Time bomb in new city budget? [Philly votes to boot Scouts]

[BadenP 93]

As much as I hate to admit it Merlyn is probably correct in his assessment of this situation in Philly. So barring a huge public uproar from the power brokers and citizens of Philly I can not see the BSA prevailing. The sad part is that this type of sentiment is growing across the country, and like it or not the BSA does not carry the same political punch it did 20 years ago. Our numbers are dropping and the respect and honor of being part of the BSA organization has gradually been erroding as of late.

It comes down to who has all the political juice in the city and can make things happen. Beavah is correct when he infers the wording of the contract and the law is irrelevant, it all boils down to who has the clout, and where they stand on the issue.

 

All the time honored history and traditions of scouting will not be enough to stop this and other similiar future issues from continuing to further diminish the BSA and thats the most tragic consequence of all.

[packsaddle 753]

Back from paradise, I'm afraid, good things rarely last forever.

BSA is, and always has been, in control of this. BSA chose to make and enforce (however sloppily, Ed) a membership policy that is also of BSA's choice. The potential consequences were obvious and BSA did it anyway.

BadenP notes these tragic consequences and I submit that they are tragic mostly for the boys who will not be able to participate...and it has already been tragic for boys who were excluded because of the policy.

 

But BSA made its bed and now BSA will suffer whatever consequences arise. The real tragedy is that BSA could change the policy as easily as BSA created it in the first place...but they won't. In this respect, BSA is - by its own decisions - responsible for the tragic situation. The solution is so easy...a stroke of a pen and then some time to heal the wounds and repair the public view. I'm not holding my breath.

[Hunt 11]

"I'd say the government should cut the BSA the same slack that the BSA cuts for gays and atheists - i.e., about none."

 

See, this is the problem with an extremist's attitude. Everying is black and white for you--because you think BSA is wrong about its membership limits, you can't see anything good about it at all. That attitude is just as blind as the attitude of people who can't see anything bad about it. This attitude makes you into an enemy of Scouting, as opposed to a person who wants to urge a good organization to be better. Your whole approach--especially on this message board--is counter-productive.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

So Pack,

 

What you are saying, I think, and if wrong I am sure you will correct me, is that the BSA could make Chartering Organizations responsible for setting adult leader criteria. If a CO wanted all males, then it would be free to do so. If a CO did not care to limit adult membership based on sexual or Theistic orientation, then that would be up to the CO. The CO would be primarily liable for all actions taken by the adult leaders.

 

Now, for the other side, what happens to the BSA if one or more of the largest CO's in the country finds this move to be morally repugnant and drops all afiliation with the BSA?

 

What if losing 30-40 percent of membership is the price we pay for allowing the "local option" on membership criteria?

Can we male those numbers up by the people not associating with us now?

 

The BSA is held hostage by the beliefs of a few CO's, and I dont know what to do

[Trevorum 24]

OGE, I'm sure pack will offer his own opinion, but here are my views.

 

Worst case scenario: BSA allows "local option" and several liberal COs open membership to atheists and/or homosexuals. The LDS (say) is morally outraged and leaves en masse, reducing BSA membership by 30% in one fell swoop. BSA is leaner for sure, and maybe takes the opportunity to restructure. But what happens to those thousands of LDS fellows? Do they leave Scouting? Not at all! They'll just become LDS Scouts, some uniforming changes, maybe with different ranks and badges, but still under BPs grand plan of Scouting. And more closer aligned with their CO's values. I think that would be OK. In fact, I think that might be a win-win-win.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Well Hunt, I'm sure some members of whites-only groups and Restricted clubs get miffed when people only see their exclusion of non-whites or Jews instead of all the wonderful, positive things they do for white people or goyim, respectively.

 

And what's wrong with treating the BSA the same way they treat others? Sounds like the golden rule to me. The BSA gave Darrell Lambert a week to become a theist, why should Philadelphia give the C of L council more time than that to change?

[packsaddle 753]

Trevorum beat me to it and I agree with his assessment. I would also note that I think it is unlikely that the LDS contingent would take that action and leave merely because local option became available. Once their 'moral outrage' was tempered by reality...that local option is already being practiced and it's not going away...they'd reluctantly stick with the program and exercise their own local option.

In other words, all the COs would at last be free to do the right thing, whatever they determine that to be.

 

One more thought on this: I think it is inaccurate to make an strict association between the LDS church and such things as homophobia. I think that LDS members are still free to decide for themselves and while some may, in fact, be homophobes, many are not. I doubt that LDS is sufficiently monolithic to take an action like leaving en masse without a significant internal upheaval that could be more easily avoided by taking no action at all.

[Hunt 11]

"Well Hunt, I'm sure some members of whites-only groups and Restricted clubs get miffed when people only see their exclusion of non-whites or Jews instead of all the wonderful, positive things they do for white people or goyim, respectively."

 

See, this shows me that you really don't get it. It makes me think you really don't know very much about what Scouting is. But please tell me, what are you trying to accomplish here? If you're trying to persuade Scouters of the rightness of your views, your approach is totally counterproductive. If you're just trying to annoy people you dislike, that's pretty pathetic. There are people of good will who admire much of Scouting's ideals and program, but think that it would be even better if it would change its position on its membership limitations. Those people have some hope of eventually bringing about change. Your approach does the exact opposite, and instead hardens your opponents in their views--so really, what strategy are you pursuing?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Hunt, you still seem to think that official, government-supported discrimination against atheists can, should, or ought to be ignored if it inconveniences the Boy Scouts. I fight for equal rights for atheists, and I don't compromise on civil rights. You can be a doormat when your rights are infringed if you like; I won't. And if you keep trying to dismiss my concern about atheists' rights by whining, that won't even slow me down. If you don't want fanatics like me going loggerheads against the fanatics who run the BSA, you never should have allowed fanatics to take over the BSA in the first place.

[Hunt 11]

Merlyn, I can understand why it might make you uncomfortable to actually respond to my question, and why you felt it necessary to change the subject back to your campaign against government support of scouting. I can understand that. What I can't understand--and maybe you don't understand it yourself--is what you are trying to accomplish with your postings here. It seems to me that you are just antagonizing the people you ought to be trying to persuade. Is it just a hobby? Perhaps getting some of the posters to insult you helps to shore up your idea that scouting and scouters are evil. But this idea really lacks credibility to anybody who doesn't already agree with you.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Hunt, when I first started posting here (back when public schools still chartered thousands of packs & troops), hardly anyone posting in my thread about public school charters even acceded that there was any kind of problem with public schools discriminating against atheists by chartering BSA units. I like to think I've changed a few minds on this matter.

 

Plus, I like a good argument, and I paid for the full half-hour.