Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Trevorum

When will National realize this *IS* affecting membership

Recommended Posts

I agree.. It is getting off topic..

 

The only thing on topic, is that as stated, what was once seen as acceptable behavior, (meaning not morally wrong in the eyes of God), has since been found to be unacceptable behavior (and in some cases as with the rape, morally wrong)..

 

And churches over time have come to accept that and no longer highlight those passages as something that is a good topic to promote in the next Sunday service.. But guarentee the South around the civil war would use the passages to uphold the believe that owning slaves was morally justified.. Just as todays conservative will hold up a Bible passage to prove homosexuality is immoral..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moose,

 

I haven't seen the movie, but if it's based upon the book, there should have been more than one case discussed. In the New Orleans instance, it was a group of homosexuals who created the scout troop for the sole purpose of molesting youth. None of the individuals involved were married according to the information I came across.

 

But besides that, it doesn't matter if the information that an indiviual believes is true or not. It is their reaction to that belief, and at this time I can see large numbers of scouts leaving the movement if the policy changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moosetracker,

 

Interesting results. The last time that I did a literature review on the subject, I found few papers that were published in peer reviewed journals and I posted them on this forum. Were the studies that you referred to from peer reviewed journals? If they have not been peer reviewed, then the results are even more suspect than the admittedly poor ones that I identified. By the way, their hypothesis was that homosexuals were not more likely than heterosexuals to molest pubertal and post-pubertal children. So if there was a bias, it was toward a null effect so to speak.

 

You hit upon the real problems in the studies. These are folks who were incarcerated for their crimes which means at least they most likely did the crime. However, as you note, the designation of what these folks are is difficult and fraught with error because it is basically self reporting. One would think that would under report homosexuals but that might not be the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1970's a poll was conducted and 75% felt homosexuals were more likely to be pedophiles.. In 1995 a similar poll showed only 18% had the belief..

 

Fifteen years later? Bet if conducted again, it will now be that much lower.. Until soon **poof**!! All gone!

 

Now I haven't found a study on people discomfort level around homosexuals.. But I would imagine that that currently is higher at this time (and some may leave due to discomfort), but is also shrinking year after year.. Given time **Poof** that will be gone too...

 

And discomfort is no reason to discriminate. Nor really is a belief they are pedophiles by ignorant people who have no proof of it..

 

I know a troop who did not want to deal with a scout that was mentally slow, since they couldn't drop him over it, they systematically found ways to discourage him from staying.. So did their discomfort make what they did correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be honest, I am not a scientist.. And half the papers I saw were so scientific I got double vision trying to figure out what they were trying to say.... So, all three studies were from one paper that condensed (and explained to us non-scientific types) in one paper.. Here is the link..

 

Looks like reference is cited, but I can not say if that means they are from peer reviewed journals or some other source..

 

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are my two cents:

 

1) The major faith-based Chartered Partners will drive the train on this one. If BSA were to change rules, CoJCoLDS, Roman Catholic Church in US, LCMS, SBC (those that use Boy Scouts over Royal Rangers), and Assemblies of God would drop BSA faster than you would say "Bob's your Uncle."

 

2) When the faith-based drops happen, they'd be immediate, meaning: Get your equipment off our property TODAY. Turn in your keys, the facility is closed.

 

3) Major $$$$ flow from these chartered partners (and wealthy folk who believe in the Partner first, and Scouting second), and Councils/National Council would be in a major negative cash flow.

 

Sorry to be cynical, but follow the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the biggest thing here is this: It is a matter of pricipal. And I do not mean just mine, or just any one poster's principals.

 

I think it is the principal of the rule.

 

BSA has a rule that discriminates. Not saying the rule itself is a good one or a bad one. But looking at it objectively, and for what it is without personal feelings...it is a discriminatory rule.

Justified or not..it is what it is.

 

NOw suppose that the powers that have the power to make changed get together Moday night and decide to drop that rule.

 

Does anybody think that there will be a sudden flood of adult leader applications filled out by gay adults wanting to be leaders? Does National or any one council expect a stack of applications filled out with pink glitter pens?

 

Maybe a leader here or there , but not a whole bunch.

 

Looking at homosexuals, you can';t just lump everybody into one set lifestyle. Basically, you can't just think all of them as flamboyant.

 

Just like with heterosexuals, there are some who have to wear specific high fashions clothes at any moment and never wear the same outfit twice. You kn ow what I mean..tyhe mom who shows up at camp in a pants suit, high heels and $500.00 worth of jewelry on het. The dad who gos camping in his penny loafers and his $800.00 gold watch and matching gold chain.

 

Then you have the blue jeans and sweat shirt guys and gals. You have the spandex princess moms who are practically 1 step away from b eing naked.

 

Then you have the Elmer Fudd styled people who probably should be hanging out with Uncle Ted (Nuggent) instead of carving punjia stick at scout camp.

 

The you have the "normal " scouters.

 

I immagine that if you have a gay guy who is pretty normal, you'd never even know it....same for a lesbian.

 

They could already be in your unit and just never let on. Big deal if you have no idea right? Cause it means they conduct themselves just like you and I without any innapropriat behavior.

 

Okay, I got sidetracked in my own post ( imagine that! :) )

 

Anyways, I think the objection to the rule is more about principal that actual hordes of people wanting to join.

 

I see it no different than saying women can't join because they are too sissy , Jews can't join because they would turn scouting into a money making scheme or that people with blonde hair can't join because they can't find the light switch in a tent.

 

It's all based on assumptions that all gays are going to run around in heels, feather boas and high heels.

 

But if BSA was to allow gays to be leaders, I do not think there would be a noticable jump in aplications.

 

It's just that they don't like the ruling in principal.

 

The best example I can think of is from years ago. Way, way back in 1984, our town was getting cable tv service for the very first time. The town worked up some kind of charter contract with the cable company, and one of the provisions was that "The Playboy Channel" would not be offered.

 

WEll, most townsfolk didn't mind at all. But a few people had an issue with it. They stood up at metings and asked the town what right they had to make that decision for us. What people did in their own homes was their own business.

 

One of the people who protested this ruling was my dad. Also the preacher of the local Bapsist chucrh. Neither of them gave a flip aboiut the Playboy channel, but didn't l;ike the town making the decision on principle.

 

The town recanted, Playboy was allowed, abd according to statistics later on down the road...one family signed up for about 3 months and then dropped it.

 

So, it wasn't that the town went to seed or that a bunch of pervs satyed home all day getting their jollies..it was the principal of the sitauation.

 

 

Again, I am not condoning BSA's stance, nor am I bashing it. I just think most gays are upset due to the principal of vthe rule than they are about not being leaders...because the ones who are not flamboyant or feminine acting are probably already scouters and we just don't know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John-in-KC - Scratch the Catholics jumping ship.. I was unsure if I could find a link to Catholics & Girl Scouts seeing that they don't do charter orgs.. But, yep.. I found that the Catholics still work with the Girls scouts.. Even though they are said to except Homosexuals, Lesbians, and was hearing grumbles about them being feminists and are ok with planned parenthood, including abortions..

 

Yet the Catholic Church still supports them, see.. National Catholic Committee for Girl Scouts USA and Camp Fire USA, http://www.nfcym.org/gscf/index.htm..

 

Now reading some of comments on the subject by catholics, some catholics are saying they should no longer be supported, Some are upset with the planned parenthood/Feminism but are glad they now accept homosexuals, some have no problem at all with the program, others hope to change it from the inside...

 

Hmmm.. Flip the coin, and the Catholics will stay, but just continue to debate the pros & cons.. Similar to what we are doing here.. They will be fine with being able to control the leadership within their own units..

 

As stated earlier LDS maybe.. But the Catholics are happy to take concern over their flock, without feeling the need to dictate to the world..

 

The other ones I don't well them well enough to know if they would be happy to guide their own flock, or have a need to be in control of the world, but I do not know either if they would have that much impact (that last one seems to be more supporting of a different youth group anyway.)

 

Scoutfish - I agree, it is partially the principle.. And the fact I don't think we should teach youth to by hypocritical, trying to teach them to be acceptable of all diversities, then be discriminating in our rules. And your right the amount of homosexuals that will join will probably be no more then the amount already involved.. Anyway how much impact can 1% of the population make?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moosetracker said: "But guarentee the South around the civil war would use the passages to uphold the believe that owning slaves was morally justified.." To be clear, they were echoing what was being said by the intelligentsia of their day who claimed that blacks were a different species.

 

He also said: "In 1970's a poll was conducted and 75% felt homosexuals were more likely to be pedophiles.. In 1995 a similar poll showed only 18% had the belief..

 

Fifteen years later? Bet if conducted again, it will now be that much lower.. Until soon **poof**!! All gone!" Other polls have shown that older folks in the public believe that homosexuals are 10% of the population. That figure increases as age decreases so that late teens and early 20's think that they make up 30% of the population. They are simply wrong. Public opinion does not make something right or wrong.

 

So where does the left want this to end? The APA now says that folks who view child pornography but do not molest children should be considered a normal variant. So we need to open our Scouting doors to them as well, that way we can have even more diversity. Why would we 'discriminate' against them because they are different? Why that would be wrong. They need rights too. The fact that all (from what I have read) pedophiles begin with viewing child pornography should not deter us from accepting their lifestyle as acceptable. Well, then why discriminate against the normal variant pedophile who was just overly tempted at the elementary school? You think that this scenario is crazy, well it the one used by homosexuals to become accepted. Check out the statistical definiton of abnormal.

 

On principle, Girl Scouts discriminate against males, all churches discriminate against those who do not share their beliefs, the ABA discriminates against non-attorneys (their organization certainly has an enormous impact on one of my careers and it would be help if physicians could join), the list is endless. I cannot wear a Masters Green jacket because they discriminate us less than perfect golfers or be in the ABA because I am not 7 feet tall (which is something that I was born with and cannot control). The Scouts are exercising their rights of free association. They are not discriminating because not being a Scout will not prevent them from being successful in life. Scouting is not the government and ought to have criteria to join. In my area and many others, Scouting is seen as borderline to too liberal. The policies are sound and should not be altered.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>

 

 

 

This is the logic of the various groups and organizations that have been pushing the sexual liberation movement the past fifty years or so. There is really no place they will stop or can stop.

 

 

>

 

 

The "we're discriminated against" argument doesn't win by itself. It has to be pushed by political organizations. Left wing groups choose what agendas they wish to push.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vol_scouter, you said, "To be clear, they were echoing what was being said by the intelligentsia of their day who claimed that blacks were a different species."

Please list the names of those "intelligentsia" and give some quotes or citations for their claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John-in-KC,

Hi John,

At the risk of sounding like an old record that's stuck!

My problem with the statement:

" When will National realize this *IS* affecting membership"

Is that I really don't know.

You post "Follow the money"

I think we are both long enough in the tooth to know (Yes know, not think!)That money is very important and is seen to be the driving force of what happens in the BSA.

 

I say "Is seen" because a lot depends on who is doing the looking.

At the grass roots level local Packs, Troops, Crews don't need that much money to operate or stay up and running. What money they do need is as a rule raised locally.

Parents fork over their hard earned cash, local people buy candy bars, eat pancakes, have their cars washed and that sort of thing.

At the next level we have Councils.

Councils need money to survive.

All the people who work in the local Boy Scout Service Center where I live expect to be paid and there are costs involved in ruining a service center, camps and in providing services that some local units have come to expect.

Some might argue that we could get by without spending as much as is spent by Councils and some might go so far as to say that Councils are an unnecessary expense.

I'm happy to leave that to another thread.

Where do Councils get their monies?

In the area where I live, we have a small Council with a budget of about $1.5 million. (It was $1.3 a few years back and I'm not sure what has happened in the last couple of years.)

About seven years back, one of the two local United Ways said that they were no longer going to give the $100,000 each year like they had been doing in the past.

At that time they (The UW) looked at who was receiving money from them and said it was silly for them to be donating too organizations that were sitting on large amounts of money that these organizations had in endowment funds and the like.

The UW decision had nothing to do with any BSA policy it was just how the UW wanted to donate.

While some Councils do have a few very wealthy people who are willing to donate very large sums of money or companies that will donate large sums, in the area where I live, that isn't the case.

There is a near-by Council that courts a little old widow who donates a lot of cash to the Council but insists that the money is spent in a specific way in a specific area. The Council has with her money built a wonderful conservation center at their local camp.

A Council like the one I'm in, just like the local units has to turn to the local people for its money.

The first port of call for a Council like this is the volunteers, the very people that the Council is servicing and supporting.

Go down the list of donors in the Council and while there are at times windfalls, when someone dies and leaves a large sum, for the most part the amounts are not that big. In fact last time I looked very few people are donating at over $5,000 a year. Most of the donations fall between the $500 - $100.00 range. With a lot of that coming from events such as dinners and golf outings.

While I don't have any hard numbers, my guess is that now about 25% or more of the spendable income is coming from the annual popcorn sale.

Back when I was District Chair. I really tried to move all the silly goals that the Council imposed on the District to just one big goal.

Where as we had: A district goal: Income from the members of the District Committee. Family FOS goal. Money from FOS presentations given at the unit level and a Community Goal, money donated by local people and businesses. I wanted just one goal that covered all these goals. My thinking being that I could bring in more money from the local business community as I had good connections in that area and I would hopefully not have to go to the units.

My first big set back was when a local business that sells lots of furniture in our area said that because of the gay issue it was no longer going to donate.

The business is family owned. The family does a lot for the community, but the owner is openly gay.

I was $10,000 short before I even started.

$10k is one heck of a lot in a small District.

The loss of $10k is a lot for a Council as small as the one I'm in.

 

I have never seen or looked at the financial statements from the National Organization.

My thinking is that trying to wade through them to gain any real understanding of anything would be a real nightmare.

While I don't know (I really don't know!) My thinking is that everything is broken down into all sorts of different organizations. Magazine sales and advertising? Scout Stuff?

Income from membership? The list might go on.

I tend to thin that the big CO's don't donate that much money.

Again where I live all the local churches are having a rough time.

Attendance at services is in a big decline, income is down and services are being cut.

Sure some members who belong to these churches might or might have donated to the BSA, but the organization it-self? I'm not so sure.

Given the choice of giving a million dollars to the BSA or building a new church? My bet is that the church will get the cash.

Right now the BSA is proud to have brought in a big pile of money to fund the new Jamboree site. (I'm to lazy to look up the name of it.)

While from what I've read and seen the place looks good, the ideas are good and the BSA is right in being proud of having found the funding.

But while maybe because it's not that far away from where I live, our local Scouts will more than lightly get to use it and benefit from it? I kinda think that the percentage of Scots who ever get to visit it will never be that great.

 

What I'm saying is that money and income comes from membership.

The Council I'm in can't make it financially without the cute little fellows selling popcorn, the volunteers handing over their hard earned cash.

Again locally we have one LDS unit and about half a dozen units chartered by R/C churches. (In the entire Council).

The LDS unit is very much part of the church, but the R/C units? Not so much.

When the Pack in my church was failing, my church did nothing to prevent or help stop the rot. The pack folded, the church didn't seem to notice and life went on.

We can follow the money, but I think the real money is coming from the parents and the volunteers.

This gay issue is a P/R disaster for the BSA.

Big business like the fortune 500 companies are not going to want to be seen as being close to an organization that discriminates.

More and more it seems to me that the man in the street couldn't care less who's gay and who isn't, but does care when something seems wrong and sees discrimination as being wrong. This wrong is something that is going to make him think twice about allowing his kid to join and him to volunteer and become a member of.

Without him the local units fail, there is no one to ask for a FOS donation and popcorn sales don't happen.

To my way of thinking this is where the real money is found or lost. (I am of course seeing it from a local perspective)

Ea.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

vol_Scouter - I will support your right to join the girl scouts! After being with that group for a while, it might allow you to be more forward thinking with the boy scouts!

 

Seems we are running around the maypole again with this argument. I am sure it was discussed in the 10 pages back, but here goes.. The argument that pedophiles/hebephiles will become acceptable behavior is absurd as it was the product of becoming more enlightened about the negative effects it had on children that brought about the change in the first place. The movement is not about the rights of some at the expense of others.. Those who look at pictures have either taken the pictures themselves or financially supporting those that do, therefore there is damage to children for those pictures to be taken.

 

Somethings you mentioned as discrimination is not discrimination at all, you are free to achieve it if you work at it.. Your are wrong that All churches discriminate. That must be an oddity of your church, as I have always been welcomed at any church I visited, and many have a something on their sign board stating "All are welcome".. Some of your other arguements sound odd, like a child throwing a temper tantrum, but I am sure if there is just cause there may be a future movement on it.. I don't know about a movement to get boys into the girl scouts, because I don't see anyone who wants in, but I do see a movement to get the girls into the boy scouts.. Maybe some will see the arguement that of discrimination..

 

Now about the thing about the scientific theory that they were a different species.. it is true that theory was out there, but they did not think blacks were not human, just a different like a collie and a hound dog were both dogs, but different.. That allowed Europeans to state they were the superior race.. After all they were superior over anyone they sought to control, Blacks, aborigines, Aztec and American Indian.. But then all conquerors thought they were the superior race with or without the scientific theory..

 

But.. That was only one argument, and not the ONLY argument, and one of the arguments was on a religious platform, and taking quotes out of the bible, to prove that they were in the right to own slaves.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp

 

Just like those now who wish to argue their right to not treat homosexuals fairly. The supporters of slavery twisted and turned any argument they could in order to justify their stance. Including the Bible.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In refernce to blacks, slavery, Jim Crow, et al, this comment got to me for whatever reason.

 

Please list the names of those "intelligentsia" and give some quotes or citations for their claims.

 

I'd suggest also looking up eugenics. A lot of people believed that non-whites were inferior, and used science to "prove" it. This led to the Eugenics Movement in the USA in the late 1800s, early 1900s. Hitler got his idea for the Nuremberg Laws, sterilization program for Afro-Germans, and euthanasia programs from the ideas and proposals of the US's eugenics movement. This eventually led to the Holocaust and the extermination of Jews, Gypsies, Afro-Germans (not many and were all sterilized in the 30s to begin with)and other "racial undesirables."

 

Sorry I cannot cite the best work on the topic that I know of, but the mom-in-law has borrowed it. Used it for a class on the Holocaust back in the day, and kept the book.

 

Share this post


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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...