Jump to content

What does National mean?

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This thread has me going in 1001 different directions!


"Leading change to become more diverse is critical for Scouting to remain relevant."


The little Devil on my one shoulder is saying "Hey Eamonn! National knows that for several years membership has been going down hill and we need to recruit from places that we haven't really even tried to reach before".

Meanwhile the little Angel on the other shoulder is saying "Hey Eamonn, National wants to ensure that each and every boy has the opportunity to enjoy all that Scouting can offer".

My great hope is that the Angel is the one that is right.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly answering two LDS-related questions... from lds.org:


"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints formally affiliated with the Scouting movement in the United States in May of 1913 as its first institutional sponsor, and today sponsors more Scouts and Scouting units in the United States than any other organization. Hundreds of thousands of young men are enrolled as Scouts in groups or units sponsored by the Church."

Link to post
Share on other sites



See scoutldr's post. He nailed what I wanted to say.


BSA may be a non-profit, but that doesn't mean it can lose money. Losing LDS means losing a big chunk of the BSA revenue stream. You can bank that the National Council professionals and volunteers won't go there.




LDS was onbard as these matters came into BSA bit by bit. My gut says we pull the plug on the policies, they pull the plug on BSA.


Last time I checked in business world, people try very, very hard not to offend, deliberately, their largest customers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I agree with NJCubScouter (wow... it's been a couple of years since I wrote that phrase!)... almost certainly the quote from National about becoming more diverse applies to outreach to the Hispanic market.


As for the future of gay marriage, BrentAllen, this chart tells the story better than any words could: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/marriage-and-the-generations.html



Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first looked at tjhammer's chart, I thought, "Wow, people get a lot more liberal when they move from Alabama to Massachusetts." Then I decided that maybe I was reading the chart wrong. :-)


Younger people are far more accepting of gay marriage than older people are (news flash, I know). As the old people die off, the overall sentiment will grow more in favor of accepting gay marriage.


Now, you might argue that all this graph shows is that people grow more conservative as they grow older. Certainly a possibility, but really? That much more conservative? So let's add a time dimension to this and see how societal attitudes overall are changing over time. And Brent, you are right that the military's position on Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not legally related to the right of free assembly. I was just using it as one more data point showing the overall shift of societal attitudes and ongoing isolation of the BSA position. Here are some of the other data points.


National Opinion Research Center Poll

What about sexual relations between two adults of the same sex - do you think it is always wrong?

1991: 76% say it is always wrong

2006: 56%


UCLA Freshman Study

It is important to have laws prohibiting homosexual relationships.

1987: 53% agree

2007: 26%


2003 Gallup

Now Id like you to think about how your attitudes toward gays and lesbians might have changed in the past few years.

More accepting: 32%

Less accepting: 8%


In general, do you think homosexuals should or should not have equal rights in terms of job opportunities?

Gallup 1977: Should - 56%, Should Not - 33%

Gallup 2007: Should - 89%, Should Not - 8%


Gallup Polls, 1997->2003

Do you think homosexuals should or should not be hired for each of the following occupations?

Percent answering "Should"

Salesperson: 68%->92%

Doctors: 44%->82%

Armed Forces: 51%->80%



Do you think gays and lesbians should or should not be able to serve openly in the military?

1998 Should: 56%

2007 Should: 68%



Does this apply to you? Have a friend or close acquaintance who is gay or lesbian

1985: 22%

2000: 56%


Do you think marriages between homosexuals/same sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?

Gallup 1999: 35% say it should

Gallup 2007: 46%


UCLA Freshmen Study

Same-sex couples should have the right to legal marital status.

1997: 50%

2007: 68%


Would you favor or oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt a child?

1977: Favor: 14%

2007: Favor: 57%


How long will this trend continue? Hard to say. Based on the attitudes of the younger generation, looks like it might go on for awhile. There is a pretty significant core resistance cohort, though, that appears to primarily be religion-based. For now, in the short term, it appears to limit the support of gay rights to around 55 or 60%. Still, that's a majority.


Over a longer time, too, I think that the younger people will continue to be more accepting, and as the older people die off, things are inevitably going to change over the next couple of decades.


And gay marriage is now legal in 4 states. At some point, people will realize it doesn't really hurt them much to allow this. Gays get married, life goes on. It's also legal in 7 European countries and in Canada.


Fortune, 2006: "Some 249 of the Fortune 500 offer health and other benefits to the same-sex partners of their employees. That's up from just 28 a decade ago." (In 1982 it was 0. In 2009 it's 293.)


The times, they are a-changing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of reasons Brent.


Off year election, so historically low voter turnout.


The young adults who overwhelmingly support gay rights, historically are also the least likely to vote, especially in an off year.


But most disturbing is this trend to put the rights of a minority to the ballot of the majority. Wouldn't you agree that that is troubling?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Intersting concept there Gern, to put the rights of a minority in the hands of the majority...


I was always taught in school, and on the playground and just about everywhere else that the majority rules, but I agree there has to be a place where the minority is respected.


If I and a majority of my neighbors do not want a specific ethnic group in my neighborhood, can I say majority rules and block them out (I was talking about the Irish of course)?


Well, no, I know I can't and would not want to be in a society that does, but then what about the rule of the majority over the minority?


What if I organize a bunch of Anarchists (now that's ironic and an oxymoron) and we decide that the rules don't apply to us and we should be able to take anything we want and live anywhere we want and run off anybody who gets in our way? Should the majority of people who beleive in the rule of law be allowed to impose their way of thinking on us? We are a minority, we need to be protected and our emerging style of life accepted.



Link to post
Share on other sites

John-in-KC writes:

Last time I checked in business world, people try very, very hard not to offend, deliberately, their largest customers.


Well, they didn't exactly "offend," just made it legally impossible for their former largest customer (public schools) to even charter units.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OGE: Our forefathers were aware of this when they worked on the Constitution. Majority rules, but there are supposed to be written safeguards protecting the minorities. This doesn't always work soonest as many of us are naturally xenophobic.

As to declining Scout membership. Some have stated Scouting is a middle-class institution. Well, the middle -class has been declining for years thanks to government bungling from all parties. So, if middle class shrinks, number of boys shrinks.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to wonder how much of this is reflective of the "real" majorities in the country. We all know how few people exercise their right to vote. Most polls tend to not only have very small populations from which the data is drawn, but also tend to be either purposefully or indirectly skewed to a particular viewpoint. But the big question to me is what do the 60% or more who simply do not participate in the conversation feel or think? Do not know if there is even a way to measure that, but it still makes me wonder.


In relation to BSA, this forum, or other such things. I think we would find that the majority of participants in these discussions over the entire board choose simply to not get into the controversies. But, I would feel confident that I would win a wager that a "large" majority of the active rank and file families and leaders would fall on the the more conservative side. After all, that is one of the reasons many people continue to participate. And I know a number of people who are very specific about the fact they would no longer support the BSA should they abandon their core principals, especially the "Reverent" part.


Really doubt though if an accurate picture will ever be drawn, as the "majority" here too chooses to not participate or be verbally abused about their beliefs.


JMHO(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...