Course reversal in Philly?

[Zahnada 11]

Bob,

 

Both of my previous points can and do co-exist. Let me start with point 2: BSA hasn't changed. Very true. It's what I agree with you on. You'll be hard-pressed to find changes in BSA values in the various handbooks. The values haven't changed. I'm not debating whether this is a good thing or not. There's a thin line between consistency and stagnation.

 

Now for point 1. The values haven't changed, but the policy has. There are now written rules about gays saying that they are not moral enough to be scouts. The fear is that this policy change can create a value change for scouting's members. The values have always been that we are all human and everyone is equal. The values are that this is a moral program (however you define morals). Those two values haven't changed in the scout handbook, but this controversy may change them in the minds of the members. Boys are learning that gays are not equal. However, the morality argument represents the other side. Both are slippery slope arguments.

 

Do you now understand what I'm saying? No change in values, but a change in policy. This change in policy may (and probably already has) result in a change in values.

[packsaddle 753]

MarkNoel, questioning, welcome to the forum. Soon, if not already, you will have confirmed that this issue is one that polarizes people from all walks of life. The basics have been hashed and rehashed here and it is unlikely that, aside from venting spleens (and Im as guilty as the next guy), anyones opinion will be changed. I sympathize with your views and I see a weakness in BSAs approach to all this. While I doubt that anywhere is there an actual written POLICY (Bob White) advising gays to stay in the closet, it is clear that such a policy is implicit in BSA's actions. BSA seems to preach honesty on one hand, but on the other encourages secrecy lest good leaders be ejected. I view this to be an egregious breach of BSA values. The term I have used in the past is hypocrisy.

 

I am not sure that when one person mentions the concept of a 'value' that I have an identical understanding of that concept. I am not sure that I (or anyone else) can articulate in words just what a 'value' is - as understood in each person's mind. Unless someone can measure values objectively (numerically, for example), those values will vary in their interpretation and in each persons view. And each of us knows that we have the superior view. So welcome, have fun, vent your spleen if needed, but dont let all this cause you to forget why youre in Scouting.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Bob White 20]

Mark,

I apologize for misattributing the quote.

 

Zahnada,

I offer you the same challenge I offered Questioning. You say there was a policy change, prove it. I have been a scout since 1963, and aleader since 1977, and I am not aware of a policy change regarding atheists or homosexuals or any individual who act or speak publicly against the values of scouting. I know of no point in time when membership was soley controled by the CO or the local council. Since 1916 all members registered with the national office not with the local council or charter organization. National has always been the final say in membership.

 

So Zahnada, Mark, anybody who wants to try their hand at this. Give us one concrete piece of evidence to back up how you "think" scouting use to be. Give us a manual, a trainig guide, a Handbook that shows a policy change or a shift in the values of scouting.

 

Give my one scouting manual or training syllabus that instructs scouts to be intolerant of athiest or homosexuals. Give my any BSA material that teaches anything about sexuality at all, hetero or homo, good or bad.

 

Quit spewing generalities about what you 'remember' or what you 'think' or what you 'feel'. Give me proof that what you say existed in the BSA program.

 

I'll wait here.

Bob White

[packsaddle 753]

Bob White,

I, for one, think it is good for you to champion tolerance. I never saw anything that stated or led me to believe that scouting is or should be intolerant. I wish tolerance was embraced, in practice, by all scouters.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

The BSA's interpretation of its own religious requirements have changed over the years.

 

In 1985, Paul Trout was kicked out for not having a belief in a "Supreme Being", a phrase apparently added in 1978 to the scoutmaster's handbook. This came up during his BoR for Life Scout.

 

In this particular case, Paul Trout was eventually readmitted and became a Life Scout, even though his religious beliefs didn't change:

http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/God-Top/Paul_Trout-Top/paul_trout-top.html

 

This is in contrast to later Scouts like the Randall twins who were kicked out and not readmitted.

 

The Unitarian-Universalists did not like the "Supreme Being" requirement, since not all of their members would characterize their beliefs in this way:

http://www.uua.org/news/scouts/world.html

 

So, whether the BSA specifically requires a belief in a "supreme being" has changed over time. Such a requirement would not only exclude atheists but polytheists who don't consider one god to be supreme over all other gods.

[Zahnada 11]

Bob White,

 

Sometimes I wonder if you actually read my posts. Of course there is a policy change. The change is the fact that what once was implied but never stated is now written law. The policy change is the fact that there are concrete rules (which their concreteness may be debated) that say "No Gays!" I'd call that a pretty big change. It's even stated on BSA's website.

 

Why can't I find differences from past scout handouts or books? Because, as you have stated, there is no mention of the subject. It's a change because of previous ommision. So naturally there is a massive change in policy, unless you can find in one of your old books and notes, in plain English, a passage that reads, "No Gays!"

 

So in answer to your challenge, "Quit spewing generalities about what you 'remember' or what you 'think' or what you 'feel'. Give me proof that what you say existed in the BSA program." then my proof is that what was silent is now written. Unless you can give me proof that it always existed in writing and plain English. (no interpretations of morally straight)

 

[packsaddle 753]

Merlyn, Those are eye-opening links! I had known about some of that history but I didn't know it was collected into one place. Thanks.

[evmori 11]

pack,

Pay attention to the source when you are reading something like this. These groups are anti-Scouting so you will get the anti-Scouting slant.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White 20]

Zahnada,

If there is now a written policy then you should be able to share with us what it says precisely, when it was written, and where it can be found.

 

I would interested in such information.

 

Bob White

[littlebillie 10]

it'd be interesting to read an article about a married Scouter getting expelled for an affair (or a single one for shacking up, or a Scout getting kicked out for losing his virginity) and seeing how all the interest groups would react to it.

 

you know, that goose/gander sauce thing...

 

until this happens there will always be cries of hypocrisy. "don't ask don't tell" covers a lot more territory than orientation.

 

[packsaddle 753]

10-4 and thanks, Ed, for the reminder. But believe me, my eye offers equal skepticism for ALL sources. One thing, though, as I examine the UUA, my sense is that they are not strictly anti-BSA. UUA promotes tolerance and they perceive BSA as discriminatory and intolerant. But it is BSA that has rejected UUA for the most part.

 

littlebillie, I like that twist on the issue. You're right, it should cut in all directions. Come to think of it, of all the presidents in my lifetime, only Harry Truman, Gerald Ford, Jimmie Carter, and Ronald Reagan would likely stand the test - and I could be wrong about them. H'mm, Jimmie admitted lust for other women, and Ronnie was divorced (you never know about that extra-marital thing). Harry and Gerry might be the only ones. Yep, they're the Boy Scouts!

[Zahnada 11]

Bob White,

 

I can't help but feel I'm walking into a trap, but I'm very curious as to where you're going with this, so I'll bite.

 

On the BSA's website, under "Press Releases" there's a statement from June 28, 2000 that sets the policy that the BSA adopted because of the Dale Case. It says:

 

"We believe an avowed homosexual is not a role model for the values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law."

 

Now, Bob, I know darned well that you know this information. You've quoted it yourself on numerous occasions. So now that I have taken the bait, you are free to make your move.

[Bob White 20]

So Zahnada,

Is it your proposition that

1. The press release is the policy

2.The policy never existed before that press release.

3. That the policy never included Homosexuals

4. The policy was never challenged in court before and so was not well known to the general public.

 

If the Policy is new, what was the policy before?

Where is it stated?

 

Am I leading you to a point? Yes, but it is largely self-discovery.

 

Bob White

 

 

 

[Zahnada 11]

Well, Bob, I believe I answered your question and it is now your job to prove me wrong. Quit beating around the bush and answer my challenge. I think it's obvious that I don't know what the written policy was before all this recent discussion because I believe there was none. So enlighten me! You argue that policy hasn't changed in 90 years. Offer me the evidence that you so strongly desire! Show me a passage from the past that openly states, "BSA will not allow gays." Stop asking the questions and start giving some answers to defend your side. If you can prove it (which there is a good chance because your knowledge of scouting history probably surpasses mine) then I will admit I was wrong.

 

In the meantime, I stand by my statement that no such stated policy existed before. It may have been implied. It may have been believed by most scouters. But it was not written policy. Prove to me that it was.

[bt01 10]

Merlyn_LeRoy

 

Course reversal in Philly??? In God Wwe Trust

 

BT