article: Potomac Falls woman removed from son’s Boy Scout troop

[CalicoPenn 729]

Is it just me or did the spokesperson for the BSA seem to signal a softening of the hard-line position?

 

"But according to Deron Smith, the director of public relations for the Boy Scouts of America, Steele wasnt removed from the national council and it may have been a troop decision. Units determine their own membership, Smith said."

 

It sounds an awful lot like a "local option" suggestion.

 

I suspect that the Council just contacted the CO and told them what the policy was and left it to the CO. I suspect that if it was a less conservative CO, the CO might have said "we didn't ask, she didn't tell - nothing more will be done on our end" and Council would have tried to let it quietly go away. I suspect if it was a less conservative CO and they were forced to release this ASM, they would have dumped the complaining ASM as well. Frankly, I wouldn't want to work with an ASM like Inabinett.

[moosetracker 132]

The right-thing used to be to own slaves,

 

The right-thing used to be segregation,

 

The right-thing used to be to treat women as property and 2nd class citizens.

 

Times change, the idea of what is the right thing changes, and always thoughout history the changing of ideas comes out of a small group of people protesting against the "right-thing", where people just consider them social-outcasts.. But as people start listening and learning and re-educating themselves, the veiws of what "the-right thing is, will change" and the majority will decide on-what the right thing is.. with a few diehard traditionalist.. throwing up walls to keep things by their standards and beliefs.. After a few generations, the off-spring look back and can not even figure out what all the hoopla was about..

 

Maybe the majority rule, is as you say, "Who has the biggest stick"..

 

But times will someday change for BSA, don't know if I will be involved in scouting when it happens, but I don't think it is that far away, maybe it will take the current youth of this generation to be in control of the organization, but it may be less time then that..

 

Brings to mind something that is a "must say" in a presentation I am giving at Woodbadge.. The BSA syllabus says it is something I must put in.. After talking about the fall as a specific prejudice, I am to state the following...

 

"We cannot become who we need to be, by remaining where we are.." Now all we need is for BSA Leaders to practice what the preach..

 

The mass opinion is changing towards these issues of homosexuallity and atheisim.. What use to be the "right thing" is now becoming the wrong thing.. And the opinion is not just growing outside of the Scouting movement, but with their own members inside of the Scouting movement..

 

To us the good of scouting still outways the bad, but have a few more witch-hunts on people.. (and I don't think this one was as the woman was open about her lifestyle. But the youth discussed a few weeks back that was a witch hunt..) Have a few more of those and you will get those members who are ignoring the parts of scouting that are not up to par with the over-all beliefs of the Scout-law.. To start making more vocal waves of protest..

 

The change will probably not come from those outside the BSA organization that disagree with out practices, but it will come from the members inside the BSA who disagree with the practices.. Just give it time.. It is a sleeping tigar, that is starting to stir..

 

And yes it may be won by beating the biggest stick, but give it 2 generations and the youth of tommorrow will not even understand what all the commotion is about, because accepting everyone as equals regardless of religious choice (or lack of), or sexual preference will simply not be an issue.

[Beavah 205]

The right thing used to be that marriage was a lifelong commitment.

 

The right thing used to be that bankers had a fiduciary duty to safeguard depositors money as they would their own.

 

The right thing used to be that parents supported teachers and scout leaders when they had to discipline their kids.

 

Times change. The idea of what the "right thing" is changes. And always throughout history those changes are driven by small groups of people driven by a slight sense of arrogance and selfishness. But the majority can decide in favor of that sort of approach, even if it is destructive, with a few die-hard traditionalists throwing up walls to keep things by their standards and beliefs. And in a few generations, the young look back and cannot even imagine what the hoopla was about. You mean kids used to grow up in intact homes, banks could be trusted, and teachers were treated with honor? You must be kidding!

 

Not every societal whim or fashion is a good thing, eh? Lots of societies go off the rails. The last 100 years we saw the rise and fall of communism, eh? The well-meaning and zealous reformers truly believed that abolishing private property was a righteous and holy thing. How'd that work out for 'em? For the world?

 

Da same arguments that get made for homosexuality could, after all, be made for pedophilia. Have been made, in fact, in past societies. A loving form of mentoring. Long term relationship that benefitted both partners. If you're attracted to boys you only have the choice to be celibate or be in a monogamous relationship or be a swinging single (right now we use da term serial molester instead of swinging single, but that just shows our societal peda-phobia). Oh, and da witch hunts that people used to have over pedophiles! Just tryin' to get a pay day by robbin' churches and youth programs.

 

So da argument is spurious. There can be good changes or bad changes to societal mores, eh? The hard part is deciding which is which. Conservative folk start with "first do no harm" and want to proceed slowly. Liberal folk start with all change must be better than where we're at so let's experiment.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Gary_Miller 10]

From the article, "Steele approached the scout master, Mike Tucker, to inform him of her partnership of nearly two decades with Funk. He told her there was no problem."

 

The SM was wrong when he said "there was no problem". Although he may not have a personal problem with it, BSA standard does and as a BSA leader he should support BSA standards. The correct response should have been, "BSA standards does not support the Homosexual life style so you can not be a leader."

 

It does not get any simpler than that.

 

The standard is the standard like it or not its what it is. If you don't like the standard you are always free to go start your own organization with the standards you want. What you don't have is the right to force any organization to change their standards just so you can be part of the organization.

 

From the article, "The way Steele and Funk explain it is the reason why her homosexuality was overlooked was due to locality local organizations can choose to overlook some of the Boy Scouting standards."

 

While local CO's have the freedom to adapt and use the program to supplement their organizations youth programs. They do not have the right to overlook BSA standards and policies.

[moosetracker 132]

I dunno Beav.. I guess the question for me is looking at how many you can convince it is the right thing to accept the group as equals even if it is not their preference or taste. How many can you swing in favor a pedophiles even if they themselves are not.. How do you educate people to open their eyes and see it will do no harm to their children if their child is attacked? The small groups I hear about seem to be trying to pretend they are a religion. And ancient beliefs is just like my slavery example, stamped out by people becoming educated that it is truly harmful..

I don't see communism as sinfully wrong or right.. Just a different political view on how their people should be governed, same as a monarchy..

And the other things like lack of parenting, divorce, and trustworthy bankers, politicians & lawyers.. That is an unraveling of social norms true.. I have yet to see anyone educate me in this is the right way for our society to go.. Most agree it is not the right thing to do, and then might be the ones doing it for greed, or laziness, but just believe it is ok for them, or use some rational to lie to themselves that what they are doing really isn't the very thing they think is wrong because...

 

Now maybe you could argue society has accepted not shunning a divorced woman, I know my mother was divorced and went through hard times of establishing credit and being treated with respect, and we kids went to a school where it was believed it was not worth educating us as we were from a divorced family so we would not amount to anything any way, and were not worth the effort..

 

But, I have yet to see someone coming out of the chapel after just getting married to picketers waving signs "Get a divorce, it's the "in" thing!"..

 

Nor have I been educated as to why a crooked banker is better for me then an honest one. And that if they steal from me, they are really doing me no harm..

 

Most of the things you expressed do have harm, they may be crumbling anyway, but not to the rally of the majority of society claiming that it is the "Right thing to do"..

 

So where is the harm of two consenting homosexual partners to me? Even to society? Less babies born of a homosexual union true, and sex is all for procreation. But, isn't the world overpopulated as is.. So where is it hurting me, or society?

 

Now I believe in God, but not religion but from my non-religious position I will agree that an athiest protesting anyones right to have a religion would not be right because he would be hurting you and taking away your rights.

 

But not all atheist are gung-ho that you must follow their anti-beliefs, just as all people are not gung-ho to go out and convert the world.. So you feel that religion or belief in God makes a more stable society..?? With all the history of wars fought in the name of someones religion, and the religous cults that form to try to promote their right to polygamy, or pedophilia, or just to control people or their wealth.. Religion does not promise the better society..

 

Many atheist are good people living by a simple rule to do no harm and respect others and they do so without the fear of the almighty coming down to strike them dead.. Others may not be so good, but then there are many people who claim to be religious but use it to step on other people and claim themselves superior.. Or lie, cheat & steal 6 days out of the week and figure the 7th day abstains them of their sins. So religion improves society how??

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Gary_Miller writes:

The SM was wrong when he said "there was no problem". Although he may not have a personal problem with it, BSA standard does and as a BSA leader he should support BSA standards. The correct response should have been, "BSA standards does not support the Homosexual life style so you can not be a leader."

 

It does not get any simpler than that.

 

Now ask this crowd what happens with a 13-year-old who says he's an atheist. Lots of them will say he can join.

 

And to all the people who say that the national BSA had nothing to do with this, all you have to go on is an official statement from a BSA official.

 

And by the way Beavah, like I said, this issue is NEVER going to go away; people will NEVER stop complaining about the BSA's bigotry. Your "get over it" is useless.

[Beavah 205]

Ah, that's OK, Merlyn. Lawyer jokes are never goin' away either, eh? . This bothers me even less. It just isn't an issue for day to day year to year scouting.

 

Moosetracker, not sure where to start, eh? Nope, right now the majority doesn't feel that bankers gambling with other people's money is the "right" thing. But a sizable minority does. Enough to prevent legislation that would prohibit da practice. Not all pedophiles believe they are "attacking" kids, eh? They believe younger kids are able to give consent and it's a caring, mentoring relationship. After all, age of consent in a lot of countries is lower than it is in da US. Fringe Mormon groups believe polygamy is not just OK it's obligatory, despite what that does to women or the societal cost if it were widely adopted. But that's consensual and long term between adults, eh?

 

Groups of people can believe the darndest things, even with full-throated conviction and change-society zeal. Occasionally they're right. More often, they're just nuts. Even when they might be right they can get a bit carried away, eh? Like anti war protesters wagin' domestic war.

 

A drug user one might argue is only hurting himself. And to some extent that's true. But in another way, drug use has large societal costs. An adult who uses profanity is somethin' we tolerate in da general public (though a friend or relative might preach a little to 'em), but not something most of us would allow in a youth leader, even if we believe in free speech.

 

As Eagledad says, one can be kind and caring and courteous to a lesbian couple without agreeing with their choices or believing they should be youth leaders in a church program. And yeh can still welcome their kid, even if he thinks he might be gay.

 

That's one of da things religion teaches. Religion also freed the slaves in the U.S., and belief in deity provided the justification to overthrow civil tyranny, for all are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. For most of da history of the west religion provided the only meaningful check on unrestrained civil government power, which is why monarchies and communist dictatorships so often sought to repress it as the first step to maintaining control. Religion has inspired more art and music, founded more schools and hospitals, done more work on behalf of the poor than any state. Even now, OGE's Catholic church by itself is solely responsible for more than a third of the AIDS care in Africa. Added to da rest of us, it's clear that religion, not secular government, consistently is the caregiver for the most poor and needy.

 

To be the best kind of citizen, yeh have to owe allegiance to somethin' bigger than yourself. Otherwise what's good for you is good for da country, and we see too much of that. To be the best kind of citizen yeh have to owe allegiance to somethin' bigger than your country. Otherwise da pride of nationalism or simple obedience to unjust law can lead yeh astray. To be the best kind of citizen, yeh have to owe allegiance first to somethin' so big that you are willing to sacrifice for it, daily and even ultimately, and it has to be more than da preservation of your tribe or your genetic material. Only God is worthy of all that, eh?

 

Yep, religious folk are sinners, too. Often da worst of sinners. All God provides is a challenge to each of us, a call to be answered or ignored or rejected. But that's no small thing.

 

Beavah

[moosetracker 132]

Problem is there are a lot of people who confuse their religion to be God himself, and they owe their allegiance to their religion, and then the religion (not always, but has) taken advantage of that and finds ways to control them (to do good sometimes as you point out, to do evil other times, sometimes large killings in the name of God, and sometimes individual sins of a single priest.) So what is the difference of a man who has pride and allegiance to his government or to mankind in general or a person who is has his allegiance to his religion? If he has his allegiance in his religion the high priests are telling him what is good, because they are telling him what God wants him to do because of their interpretation.

 

Fringe Mormons? A religion, they are controlling the beliefs of their followers. And they do not have the backing of majority who do not practice their religion.. Beliefs of pedophiles? Again they have no foundation to sway the majority who are not pedophiles that they do not cause harm.. Or they have formed a religious cult and are controlling the beliefs of their followers..

 

The wealthy who pay for lobbyist to back their specific special interests in Washington, may hold our country hostage, bankers, oil and others.. They do not have the backing of the majority, and may be the downfall of the democratic society, so that others can kick and scoff at the governmental ideology of democracy and how it failed the same way you do for communism and monarchies.. Case in point, so far no one has come up with a working solution for a government because the evil and the powerful and the wealthy will find a way to manipulate it..

 

Back in the feuding between monarchy & religion, both of those in power of either position were known to be corrupt and self centered..

 

And drug use is known to be a drag on society, they rob to support their habits, have serious health issues that put a drain on society, and have children with health issues, they cannot hold down a job to support them or their off-spring.. So it would be hard to change the opinion of the public that they are only hurting themselves by educating them that they are not a drain on society.

If homosexuality was a religious cult, and people were brought into it and brainwashed into believing they were homosexual, because God wanted them to be that way, then I think you would have a point of issue. But it has been around for ages, some people not even understanding what it is they are feeling or why they are feeling it.. and is even seen at times in other animals.. It is not the influence of someone over the mind, body and soul of another..

 

 

As fun as this is Beavah' I am gone for this weekend, so if you have any words of wisdom, my lack of reply will not be because you have stumped me.

[SeattlePioneer 144]

Should the same tolerance be applied to polygamous "life partnerships"?

 

What's the difference?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Should the same tolerance be applied to polygamous "life partnerships"?

 

I wasn't aware there was a BSA rule against them, at least heterosexual ones. Another secret rule from an unpublished memo?

[SeattlePioneer 144]

Hello Merlyn,

 

 

Well, for openers, it's OK for a husband and wife to sleep together on an outing, but I imagine some eyebrows would be raised if SEVERAL husbands and wives who proclaimed themselves to be in a long term relationship shared the same tent.

[Gary_Miller 10]

Merlyn_LeRoy,"Now ask this crowd what happens with a 13-year-old who says he's an atheist. Lots of them will say he can join."

 

I'm not sure what everyone else in the crowd would say or do. I can only speak for myself, in this case we would have a discussion on what an atheist is. Then we would discuss the Scout Oath especially the part about "Duty to God". When I was comfortable that the boy understood what "Duty to God" really means.

 

Then I would ask him if he as an atheist could honestly take upon himself the "Scout Oath" and live by its principles.

 

If he said Yes" then I would help him understand that he is not truly a atheist just a young person who is still seeking what he truly believes.

 

If he said "No" then I would have no problem telling him that the Boy Scouts is not a good fit for his beliefs, because one must be true to themselves and that you can't take the oath and still be true to their own beliefs.

 

Its does not get any simpler than that.

 

Merlyn_LeRoy, "And by the way Beavah, like I said, this issue is NEVER going to go away; people will NEVER stop complaining about the BSA's bigotry. Your "get over it" is useless."

 

How can you or anyone accuse BSA of "Bigotry" just because they have set a standard for their membership.

 

Definition of BIGOTRY

1: the state of mind of a bigot

2: acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot

(Merriam-Webster)

 

1.stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

2.the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot. Dictionary.Com)

 

Definition of a BIGOT

 

A person who won't listen to anyone whose ideas or beliefs are different from his or her own; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial group) with hatred and intolerance. (Merriam-Webster student dictionary)

 

A person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person ; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group.(Merriam-Webster Learners Dictionary)

 

A person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance(Merriam-Webster)

 

The key words here is "won't listen", "strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, ect", and "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices".

 

I think BSA does not fit the description of a bigot. BSA has listened fairly to all the arguments on why homosexuals should be allowed to be adult leaders. They have also listened fairly to all the arguments on why they should not be allowed to be adult leaders.

 

After listening to the arguments BSA has determined that the homosexual life style is not a good fit for the standards and morals that "The Boy Scouts of America" ,and their chartered partnerships, want to instill in young men.

 

The decision is not based on hatred, intolerance, or dislikes of other people. The decision was based on the the standards, principles, and morals the organization, and its chartered partnerships, wants to teach, and instill in the youth they serve.

[SeattlePioneer 144]

>

 

 

 

So a lot of the gay rights advocates are bigots to boot?

[packsaddle 753]

H'mmmm, I suspect that many of my friends and acquaintances could be labeled 'bigots' by someone who viewed them that way. Keep in mind that application of a label which is so loaded with personal subjectivity is almost meaningless. The real message in application of a label like that is an intent to close a dialogue.

 

So, my Tea Party supporting, homophobic, fundamentalist and openly racist minister and neighbor down the street who continues to fly the Confederate Flag above the American Flag, probably could be called a bigot by someone. I still talk to the guy. In fact, my willingness to hear him out seems to be welcomed by him because he sure does unload when we do talk. The quickest way for me to shut down what little connection there is IS for me to label him a bigot. He'll get the message: that I'm unwilling to listen to him, that I consider his thoughts to have no value. He might even extend that to himself and conclude that I think HE has no value. This might actually be what some people who apply the label, 'bigot', think about those to whom they apply the label.

 

By labeling him a bigot, I will have done little harm to him. I will have done harm to the 'neighborliness' of our interaction, however. And I will have done harm to myself because in so shutting down the dialogue, I will have been the cause of the loss of communication. It will have been MY responsibility, not his. He will correctly understand that whatever connection there might have been is now severed. That gap can now be filled with even greater distrust and lack of understanding than existed before. All for a label....which has almost no meaning.

Nice.

[moosetracker 132]

Seattle writes - Well, for openers, it's OK for a husband and wife to sleep together on an outing, but I imagine some eyebrows would be raised if SEVERAL husbands and wives who proclaimed themselves to be in a long term relationship shared the same tent.

I think you would be safe if their polygamous marriage was not recognized by the state as a valid marriage.. Then you can just state, they cannot tent together similar to other unmarried couples, based on the states interpretation of marriage.. But, if the state recognized it then you can see where you can set up rules in the unit, but I dont know if you would get away with just polygamous couples cant tent together, or if it will need to be all married couples to stay free of a lawsuit.

But, per BSA policy, they most definitely could be Adult Unit Leaders..

How I personally would feel about it, would depend on how they raise their children. If their children are truly free to choose their own lifestyle, then I guess I would be tolerant of it, but I honestly dont know if I would get over the novelty of it, and would be surprised if they could raise any benefits of the lifestyle, that I would say made a compelling point of argument.

Unfortunately with a group like that, you find that they raise their children to believe that this is the only correct lifestyle choice. They may even choose the husbands for the women.. With that I cannot say that the choice is truly by consenting adults.. The children have been brainwashed from birth.

That is one thing that I find with the homosexuals, they may have this lifestyle.. Their children will probably be accepting of their parents lifestyle, unless there are issues of it blowing up what they thought was a normal family of mom & dad, when one of the parents became aware they were living a lie.. The children will most likely feel they will be accepted and loved if they do turn out homosexual.. But, to date I have yet to meet homosexuals who try to convince their children the only right way to be is homosexual. And many who hope that their children will grow up to have a normal heterosexual interest, just so that they dont go through the difficulty homosexuality will cause for them.

Yet BSA will welcome the polygamist Adults who will raise their children to not think of any other lifestyle as being acceptable, but not the Homosexual who will raise their children to be tolerant of other lifestyles, and be happy for them if they are totally heterosexual.. Either looking at both life styles as equally fine, or hoping they grow up to find they are heterosexual..