identified himself as the IH and SM for the troop in question. As the IH of an independent 501C organization set up when the local school would no longer charter scouting, it would be up to him to approve or disapprove this person's inclusion on the charter as a registered leader. Unless the CO has written bylaws that specify leader requirements, there's nothing these inactive parents can do, expect leave. After all your hard work, Mautua, are you prepared for this?

[Bob White 20]

twocubdad,

I think the executive board of the BSA is capable of determining the rules and policies of scouting, and have done so by saying the members must abide by the values of the Oath and Law. When a group or individual have difficulty understanding what that means, the BSA makes a ruling.

 

Do I think the BSA needs a specific ruling in this case, I think they do. I think they have made it quite clear that they expect and require the members to behave in word and deed (when in public) the values of the Oath and Law. I would hope that such an attitude would extend into a persons private life, but I do not see the BSA invading someones privacy to find out.

 

Bob White

 

 

 

[tjhammer 10]

BobWhite (Rooster? others?)... The question that TwoCubDad (and others) are still waiting on a direct answer to is:why does BSA see a difference between immoral homosexual behavior and immoral heterosexual behavior? In your words, why is homosexuality a "major boundary" and heterosexual behavior open to local variance?

[Bob White 20]

I don't see that they have different requirements. The BSA has the same expectations for for all members. We are required to publicly act and support the values of the Oath and Law.

 

The reason that a ruling exists on homosexuals is that national was asked by a council to make a specific determination. Once they did it became policy. To my knowledge no council has brought a similar situation as Matua's to national for a decision.

 

The reason that the BSA does not list every specific circumstance that would cause your membership to be denied or revoked is,...who could possible anticipate every possible circumstance? Instead of saying here is what you can't do, the BSA says "here is what you are required to do", any behavior that is in contrast with that is open for membership denial.

 

 

[Rooster7 11]

TJ and nldscout -

 

I cannot answer for the BSA as to why they chose to create a policy against homosexuals as members or leaders, but chose to remain silent on the subject of say unwed mothers and fathers. I can only guess. Although this is a guess, Im pretty confident Im close to the right answer.

 

The BSA policy against homosexuals as members or leaders was not a proactive initiative. It was a response to external pressure, applied by political groups, which had designs on changing the BSA into something more to their liking, vice accepting the organization as it existed. For years, our country enjoyed many moral standards (lets call them traditional values). Very few people challenged these values because they had the overwhelming support of the majority. There was no need to create policies about these values because they were givens. Unfortunately, as each new generation decided they were wiser than the last, the moral standards that were once enjoyed and embraced by the majority started to become blurred. In the general population, and in particular in the eyes of those who wanted to embrace the new standards, some moral standards were questioned. Most notable among these, was the issue of homosexuality. Most assuredly this was due to the fact that the homosexuality community and their advocates are very well organized and extremely vocal (to put it politely). Many years ago, they targeted the BSA. Whether the BSA always felt homosexuality was wrong (which I personally believe) or was simply acting on behalf of their current membership is not really important (at least not to me). The point is, they were under attack, and in response, invoked this policy against homosexuals as members and leaders, to make it perfectly clear to those internal and external to the organization that this was their standard. Per the BSA, this policy reflects the values of Scouting. It is their right to make it so.

 

As to why they dont do the same for other values, I think its a matter of practicality and to some degree politics. As Bob White has noted, the Scout Oath and Law covers most values. Its easier to just let those words stand by themselves. Of course, not everyone interprets those words the same way. In my household, you cannot enjoy sex outside of marriage and call yourself reverent at the same time. This behavior does not reflect the value. Now, I realize that Bob White says this is something for the Chartering Organization to decide. And, that may well be the case. However, I suspect that if the BSA came under attack by external forces (i.e., political groups, the media, etc.), they might reconsider. If this issue was being debated in the newspapers, the BSA might ask themselves - What do we really believe? Is this a moral issue for which we should take a stand? and subsequently create a policy against unwed mothers and fathers? Im sure Bob White will denounce that as pure speculation, which it is. Regardless, I think this hypothetical scenario has more credibility than what he or others might be willing to acknowledge. I wouldnt be surprised if in the future - the BSA creates more such policies that would, for all intents and purposes, more narrowly define who they are morally. Not because its something they want to do, but because they may feel forced to do so. As someone once observed, there are no BSA policies against bestiality. Yet, how many folks believe that the BSA would remain neutral on this issue if some idiotic group was trying to make it a local option? Im fairly confident in the BSA as a character building organizationan organization that truly believes in traditional valuesif they thought for one second that any chartering organization would accept the premise that bestiality should be a non-factor in their membership requirements that the BSA would step in and create a new policy banning those who practice such a perversion.

 

I just read Bob's previous post. I didn't read it before posting my response to TJ. His explanation as to how the BSA policy aganist homosexuals was created is about what I expected. Also, I'm not sure he'd disagree with most of what I said. At least from my reading of his post, I think we're on the same page - which is unusual for us! But, I guess I better wait before proclaiming that as a fact. :-)(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[tjhammer 10]

So Rooster... you think this was all prompted by the vast, external homosexual lobby? And that the BSA didn't "strike" first? Tell that to James Dale (the young Scouter for whom the Supreme Court case evolved). He never sought to "change" the BSA or make an example out of them (he never even knew the BSA had a policy against him). The BSA proactively sought him out because they discovered something about him they didn't like. The external lobby that rallied to his support did just that... they responded to be the BSA's aggression, not vice-versa. It might be nice to think that you (BSA) are the real victim here... I suspect it makes the harm done by the "policy" easier to overlook. But let's not revise history. This "policy" came into existence only after pressure from specific chartered orgs called the BSA's hand on it (specifically the LDS and Catholic Churches at the National Relationships Committee meetings). Until that time, BSA's policy was locally set, locally enforced and individually applied on this and all other issues relating to specific character and fitness for membership. (Granted, an unspoken, whisper-based policy may have been in defacto existence for years before anything was written down, but it still allowed for the possibility of local control and individual application.)

 

For the record, I don't deny that there is a homosexual lobby in play here, and I certainly don't support all of their tactics. Both sides of this debate have their extremists trying to set the tone and frame the debate, and in the middle there are a lot of innocents getting trampled (including Scouting itself).

 

 

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[Bob White 20]

With all due respect TJ you really have no idea how the BSA works on a national level before or since the Dale incident.

 

You have some very strong personal opinions which you are welcome to have, but your content shows little knowledge of the non-profit corporation side of scouting beyond the district level.

 

Bob White

[tjhammer 10]

Bob, your arrogance is amazing, but we've had this discussion several times before. My understanding and experience with Scouting runs to every level. I have even attended meetings held for the National Relationships Committee (when this discussion was not on the agenda). I have a throurough understanding of national structure and how the agenda is set (both in theory and in practice.)

 

You're own knowledge of Scouting is significant, and your ability to quickly refer to point and prose of policies is impressive. But frankly, just because BobWhite says something with certainty, it does not always make it true.

 

How about instead of simply dismissing me as "clueless", you take a moment to consider that I probably do know something about this? Better still, why not learn more about the Nat Relationships Committee and their role in the evolution of the policy in recent years?

 

Frankly, playing "whose got more training ribbons" with you is tiresome and nothing more than a diversion from the real issue.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)