Question for Bob White

[Bob White 20]

In a separate issue from the religious awards the national offices of the Wiccan church and the UUA were informed by the BSA that because they refuse to abide by the membership regulations of the BSA, specifically to reject the membership of avowed atheists and homosexuals, they would not be able to charter units of the BSA. I do not know if they have canceled existing charters or will just have them lapse at years end.

 

Bob White

[Overtrained 10]

BW

 

I have attempted to read this entire thread and admire and respect your input. I can not articulate it as well as you do, but consider your input as representing my view.

 

Keep up the good work.

 

Overtrained

[Bob White 20]

Rooster,

Call it pompous if you want, but I'm not guessing and I'm not making it up as I go along.

Posters who know me understand that I'm just irritated with the trash being spread here.

 

Rooster how can you say that you think the BSA should dictate to others what their stance must be on homosexuality, yet you don't feel that others should be allowed to dictate to the BSA what their stance should be?

 

You can't have it just one way Rooster and the BSA understands that. The BSA wants the same right of self-determination that the other private groups want and deserve.

 

I appreciate that you support the BSA on this issue, but the reasons you use to support your point do not reflect what the BSA has stated as their position. In fact in many ways it presents just the image and bias that the BSA does not support. If you really want to support the program on this issue you would do far more good if you did it for the right reasons.

 

Bob White

 

 

 

 

[Rooster7 11]

Bob,

 

Rooster how can you say that you think the BSA should dictate to others what their stance must be on homosexuality, yet you don't feel that others should be allowed to dictate to the BSA what their stance should be?

 

As you yourself have demonstrated to others on this board, an organizations membership criteria does not mean other organizations are being dictated to or bullied. The chartering organizations, or potential chartering organizations, would merely be presented with a choice. Abide by our values or dont expect your charter to be approved. Furthermore, the BSA is not trying to join the UUA or the Episcopal Church. These organizations have no leverage to request the BSA to conform to a particular standard. On the other hand, these organizations do want something from the BSA a charter. Therefore, the BSA is in a position to request that they conform to their standardswhatever the BSA determines those values shall be.

 

You can't have it just one way Rooster and the BSA understands that. The BSA wants the same right of self-determination that the other private groups want and deserve.

 

Youre over stating this issue. Both the BSA and the chartering organizations would still have self-determination. Its a matter of association. Just as the BSA refuses to allow such organizations like NAMBLA from having a charter, they could establish higher standards and refuse to issue charters to others as well. Its merely a matter of how rigid do they want to make their standards. What beliefs and behaviors are they willing to tolerate of chartering organizations?

 

I appreciate that you support the BSA on this issue, but the reasons you use to support your point do not reflect what the BSA has stated as their position. In fact in many ways it presents just the image and bias that the BSA does not support. If you really want to support the program on this issue you would do far more good if you did it for the right reasons.

 

If the BSA wanted to remove the specter of bias, they would never have publicly stated that they felt a homosexual leader was an inappropriate role model. Not all biases and/or discrimination is wrongthus the phrase discriminating taste. Again, this is a matter of association. With whom, and what organizations, does the BSA want to have a close association? If they continue to operate as they have, Im still convinced and satisfied that they are struggling to preserve traditional values. However, I feel that they could dig their heels in further and make a stronger statement. Perhaps, as you believe, they will never go beyond their current policy. Regardless, I believe that there is hope that the BSA will establish and enforce stronger policies pertaining to the requirements of chartering organizations. No matter what happens, without a crystal ball, its impossible to state what the BSA might do 15, 10, or even five years from now. Things changesome times for the goodsome times for the bad. Time will tell.

 

Well, whether you agree or not, I feel I am supporting the BSA for the right reasons.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Yes, Rooster, by all means, let's give the boys a good lesson in power politics and the coercive, my-way-or-the-highway attitude present in most of our economic and financial relationships today. That will certainly teach them to be fine citizens. A good dose of realism will prepare them to do what it takes to get what they want in the future, no matter who has to pushed out of the way or climbed over in the process.

 

Of course, to avoid any hypocrisy, it might be necessary to delete some words from the Scout Law. Let's see: Helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, all would have to be crossed out, maybe a couple others as well. I'm afraid these words just aren't compatible with the example you want to set for the boys, Rooster.

[Rooster7 11]

NJ,

 

What can I say? We just don't view it the same way. Sometimes ultimatums need to be presented if one wants to preserve the good. If you feel that I am setting a bad example, I will just have to live with that thought. Obviously, neither one of us is going to convince the other to see the light.

 

In regard to hypocrisy, I think you may have crossed over that line with your last post. While I disagree with you on a number of issues, I have never impugned your character. Do me a favor next time, before you hit that [submit Your Message] button, take a look in the mirror.

 

[mk9750 11]

Pack,

 

Sorry, but I don't think I can help much.

 

In the material I reviewed, I did not see any reference to BSA revoking the ability of UUA to charter units. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, I just didn't see it in the material I reviewed.

 

As to what UUA agreed, it appeared to me that their intention originally, and what they told BSA, was that no mention of homosexuality would be made in the Religious Emblem packet of materials. They would provide guidance to youth about the topic through other channels. I reviewed the material in chronological order, so I did not have the knowledge of what was to come later as I looked at it, but I interpreted this (and I think the BSA must have too) that UUA would not use any part of literature connected with BSA to promulgate homosexuality. After the two organizations agreed to proceed under this understanding, the UUA inserted a loose leaf sheet into the packet with such guidance in it.

 

I no longer have the material to reference, as it was given to our SM. So I am working from memory, but I believe the last correspondence from which the two organizations were able to agree stated that no mention of the topic would be made in the direct materials. I am sure the UUA believes they lived up to this commitment by inserting the loose leaf letter: Obviously, the BSA does not.

 

Almost all of my review was based on copies of letters between the two organizations, and editorials by UUA officials. To my knowledge, there was no "contract" exchanged. The agreement was reached in correspondence back and forth. Those letters are available for review in the UUA website. You may have to dig a little when you get there.

 

Bob,

 

I hate doing this, because I generally (no, I specifically) support your position on this issue. Actually, I probably support it more for the same reasons Rooster does, but that's neither here nor there. You talked about how local organizations like teams that belong to the NFL must adhere to national policy. Of course, you are right about some things (number of games in the schedule, size of the roster, etc.). but there are also plenty of things about which each team can decide (start date of practices, how long practices are, how many tight ends vs running backs they carry, etc.). In each of the other analogies you made, much of the rules are governed globally, but individual units control some aspects of their operation.

 

Again, I believe that the BSA's position in this matter is right. But the analogies you used are flawed, in my opinion.

 

Mark

[Bob White 20]

Mark,

Maybe I can clarify. First, I know the model of using the NFL may not hold up in every aspect but it is close in many ways.

 

As you correctly point out, the teams can set their own practice schedule, just as troops can set their own troop meeting nights and times.

 

But the point is the rules and procedures are set by the national organization. Without that nation control there would no program continuity. Why do franchise operations like McD's, or others work so well? Because people see the name and now exactly what to expect of the product from years of standardized characteristics and procedures. That's why when one location doesn't live up to it's expectations people are so disappointed. Just as scouts come to the program with certain expectations based on the BSA's national reputation and become very disappointed when the unit is not what they were promised in the nationally published handbooks.

 

Another correlation has been made comparing how states can set their own laws. But that is only part of the story. What those posters have failed to mention, or don't realize, is that the state's laws can be more restrictive but not less restrictive than any related federal law. The same is true of local municipalities, that can make laws which are more restrictive but not less restrictive that related state or federal laws.

 

In scouting local units can make rules providing they do not conflict with existing BSA policies. In the area of membership (where some posters are saying they want local options) units are welcome to be more restrictive but not less restrictive than national, just like with local and state governments.

 

Bottom line units have numerous elements where they are basically free to exercise local options except for four areas.

Uniforms- although several uniform options are available, many aspects of how and when the BSA uniform is displayed are controlled by national policies.

 

Safety- The Guide to safe scouting has some practices (identified in bold type) which must either be followed or avoided, depending on their specific instruction.

 

Advancement- The advancement program is one of the most misused and abused methods of scouting. National has found it necessary to tightly control advancement at all levels.

 

Membership- The BSA as a national entity has sole authority over the minimum requirements for membership in the BSA. While local units can be more restrictive, they cannot be less restrictive.

 

Outside of these four areas the BSA relies on the integrity and abilities of the adult leaders to use the methods and program elements of scouting to provide a successful scouting program to all eligible youth.

 

Local options in these areas would make it impossible to retain a nation program with national similarities and identity. National BSA is not going to relinquish it's responsibilities to the national program by allowing local options that are less restrictive than their own. It would be tha same as the federal government passing laws then telling states and cities that they don't have to abide by them.

 

I hope this helps to clarify things,

Bob White

[acco40 95]

First, lets all take a deep breath and calm down. BW, I agree with you on your local option thoughts. There needs to be consistancy throughout on the methods, aims and ideals of Scouting.

 

Your statement, "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." of course is absolutely correct. I think the debatable point is what do the Oath & Law express. I agree with "nationals" interpretation wrt reverent, but not morally straight. C'est la vie.

 

I do have a question. A friend of mine belongs to a Pack that has a Knights of Columbus organization as the CO. Members of the Pack consists of many different faiths. There was a push, according to my friend, to make the Pack a "Roman Catholic" unit. I'm aware that they can do this. My question is how (my deeper question is why, but please everyone, don't try to answer that one)? I'm assuming that by becoming a Roman Catholic unit, that the unit would only allow membership to those who profess the RC faith. Is that correct?

 

[Bob White 20]

As you said Acco, chartering organizations can restrict membership to suit the goals and mission of the organization. The most likely reasonfor the Knights of Colombus to make this membership change is because they want to shift the focus of the unit to focus on the teachings and obligations of their church. A miaaion they feel can be best acomplished with a unit all of the same faith. This is not a rare occurence and many units exist that have such singular membership and not all are sponsored by religious organizations. Many schools serve only youth from that school.

 

Hope this helps,

Bob White

[Twocubdad 665]

Well that's a new one on me. And all this time I thought it was a basic principle of Scouting that the program is open to everyone, regardless of their faith. When we read the part of the statement on religious principles that states that BSA "is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training," we should add under our breath "but our individual units don't have to be."

 

As the President might say, "I can sum this up in one word: 'slippery slope.'"(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[Bob White 20]

Hi Twocubdad,

I don't know what training you have attended up to this point as a leader, but this is not new information. This has been part of basic Cub Scout and Boy Scout leader training for decades. Unless your trainers did not follow the syllabus this was covered as part of your basic training. It is the foundation of the BSA congressional charter. Scouting is to be carried out in cooperation with local civic, educational and religious organizations, who use the scouting program to further achieve the goals of their organizations through the methods and values of the BSA movement.

 

The BSA is multi-denominational in its teachings and membership. That does not mean that the Chartering organizations must be. This is nothing new. As a scout in the 60s and 70s we had several troops that were focused in their membership. We had a Jewish troop chartered by a synagogue for its youth members , a Catholic Pack and Troop for the students at a local Catholic school. The Pack and Troop I was in was only for the students of the public school district we lived in.

 

If this is news to you there might be other fundemental elements of scouting you are missing out on. I recommend you consider New Leader Essentials and the Leader Specific Training for your role in scouting. A better understanding of the program can be a benefit to you and the scouts in your community.

 

Bob White

[Twocubdad 665]

Gee, Bob, thanks for your concern. I'll pass your thoughts along to our training committee chairman. I'm sure he'll be in touch.

 

While I am aware that is one of the exemptions offered to LDS units, I didn't know other units could have a closed membership. Frankly, it's disappointing.

 

Maybe you can enlighten us as to how units can "shift the focus of the unit to focus on the teachings and obligations of their church" and still abide by the BSA Statement on Religious Principles, all the while keeping up the official BSA program. I mean if we take part of a troop meeting to teach a merit badge half this board goes into apoplexy, but communicants classes are okay?(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[Bob White 20]

I'd be glad to help if I can. More importantly is that you understand how scouting is distributed in the USA. Was this really new information to you? Do you understand how Charter organizations can be more restrictive than the BSA in order to meet local goals, but cannot be less restrictive than the BSA in order to maintain a national program?

 

BW

[Twocubdad 665]

It's news to me that non-LDS units can deny membership to a Scout because of his church affilliation. I know that there are many units which are all of one faith simply due to the demographics of the are they serve. I wasn't aware that a unit could actively exclude boys of differing faiths. My understanding was just the opposite -- that the Statement on Religious Principles prohibited religious discrimination like that.

 

But let's see if I understand how this works: A local unit can go beyond national policy as long as they are erring on the side of a stricter or more conservative interpretation of the rule. We may go beyond the letter of a policy, but only of we are furthering the intent of the policy. For example, Safe Swim Defense doesn't require certified lifeguards. However, the unit I serve goes beyond the requirement and has a certified lifeguard supervising our water activities. The tour permit only requires one Youth Protection-trained leader on outings, our unit requres all our Leaders to be YP-trained.

 

Apply that philosophy the the Statement on Religious Principles which says we are to be "strictly non-sectarian." Someone trying to read that fairly loose, liberal way may interpret it to mean "open to all Christian denominations." But to read the statement and err on the side of a stricter, more conservative interpretation -- to go beyond the letter of the statement while furthering its intent -- would be to allow Scouts of all faith, as long as they believe in a supreme being -- Hindus, Native American beliefs, Druids, etc.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)