The Press and discriminatory story writing.

[BrentAllen 10]

"Well said. Sometimes one needs to evolve or become a fossil."

 

I've seen this time and time when discussing BSA policy regarding gays and athiests. IIRC, the BSA tried to "evolve" back in the early 1970's, after the counterculture era of the 1960's. Urban Scouting took the place of the backwoods. What happened then?

[CalicoPenn 729]

I think the "evolution" of Scouting from woods based to urban based in the 70's was a reaction to population patterns - that it happened after the "counterculture" was just a coincidence. For most of the countries history, the majority of of lived on farms and in rural areas. After World War II this pattern started to change. In the 1960's, this change was becoming even more evident. By the early 70's, the population was increasingly urban and our population was starting to increase tremendously. In the 1950's, the US population stood at around 150 million people. In 2000, the US population stood at around 280 million people - and increase almost double in 50 years. It took over 150 years (based on beginning of US Census taking) to reach 150 million people - it took a third of that time to add almost another 150 million people.

 

Prior to the 1970's, the majority of people lived in rural areas. In the 1970's the majority now lived in urban metropolitan areas - just slightly more than 50% and was continuing to trend to urban (which included suburban) living. That trend towards urbanization continued. By the 1980's, around 60% of us were living in urban metropolitan areas. In the 1990's, it was about 70%. According to the 2000 US Census, a whopping 80.3% of us now live in urban metropolitan areas - and it's still trending upwards. Will we reach 90% at the end of this decade? I'd like to say it's unlikely and that it will stabilize at about 85% but the indications are clear that for the foreseeable future, the USA will be a country where Urban values will hold sway.

 

I remember going through those changes to the BSA program in the 1970's - from a marketing perspective, it made a lot of sense. THe BSA adjusted their program to where the people were, and what their realities were.

 

As a patrol leader, I read ideas about taking my patrol on train trips to the woods to go camping for a weekend. In my area, had we gotten on a train, we would have been heading into downtown Chicago - no where near any campable woods. Other suggestions were to get permission to camp at the woodlot on the edge of town. The edges of my town were host to houses, industrial buildings, shopping centers that were in my town, and in the neighboring suburban towns - we had not woodlots we could go to - and the forest preserves were off limits to camping, and not safe anyway. First Aid was all about tourniquets, and fancy splints, etc. for in the woods - but in my town, a phone call brought an ambulance in less than 4 minutes. By the time we got a splint on someone, the ambulance would be there, and the Paramedics would be removing the splint we made anyway. The changes were in reaction to these new realities for most people.

 

Did that pendulum swing too far at the time? Probably - it could have been a lot more gradual - but the BSA was correct in not ignoring what the reality of the "marketplace" was.

 

This all relates to the idea of American Values too. The "traditional" American Values were set in the our rural heritage - where everyone in an area was generally the same. As your out and about with your Scouts this year, I challenge you all to really look at how the rural areas in our country were settled - Wisconsin has a great outdoor museum - Old World Wisconsin - that does a great job in showing settlement patterns. German settlers settled with other Germans. Swedes settled with other Swedes. Etc. Etc. Etc. That rural sameness was a sameness in one area, not neccessarily the whole. Now, it is the Urban Areas that are still being "settled" but not by people who are all the same. There is a diversity in the current "settlement" (or should I see "continual resettlement") of Urban Areas of the US that hasn't been matched by any rural area in the US, or anywhere else in the world (with the possible exceptions of London, France and the large Canadian cities) and that diversity is the new driving force of American Values. Before anyone states that different groups are populating different parts of our cities (in other words, bringing up explain "Chinatown", "Little Italy", etc.) - that is true - BUT - the difference is that there isn't 20, 30, 40 or more miles separating these groups - they may live together in a small enclave within a large city, but they do interract with each other on a daily basis.

 

It is, IMO, the change in our population centers that is the root cause of our cultural clashes. Those that are clinging to some sense of "traditional values" are currently on, and likely will be on, the losing side of that clash for some time to come - if it hasn't already been permanently lost. Increasingly in urban areas, being athiest or being gay is not being seen as immoral. Being discriminatory - even if it is legal - is being seen as immoral. It will be a hard row to how to convince people who believe that discrimination is wrong and immoral that there can be caveats to that stance - that discrimination is wrong except that you can discriminate against (insert your favorit whipping boy).

 

CalicoPenn

 

[BrentAllen 10]

Calico,

I don't think your argument holds water. In the late 1970's, the BSA saw the error of their ways and went back to a pre-1970's model - backwoods camping, traditional Scouting. The numbers started to rise again. The population didn't change any during that time - if anything, the trend was still toward urban - but Scouting changed back to traditional, and the numbers went up. I don't think your argument can explain that occurance.

 

I've lived in metro Atlanta my entire life, but I love the outdoors, the wilderness areas. That is true of a lot of people in the South. What B-P found in 1907 still holds true - boys are drawn to the outdoors, to the smell of a campfire, to the camaraderie of a group of close friends, to the challenge of camping in the wilderness.

 

Some people view discrimination as immoral. Some view homosexuality as immoral. Which group is larger?

 

If you allow gays as leaders, are you going to allow them to discuss homosexuality with the boys?

 

In case anyone needs a reminder, Scouts Canada "evolved" to allow in gays, girls and athiests - look what happened to their numbers. A nose dive.

[LongHaul 10]

>>>First let me address the membership totals. These are from the Three Fires Council site, I have the numbers form a National site but cant find the link in my myriad of add on drives, who knew Id need 100 gigabytes of memory? I started with 16 and when I bought this thing I thought that was like hunting flies with a canon. Anyway In 1972 membership was at its all time top; 6,524,640 This was also the year that the newly revised Scout Handbook removes outdoor skill requirements for 1st Class as an "improved Scouting program" is introduced. Membership fell steadily reaching a recent low of 4,284,469 in 1979 when the Handbook again was revised and as BrentAllen says we returned to an outdoor program. The drop had nothing to do with girls, gays, or god. The numbers continued to rise after 1980 until they reached 5,445,899 in 1990. After this the numbers began to include LFL totals and IMO become unreliable for arguments of membership in the program. These numbers reflect an interest in the program not the politics of BSA. Its the program and again not the politics that those who attack us now seek. They want to join the program they just want to change the politics. Many see a change in the politics to be a damaging change to the program.

>>>Second to the use of the discrimination tag line; Everyone discriminates, go into a store and buy the brand name you normally would and you are discriminating against the off brand you have never tried. Tell your children not to associate with %% and you are discriminating. As Ive said before a very popular brand of Scotch used to say it was for The Discriminating Man. Its ILLEGAL Discrimination that we dont like but the press refuses to make that distinction. Our critics refuse to make that distinction. American values used to include fighting for a persons Constitutional rights. Guess that changed along with some of the morals in the PC society. We want the right to join your group and if that means we have to violate or take away your right to exclusivity then so be it! Our rights and desires supersede your rights. We want you to accept us even though we will not accept you. Are not the rallying cries that gain my support.

>>>As for the NAACP being open try looking up NAACP scholarships and find out how many were given to affluent white students, how many to middle class white students and how many to poverty level white students and the do the same for Black students in the same categories. Then tell me that there was no separation of applicants other than at the scholastic level.

(This message has been edited by LongHaul)

[Trevorum 24]

"If you allow gays as leaders, are you going to allow them to discuss homosexuality with the boys?"

 

Why in the world would anyone think that??? We don't allow anyone to discuss heterosexuality with the boys now, so why would we allow anyone to discuss other kinds of sexuality? Sexuality has no place in scouting, period. That argument is a red herring, plain an simple.

[evmori 11]

Why in the world would anyone think that??? We don't allow anyone to discuss heterosexuality with the boys now, so why would we allow anyone to discuss other kinds of sexuality? Sexuality has no place in scouting, period. That argument is a red herring, plain an simple.

 

Just cause the ain't allowed doesn't mean they won't. I wouldn't want my son camping with a gay leader.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[BrentAllen 10]

"Why in the world would anyone think that???"

 

You might want to ask Tim Curran. In a conversation with Quentin Alexander, he said "he specifically wanted to [be in the scouts] because he so firmly believed personally in a homosexual lifestyle that there was, quote, not anything wrong with it and he wanted to make sure that other kids understood that."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/s039738.pdf

 

I don't think I have ever seen the prohibition about discussing sexual issues with Scouts. I didn't realize the mission was "to prepare young people to make ethical choices over their lifetimes, except about sexual issues, by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law."

 

Again, I ask, if gays are allowed in as leaders, how are you going to stop them from advocating their lifestyle? I'm not saying they all will, but what if some do? You wouldn't be able to kick them out - so what would you do?

[tjhammer 10]

>> advocating their lifestyle

 

Good grief. You don't know ANYTHING about my "lifestyle", just some cartoonish image you cling to as justification for your prejudice. As long as you can believe I'm so different from you, it's easy to label who I am to be "immoral".

 

But by all means, please don't let me discourage you from continuing to share your ideas. In the end, it does more to drive people away from your line of thinking than it draws near, and I wouldn't want to deny your bliss.

 

 

 

[Lisabob 13]

Brent, I would hope that if a scout leader was in the habit of starting conversations about his or her sexuality that boys and parents would complain to the CO about this. I would then expect that the CO would either make it clear to the scouter in question that this is utterly inappropriate and better not happen twice, or that the CO would remove the scouter in question from the troop's leadership.

 

This holds true regardless of the sexual orientation of the scouter.

 

 

[LongHaul 10]

>>We don't allow anyone to discuss heterosexuality with the boys now,>I don't think I have ever seen the prohibition about discussing sexual issues with Scouts. I didn't realize the mission was "to prepare young people to make ethical choices over their lifetimes, except about sexual issues, by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.">Brent, I would hope that if a scout leader was in the habit of starting conversations about his or her sexuality that boys and parents would complain to the CO about this. I would then expect that the CO would either make it clear to the scouter in question that this is utterly inappropriate and better not happen twice, or that the CO would remove the scouter in question from the troop's leadership.

 

This holds true regardless of the sexual orientation of the scouter.

[evmori 11]

Yup, tj, advocating your lifestyle. Correct terminology.

 

If homosexuality is moral, why are homosexuals "coming out of the closet" & why isn't homosexuality as prevalent as heterosexuality?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[GernBlansten 10]

So if I personally believe that homosexuality is a biological condition and not immoral, can I be a scout leader? Or do I have to tow the party line and cast disdain and judgement just to wear the uniform? Does my acceptance of homosexuality make me immoral by association? Should I just avoid the discussion of human sexuality with scouts all together leaving such a sensitive matter to those with attitudes more in sync with BSA philosophy? Does BSA have a course I can take so I can do this properly? Train the trainer? Also, could someone please guide me to the list of immorality BSA recognizes. I don't remember seeing it in the fine print of the application but I'm sure its there somewhere.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

skeptic writes:

So, if you do not believe in [a god], then why would you even entertain joining the BSA?

 

Hmm, how about if your school has a SafeRides program, and you're, say, an atheist teetotaler with a brother who was paralyzed by a drunk driver, and you want to volunteer to help prevent drunk driving accidents -- and then you find out the SafeRides program is a Venture Crew, and atheists can't join. Why should an atheist student NOT join the SafeRides program?

[packsaddle 753]

Gern, I understand what you say but I caution you regarding any linkage between biological basis and any judgement about morality. Personally, I don't care if there is or isn't a biological basis (evidence suggests there is, though). The fact that two persons engage in an expression of love, to me, is never immoral. Biology, to me, is not relevant.

(Note: this is NOT an invitation to push the thread over the precipice of an apocalyptically shallow discussion of genetics or development. Thanks.)

 

Regarding discussions of sexuality. If a boy asks a question about sexuality then it is fair either to refer the boy to his parents or, if it is possible, to answer using objective and factual clinically-accurate terms. For example, if a boy comes to me and asks if raccoons breed through the nose and he reveals that his parents have told him so, I respond with the news flash that they don't. This has actually happened. The boy probably won't pursue it further, not with me at least. He didn't in real life.

Another real possiblity: on a hike, we stumble across a couple of used condoms littering the side of the trail near a parking lot. The boys snicker among themselves. While I'm curious as to how the rest of you respond to this, I'll tell you now that in this situation a boy has never come to any of our leaders to ask about it. 'Street knowledge' seems to suffice. However, if a parent lodges a concern it is a good time to ask them directly, "Do you approve of your son discussing these matters with his scout leader?"

In my experience, parents mostly don't. I have no idea if they take the initiative, although I suspect some do at least.

[BrentAllen 10]

"Or do I have to tow the party line and cast disdain and judgement just to wear the uniform?"

 

I guess I'm still wondering why anyone would join a group they thought was so bigoted. Does the good in the program just outweigh what you see as the bad? Or do you think the policy is going to change some day?

The Sierra Club does some wonderful things, but I refuse to join because of their politics. Same thing with the National Wildlife Federation.

 

tjhammer,

You don't know ANYTHING about me, just some cartoonish image you cling to as justification for YOUR prejudice. I have family members who are gay, but I would not want nor allow them to be my son's Scout leader. I do not hate them. I accept them for who they are, as they do me.

 

packsaddle,

"The fact that two persons engage in an expression of love, to me, is never immoral."

So, if a 50 year-old man expresses love (physical expression) for a neighbor's 10 year-old boy, you won't think that is immoral? Get rid of the pedophile laws?