Question for Bob White

[NJCubScouter 1389]

BobWhite asks Rooster:

 

Rooster,

How exactly does the BSA decide to remove an CO before they do anything wrong?

 

I can't wait to hear the answer to this one.

 

So I'll give it myself, though perhaps not as Rooster would give it. Bob, although you and Rooster agree on the overall BSA policy on gays, you reach that conclusion from two different directions. You treat this whole subject as if its about rules and regulations decided in meetings, majority rules. I suspect, though obviously I can't prove it, that if the BSA had decided in late 1991 to permit local option, your reaction would have been along the lines of "oh well, if that's the decision, let's move on, when is the next district training committee meeting?"

 

That's not Rooster's approach at all. Rooster is in a war. Remember, the "culture war"? This is what the culture war is all about, and Rooster is a soldier in the war. The supposed "homosexual groups that want to destroy the BSA" are among the enemies. And as we have seen from our nation's most recent real war, waiting for your enemy in a war to shoot first is passe, a thing of the past. Now we shoot first. We don't need to wait for an organization to have done anything "wrong." What are you, a liberal or something? We don't like them or what they stand for, just kick them out. That's "wrong" enough for us.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Bob, you never saw "minority report" with Tom Cruise?

[Bob White 20]

A scout is Helpful, as proven by NJ who now feels he has the ability to speak for me, and others, I presume so that we no longer need to participate.

 

Here I thought I spoke based not on Roberts Rules but as a fairly well informed participant in scouting who understood the issues involved and the goals, methods, and policies of the program.

 

But don't let that side track this conversation you fellas just go ahead and make stuff up as you go along.

 

I'll go back to being an entertained observer.

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

I said:

 

if the BSA had decided in late 1991 to permit local option, ...

 

What I really meant to type was late 2000 or in 2001. That all somehow got morphed into 1991. Which certainly would have avoided the whole issue, but that is not what I meant. What I meant is the BSA doing what it did after winning the court case on exclusion of women from being Scoutmasters -- saying ok, we won, but we'll let them in anyway. Graciousness in victory, sort of like how we'd like the boys to act. That's what should have been done in this case, and 2000-2001 was the window of opportunity to do it. When they came out with that statement in Feb. 2002, that closed the window on local option. It will happen eventually, it will just take a lot longer.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Bob, before you talk about people "making stuff up," I suggest you read my latest post in the other thread.

 

As for my comments about your hypothetical reaction to something that never happened, I prefaced them by saying "I suspect." Obviously I can't prove what you would have done, and neither can you. But I think I'm right, and I notice you didn't bother to deny it.

 

I was actually thinking that I was paying you a compliment by saying that your focus was and is on the BSA and not on the "culture war." I have always viewed your position on this issue not as being anti-gay, but pro-BSA. Faced with criticism of something the BSA is doing, you seek to defend it. I understand that the best you can do is to imply that the anti-gay policy is an inevitable result of the "goals, methods, and policies of the program." That of course is just your opinion, and I don't agree with it.

[acco40 95]

NJ,

 

I'm divided on the local option possibility. I guess because of my age and the times I grew up in (and not being a southerner) as an impressionable 10-18 yr old, I viewed local laws as very suspect. Most local laws that I saw were draconian drug laws, racial segregation, etc. I saw a more federal approach as more just. Local laws were very conservative (back when conservative was a dirty word.) Now, many local laws have the pendulum swinging far the other way (i.e. see California) and have been labeled "far left" and liberal (and now liberal is the dirty word).

 

I'm not a hard campaigner to disallow avowed homosexuals or to keep reverence to God mandatory, I do hope that Scouting remains consistent in it's ideals throughout the USA. To further explain, by consistent, I mean the same throughout the country, not necessarily opposed to change.

[Rooster7 11]

NJ,

 

And at the same time, society is on its own, opposite path. I think that as time goes on, more and more religions are going to stop teaching that being gay is immoral and that gays should be excluded. More and more states, and eventually the federal government, will outlaw discrimination against gays. Some sort of "union" of people of the same gender, having most or all of the characteristics of marriage, will become commonplace. The military ban on gay conduct, and with it the ban on gays in the military, will be repealed (if it is not already unconstitutional based on the recent Texas case, which it probably is.)

 

I hate to throw my religious teaching back as a rebuttal (or rather, maybe I hate to think about how some will react), but

 

Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will. Romans 12:2

 

Rooster, you recently said in some thread that in 100 years, the issue will all be resolved, and I think you're right, though I don't think you will like the resolution.

 

Its kind of ironic that you should reference that statement of mine. You see, the resolution - in your mind, is what values society might be embracing 100 years from now. In my mind, the resolution is what God will reveal to us because in a 100 years or less, well know his Will (because none of us will be alive to debate this issue).

 

In the meantime, I am afraid that as the paths of the BSA and society diverge, the BSA will become more and more of a marginal organization. And that would be a real shame.

 

To the contrary, the more the BSA distinguishes itself as a value-based organization, the more honorable it will be. Its quite possible that the BSA will not serve quite as many as boys as it does today. That would be a shame. Nevertheless, BSA is respectable and praiseworthy because of its values, not because of its numbers.

 

We don't need to wait for an organization to have done anything "wrong." What are you, a liberal or something? We don't like them or what they stand for, just kick them out. That's "wrong" enough for us.

 

Well NJ, to some degree, I have to admit that youre right. But youve made a couple of implications that Id like to clear up. 1) I am not a hate monger. 2) I believe in the concept of due process.

 

However, I reserve the right to not like the behavior of certain individuals and organizations. If that makes me judgmental, so be it. If someone claims to support rapists, I dont wait for them to rape someone before I disassociate myself with that person. Likewise, if someone embraces homosexuality as acceptable behavior, I tend to distance myself from those folks. In particular, I dont want my children near them. Homosexuality is a nicely packaged word, isnt it? If the English language forced us to use more descriptive words that actually produced visual imagines in ones head, I wonder how readily some folks would jump up and I say, I support that behavior.

 

And NJ, before you start your then they came for me lectures, the BSA is not your federal government. Theyre a group of folks in a private organization that have common interests and values. Its not horrible or unlawful for them to limit their membership to likeminded folks.

 

 

I was actually thinking that I was paying you a compliment by saying that your focus was and is on the BSA and not on the "culture war."

 

Without implying anything about Bob (because despite our disagreements, I tend to respect his posts), you seem to be implying that it is better to draconically support regulations created by an organization that one supports (such as the BSA) then it is to fight for moral principles that one believes were established by God. Wow! Did you really say that or did I put words in your mouth? Hey, turnabout is fair play.

 

Bob,

 

How exactly does the BSA decide to remove an CO before they do anything wrong?

 

The BSA is free to define itself as a private organization, or redefine itself, as some on this board would prefer to see. It is within the purview of the BSA leadership to create policy even new policies. In fact, they have a right and responsibility to set policies which they feel are appropriate and consistent with the BSA mission. That being said, they could create a policy that establishes a baseline of acceptable values that chartering organizations must adhere to. While the BSA does not currently have such a policy, Im certain that they could develop one if they felt so inclined. Perhaps it will never happen. But, I for one, would be happy to see it.

 

Acco40,

 

Liberal always was a dirty word. Some folks just didnt discover that fact until recently. ;-)

 

[Bob White 20]

NJ

A number of posters including you tossed around the phrase "owned and operated a Girl Scout troop" if in fact you were aware that only the Girl Scouts owned and operated their units you made no attempt to rectify that misinformation.

 

I not only denied your assumption about where my support for the BSA came from (another misrepresentation on your part) I explained that it came not from flipant remark you offered of "oh well, if that's the decision, let's move on, when is the next district training committee meeting?", but from actual knowledge of the program and the facts of the isssue. Two elements you and some others seem to avoid like the plague.

 

Your posts are rife with opinion but little knowledge, giving your thoughts volume but no substance.

 

Lets through a little logic at just one 'opinion' reoccurring here. That of local option. How does an organization have a national program AND local option when it comes to policies? Imagine the NFL if every team could determine its own rules. McDonalds if every restaurant could fix whatever they chose however they chose. The Military if every base determined its own function and policies.

 

I can tell you with absolute certainty that as a national organization the policies, methods, and membership of scouting will always be determined by the nation executive committee of the BSA. There is no other way to insure a "national" program.

 

Will a simple fact like this sway the "wish it were" or "should be" crowd? Probably not. Continue to "wish" about what you want the BSA to be, but try this experiment to determine the value and benefit of wishing. Hold both hands out in front of you. Now wish about allthe things you think scouting should do and put those wishes in one hand. Now spit into the other hand and see which one fills up first.

 

Make your wishes on your birthday, the rest of the time let's be part of the world of what is, and start focusing on delivering the scouting program as it is designed or make room for folks who will.

 

Bob White

[Bob White 20]

"That being said, they could create a policy that establishes a baseline of acceptable values that chartering organizations must adhere to. While the BSA does not currently have such a policy,"

 

See now here we go again! Posts based on assumption and lack of information that only fuels more rhetoric.

 

Of course the BSA has such a tool. It's called the Shared Responsibilities Agreement and it is in the charter renewal process each year. The agreement must signed by the Institutional Head or the Charter Organization Representative, In it the responsibilities of the CO are outlined and agreed to.

 

Many of these posts would be enhanced if people asked questions rather than make unqualified statements. Like "does the BSA hold CO's to specific responsibilities in order to remain CO's".

 

Pardon me if I sound a bit miffed but all this spewing of falsehoods is getting really irritating.

 

BW

[Rooster7 11]

Bob,

 

Before I become the object of your scorn, tell me exactly what specific values does the BSA require chartering organizations to adhere to. Obviously, they don't currently require organizations to denounce homosexuality. I realize that the BSA does have some requirements that they require of the chartering organization, but what values do they impose on COs. If you would be willing to provide me with some specifics, I will be more than happy to verbally chastize myself.

[Fat Old Guy 11]

"How does an organization have a national program AND local option when it comes to policies?"

 

The National Federation of State High School Associations is the governing body for high school sports and set the rules and publishes the rule books. However, they allow each state to change rules if they desire. For example, the rules as written don't use a shot clock but some states have adopted shot clocks for basketball. Eligibility rules are set by each conference.

 

"The Military if every base determined its own function and policies"

 

Your vast experience with the military is showing again. It is not unusal for a base commander to set many local policies. Examples are may civilians use base facilities, will they have an open house, and may the Boy Scouts camp on the base.

[Bob White 20]

"tell me exactly what specific values does the BSA require chartering organizations to adhere to."

 

The BSA does not require a chartering organization to abide by any values other than those expressed in the Scout Oath and Law, and only to the extent of what they teach to the scouts and support to the scouts.

 

"Obviously, they don't currently require organizations to denounce homosexuality."

 

No they do not, nor will they in the future. They do not approve of the practice as an acceptable role modeling of the scouting values but they do not denounce homosexuals or put forth effort to deny them their lawfull rights. (keep in mind membership in scouting is not a right). The BSA expects the same respect in return.

 

 

"what values do they impose on COs"

None, and they have no intention to. CO's choose to use scouting because they share the same values and goals. They invite scouting in. The BSA does not force their way in or force their values on others. If you share the values and fulfill your voluntary obligation to follow the scouting programs, methods and policies then we have a partnership. If you do not or cannot fulfill your obligations as a CO then we do not have a partnership. The BSA does not impose its self on any organization.

 

I, and I would hope others, have no interest in self-flaggellation on your part or anyone elses. A far more prefered action would be to ask questions rather than make make assumptions about what the scouting program is or isn't. Read some scout resources, make an effort to talk to people who have some actual knowledge of the program and it's positions (like national reps and local professionals, or volunteers who are active beyond the council boundaries). A lot of bandwidth is wasted here on total tripe.

 

Bob White

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Bob says:

 

A number of posters including you tossed around the phrase "owned and operated a Girl Scout troop" if in fact you were aware that only the Girl Scouts owned and operated their units you made no attempt to rectify that misinformation.

 

That statement is completely false as it relates to me. What I had said is exactly the opposite of what you are claiming. Here is my post in the other thread that you are referring to, in its entirety:

 

Ed, I don't know, it seems to me that Merlyn is treating BSA and GSUSA even-handedly. He is saying that a military unit can "own and operate" a unit of either organization as long as the organization follows the same principles of non-discrimination that the military unit (as a part of the government) is required to follow.

 

Of course, the issue would not arise in the case of a GSUSA unit, for two reasons:

 

1. The GSUSA (apparently) does not exclude atheists. (I say "apparently" because this is what I have heard, and I have tried to find a clear statement confirming this on the Internet, but the statements I find are somewhat ambiguous. I think they do mean that a girl will not be excluded for being an atheist.

 

2. Girl Scout units apparently (there's that word again) are owned and operated by the GSUSA or sub-units within it -- not by chartering organizations as the BSA does. Girl Scout units do have "sponsors" but it is not the same kind of relationship as a CO has with the BSA unit. Therefore, a governmental unit or agency would not be in a position of owner/operator of a GSUSA unit, and the same legal issues would not arise.

 

Read it, Bob. I did say that Girl Scout units are "owned an operated" solely by the Girl Scouts and not outside organizations. I gave accurate information. You, on the other hand, did not. In response to the above post, you said:

 

There is no such thing as the Girls Scouts being sponsored by a government agency or any other kind of group.

 

I then responded to your statement, with links, proving that Girl Scout troops do indeed have sponsors, though the relationship is not the same as in the Boy Scout context, as I had already said in the above-quoted post.

 

Bob, I am ready to accept your apology.

[packsaddle 753]

I sincerely hope that MK9750 will indulge my use of his analysis from the other thread on the UUA/BSA conflict:

"The UUA had material in their Religious Emblem Award Literature that was inconsistent with the Philosphies of the BSA. The BSA objected, and when the UUA made an unacceptable attempt (to the BSA) to ammend their material, the BSA advised the UUA that they would no longer recongnize their Religious Emblem. This apparently caused the UUA to work harder toward satisfying the BSA, as, after many letters between the two organizations, and many reviews, the UUA was able to satisfy the BSA by pulling all reference to homosexuality out of the material. They said they would attempt to stay true to their beliefs by advising all UUA youth where they could obtain guidance on the topic if they were looking via other channels (by the way, this is a very reasonable position to take, IMHO). The BSA then agreed to recognize the Award. When the Emblem materials began to be distributed to youth who wanted to work on the Award, there was a seperate sheet included detailing the UUA's position on the issue and advising youth where to go for guidance. I don't suggest that this is a bad thing, but it was clear to me that the BSA's intent was to avoid ANY reference to homosexuality in the materials for an Award that they would recognize: The UUA used the disemination of the materials for the Award to provide information about the subject. A few more letters went back and forth, and both insitutions apparently agreed that they would not be able to align their goals with respect to the Award."

 

This was from the other thread where MK9750 sought an unbiased analysis.

 

Bob White, I now ask you, where is the reference to UUA doing anything regarding membership requirements? Clearly BSA would object if a CO attempted to circumvent or alter membership requirements, but outside your statements, I simply haven't read anything about this in regard to the UUA/BSA conflict. I have reread Mark's analysis and the material I collected independently years ago and all I can find is that BSA objected to the UUA statement of disagreement first in the P.R.A.Y. pamphlet, later in the separate enclosure to their boys. I am sure that Mark and others would also like to know the source of that information because it would be of material importance to understanding the conflict.

 

Mark, I am still not clear about the specifics of the last agreement between BSA and UUA. Did UUA specifically agree not to mention the homosexuality issue in the supplementary material? Or was this agreement without that level of detail? Were you able to get a copy of it?

 

Bob White, I have also reflected further on your claim that, "...the BSA made the decision to remove the UU as a chartering organization..." I excerpted this from one of your previous messages. I think that while this excerpt is not the complete statement, the idea is intact. Mark made no reference to such removal. Dsteele also has not mentioned such removal (at least not that I can find in the forums). I would like someone to confirm that, in fact, BSA HAS made the decision to remove the UUA as a chartering organization. Dsteele, you out there somewhere? I would like to know when this happened and for what reasons?

 

Bob White, I ask these things because you are evidently in possession of knowledge that I have not found elsewhere. So I am asking for you to identify the sources of your information. I really do try to be accurate in my statements and if I am wrong I want to know the basis for it. Thanks for your help.

[Rooster7 11]

Bob,

 

With all due respect (and I do respect your extensive knowledge concerning the affairs of the BSA), your last post supported my "assumptions". To the point, the BSA does not impose any specific values on chartering organizations outside of the Scout Oath and Law. So, my point was (two posts ago) and still is - the BSA if it was so moved to do so, could draw up a specific set of values (beyond just the Scout Oath and Law). As I tried to explain earlier, they are free to define themselves as an organization, even create new policies if they felt it was appropriate to do so. I'm not convinced that they ever will. I am just saying it is an option. One that I hope the BSA might consider one day. As to how you can unequivocally state that they will never require organizations to denounce homosexuality is beyond me. And to be frank, while I understand and appreciate your efforts to be informed about the BSA, sometimes it appears to me that you are going out of your way to be pompous. If you want to debate, great - but please don't lecture me. I try to be polite and give you credit for what appears to be wisdom on occasion. I would respect you much more if I saw some of that reciprocated. At the very least, dispose of the condescension. If you manage to do so, you might even gain a few more believers.