800 Pound Gorillas

[Bando 21]

"Most Scout parents are on the same side as the LDS."

 

Is that right? I'd love to see where there is any statistical proof of this. Honestly, in my neck of the woods, I don't think that's a linchpin for anything with our parents. As long as their boys are having a great experience in our troop, I don't think anything would change, gay leaders or no. I think there's more a resentment that this issue is starving our organization through both public perception and traditional sources of funding.

 

Personally, it makes me pretty angry this is even an issue at all, and that National is willing to sacrifice elements of support and funding that would make our program stronger in order to make a stand on an issue that is largely irrelevant for our boys.

 

And, really, I would love to see any evidence that a gay scout leader would make a kid gay, or would somehow make his scouting experience less than it is now. The boys feed off of the homophobia of adults. If we're accepting, and teach acceptance and tolerance, we make better young men. That doesn't mean we necessarily have to accept things we don't agree with, but we must prepare our kids to live in a world that doesn't look as homogenous as our organization projects it to be. Remember, in their adult lives, they're going to encounter all kinds of people. Gay, straight, monogamous, not monogamous, Christian, atheist, pagan, the list goes on and on and on. Whether we like it or not, our society is moving progressively towards a model where we are encountering a wider variety of socially and religiously diverse individuals and families than ever before. That's America.

 

We have to ask ourselves what our organization looks like, and how that compares to the rest of the world around us. Let's face it, the BSA gives off the attitude of a largely white, right-leaning, paramilitary organization. It hasn't always been like that, and it doesn't have to be that in the future. There's room for every race and creed in scouting, but the fact of the matter is that through issues that pertain largely only to adults and our insecurities with the world around us, we're shutting the door on a lot of kids and parents who would and should be attracted to our program. This isn't a problem in the rest of the world. Why is it here?

 

LDS has a big stake in that issue. And it's troubling that such a major stakeholder of our organization largely operates as an independent unit within it while so strongly determining the policies of the units outside it by holding their large influence over our heads. Good on them for embracing scouting as they have, but it's on National that they've been allowed the leniency and influence they hold. "Non-LDS" and "LDS" should not have the vastly different connotations in relation to program and attitude as they do.

[bacchus 10]

So many of you talk like there is one guy over at National walking around threatening people. In reality, I think if you were to ask all the people at National who have a say (a vote), you will find they all agree and there is no arm-twisting.

 

To all the people who want a different program - just start one up. If there are so many people out there who would prefer gay leaders, then your new program is sure to take off like wildfire. BSA will suffer accordingly. But I think you just aren't being honest with yourselves.

[sherminator505 10]

"So many of you talk like there is one guy over at National walking around threatening people. In reality, I think if you were to ask all the people at National who have a say (a vote), you will find they all agree and there is no arm-twisting."

 

I'm not sure how to respond to this. Are you talking specifically about the LDS Church's stance on homosexuals and membership, or are you talking about their remarkable ability to dictate terms about how they run Scouting in their units while simultaneously holding themselves out there as the straw that stirs the Scouting drink? Knowing that would help me formulate a proper response.

[bacchus 10]

Sherm, just to clarify your argument, you're saying that National BSA would rather allow homosexual scouts and scouters, but there is one guy walking around saying "if you do that then we're leaving". And furthermore, the "we" who would be leaving is a group of scouts about 15% of the total scout population, who you say don't even fully participate in scouts.

 

Is that your statement?

[sherminator505 10]

I'm saying nothing of the sort. I am saying that the BSA has cowtowed to the LDS Church for a very long time. They allowed Blazers. They lowered the nubber of Scouts required to recharter a troop from 8 to 5, apparently just for them. They don't seem to insist that the LDS Church run the same Scouting program as the rest of us. At times, it really seems that the LDS Church already runs its own program for boys, and use our uniforms as a convenience!

 

As for membership policies, it is becoming increasingly clear that the BSA is on the wrong side of history. As it was with blacks and women before, people are starting to think about the reasons for treating gays unequally in our society and are finding it harder and harder to validate those reasons. So eventually, our membership policies will change, once our sense of justice and fair play finally kicks in. Whether the LDS chooses to complete their separation from the BSA at that point is really up to them, and I really couldn't care less!

 

There, now you have both, bacchus. Which do you like better?

[NJCubScouter 1389]

bacchus says:

 

To all the people who want a different program - just start one up.

 

I don't want a different program. I want the BSA national leadership to do the right thing with the program that already exists.

[skeptic 992]

While we have a few here that simply will not accept anything as possible, I find this whole thing to be the proverbial "smoke and mirrors", whether referring to the LDS, or the related subject. Parents "in" the program have "chosen" to be here; and it only makes sense that most of them chose with at least "some" agreement that this was acceptable to them. The people, for the most part, that continue to harp about the Gay issue are outside the the organization; though there are a few apparently here that are not happy, and have an agenda. That is a separate discussion of course.

 

As far as the LDS elephant, I had a number of interesting conversations with LDS leaders at the Jamboree, many wearing gold tabs. I found it interesting that they are aware that they need to be "more involved" at district levels, and also are working on keeping dedicated leaders in place whenever possible. This is big change to many, as the discussion has noted; but it is interesting to me that they seem to be taking note, and working towards more effective ways to keep their program viable.

 

In our own area, we have numerous very dedicated scouters who are LDS, and a number of their units have longer term leaders than was normal ten years or more back. They are intricately involved in most district and council activities, and are accepting and flexible in regard to the needs and wishes of non LDS units at camp and at camporee.

 

Maybe it is time for some to quit dwelling on the past, and start looking at the present. And those who are so disenchanted perhaps "do" need to consider their real motives in being involved, "if they truly are". This is a youth organization that is "supposed" to focus on them. It is "not" a political tool for people that want to modify society to fit their idea of how things should be.

 

An interesting dissertation relating to this can be viewed here:

http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/0/7/2/8/pages107284/p107284-1.php

 

While it is just one more take on this, it seems to bring up some valid points; or at least seems to do so to me.

[bacchus 10]

Thank you for clarifying your statement. A little different semantics, but it looks like you merely restated what I asked was your statement.

 

If you go back to my statement a couple posts up, you will see what I'm saying the consensus is at Irving.

 

Summary of our two positions: I say they have a consensus on the board that they will maintain their standards against immorality. You say it is one small group that is keeping them from becoming enlightened - a group you and your kind have been harassing for almost 200 years.

 

So who's going to call and ask them? I think a simple phone call to them during their board meeting would settle this real quick.

[sherminator505 10]

"Summary of our two positions: I say they have a consensus on the board that they will maintain their standards against immorality. You say it is one small group that is keeping them from becoming enlightened - a group you and your kind have been harassing for almost 200 years."

 

I never said that there was any "small group" keeping anyone from being enlightened. I am saying that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has been cowtowed to by the Boy Scouts of America for a number of years, and this has culminated in the policy and program changes that I have previously highlighted. They exert a far greater influence on the Scouting movement than either their numbers or their participation can possibly justify, and if they were to leave the BSA tomorrow for any reason, I would simply wave goodbye and wish them well in true Scoutlike fashion, and I would not mourn it as some grevious loss.

 

As for the LDS position on membership issues in Scouting, that is probably one of the few things they do have in common with other elements in Scouting. But that doesn't make it right, and that fact is becoming more and more apparent every day. Just as it has been in the 200 years that you mentioned, when we ended slavery and gave blacks and women the right to vote, these present injustices will go away in time. This prospect may have you yearning for the "good old days," but I prefer to look forward to a more just future that is already on its way.

 

Bacchus, you haven't summarized my positions very well at all, and you should seriously consider reading comments before you even attempt to summarize them.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

[JoeBob 606]

NJC: "I want the BSA national leadership to do the right thing"

I appologize. I didn't know you were the one who decided what was right.

Heck, even California voted to keep marriage as a social contract between a man and a woman. If California feels that way (federal judges not withstanding), the bulk of Scout parents have to be to the right of the Hollywood State.

 

sherminator505: Is your screen name related to William Tecumsah Sherman? Although he was a good general who invented terrorism, he's known in these parts to be somewhat careless with fire. Very un-Scout-like!

[sherminator505 10]

JoeBob,

 

What is so un-Scoutlike about what I said? I have simply called it as I see it. If either my description of the relationship between the LDS Church and the BSA or my pointing out that bacchus' description of my positions was totally inaccurate has somehow offended you, and I'm not sure why it should have, is it now incumbent upon me to apologize for the offense you have taken upon yourself?

 

Seriously, if you are going to toss around phrases like "terrorism" or "careless with fire," are you willing to back them up with an explanation, or are incendiary phrases all you have to share?(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

[Bando 21]

And who was pumping money from all over the country into California to support Prop 8, moreso than any religious group, and instructed its wards to both volunteer and donate specific amounts of money to ensure it passed?

 

LDS.

 

Hrm...

[bacchus 10]

Bando we are starting to get a bit off topic, but the amount raised by proponents of Prop 8 were a $3.4 million less than the amounts raised by opponents of the measure. Both sides received funds from all 50 states and around the world (sourced from Wiki). So are you accusing the LDS Church of funding both sides or something? Clearly more money went to the opposition.

 

My follow-up question to you is, Who voted?

[Beavah 205]

Yah, hmmm....

 

1) They tend not to participate at Camporees very much.

 

Same could be said of many very active and successful troops, eh? Camporees are a service that da district or council provides to help troops whose internal programming needs that support. They aren't a requirement or even an expectation.

 

2) They have a whole week of summer camp reserved just for them.

 

What's wrong with that? We do week-long Catholic and Methodist scouter conferences at Philmont and other places, and plenty of our camps rent out to outsiders for da week too. If a group is willing to book out da whole camp for a week, that's a good thing. We have too many camps that are under-subscribed, and we're losing 'em as a result.

 

As to higher standard, well, no coffee... That's a sacrifice us lower life forms aren't willing to make even for salvation.

 

3) Quite a few LDS Scouters seem to come across with the view that somehow the rest of us aren't doing Scouting right.

 

Yah, a lot of us non-LDS folks here too, eh? I've yet to meet a scouter who isn't proud of his or her program, and that often comes across as arrogant. Most times yeh get together with new people yeh have to go through a long period where they talk about their units before yeh ever get around to having a conversation .

 

Folks are right, I don't think LDS in particular wags the dog, eh? They just act like a big customer, and like any big customer they get some extra attention. Doesn't bother me much. Venturing was created because we had a lot of high adventure Explorer posts that didn't seem to fit with LFL when it got spun off, so we created new program for those customers. That's our business, eh? Creating program materials to help chartered partners do what they do, whether LDS or da churches that want to use Trust for their co-ed high school programs or whatnot.

 

But on da leadership issue, they are just a fraction of da many voices siding with the current BSA policy. Hard as it may be to believe, the rest of the country doesn't have da same view as the coast-huggers, and even on the coasts Scouting tends toward the more traditional values set than da average.

 

It's fine to disagree with da national policy. But let's not single out or mischaracterize our fellow scouters from one church for what really is a much broader view. Da LDS folks I've known, scouters and non-scouters alike, have all been good people.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[sherminator505 10]

Thanks, Beav. Sometimes a different perspective helps, particularly if the perspective you're used to leaves you a bit jaded. Still, it does point to a perception problem, at the very least, and a definite opportunity for improvement all around.