Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ghst

BSA National leadership or lack of and the local option

Recommended Posts

The worrisome issue of bad press is not my concern. Right now, chartering organizations have the right to exclude non-catholics, females, etc. I believe they should still have the right to do so - at their own risk. I think, maybe naively, that there will be enough COs that would not turn away homosexuals that it would not become an issue.
I have a bit of a problem with any CO excluding anyone (non-catholics,etc.). I really think BSA on a natinal level should set the standard on exclusion and any CO who wishing to be part of BSA has to follow the rules in place by the BSA not the CO organizations. The CO's should have structure their program to BSA program not the BSA structure the program to any CO's idea what the BSA program should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you saying rapist of women or children who are nice and whisper sweet things, and ask "Do you like it?" are not being violent... Sorry, you are dead, dead wrong! A women or child does not need to be killed or cut up to the point of deformity for rape to be a violent act against them.. Nor, for the rapist to gain a sense of power and control over them.

 

Also prepubescent boys and girls are not men & women.. Sorry again you are wrong..

 

Do you also believe that if a women is truely raped she can shut her reproductive system down? And if a women is being raped since she can't do anything about it she should just lie back and enjoy it? But, wait a minute those two words of wisdom contradict each other, if they lie back and enjoy it, then by the other persons words of wisdom, they are no longer being raped, for they are then a willing participant.. I mean unless the women kicks and screams and fights then per wise guy #1 it really isn't rape at all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

moosetracker further writes: "clarification to my comment about no scientists will state all pedophiles of boys are homosexual - I meant respected scientists.. I am sure you could wrestle up names of some quacks that no one but the homophobic would take seriously."

 

Gay rights activists like to use "science" as a pulpit, and furthermore to declare that the "science" in this case is already "settled," a done deal, we're right and you're wrong and no taps back.

 

One of the most efficiently optimized websites for the BSA/Gay issue is this one, sponsored by GLAAD: http://www.glaad.org/blog/dozens-experts-dispel-anti-gay-activists-myth-about-gay-bsa-leaders - helpfully titled "Dozens of Experts Dispel Anti-Gay Activists' Myth About Gay Boy Scout Leaders." It certainly seems popular, as it's one of the first that pops up in any Google search you can see its arguments cut-and-pasted on many websites.

 

It states that "It is important that parents and educators understand that sexual abuse is about power, not attraction.

 

Gay people are no more likely to abuse children, and pose no more of a threat to our young people, than the general population.

 

This has been accepted among experts for decades.

 

In 1978, researchers studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. 47% were classified as "fixated;" 40% were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; 13% were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. None were classified as gay.

 

In 1989 researchers in Canada measured the actual arousal of various groups of men when viewing certain photos. They found that gay men were no more attracted to young boys than straight men were to young girls.

 

In 1991 researchers surveying sex abuse victims in Denver found that only 2% of them had been victimized by someone who identified as gay or lesbian.

 

There has been hardly any research done in the decades since, because this is a settled issue among experts."

 

 

Well, the last sentence is demonstrably false, although the fact that the latest one of the three studies they cite is 22 years old, and the earliest one was conducted in 1978 has to be quickly explained away - much better and more current research has been done (see some of those I cited at the request of DigitalScout, who asked that none of them be sponsored by any religious or pro-family organizations) in the related (and more intellectually honest) field of child abuse studies. It's a fine line to walk, however as any scientists who make statements that the LGBT lobby (or the LGBTQ lobby, or the LGBTQIA lobby, or the even more ponderous LGBTTIQQ2SA - I'm not making that up - lobby) finds inappropriate can expect to be publicly chastised as "homophobic," become the targets of Facebook campaigns to pull their academic tenure, and recieve thousands of emailed death threats, if the experience of, say, Professor Mark Regnerus at UT Austin is any example (http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/ut-investigates-professors-study-on-children-with-/nRp5t/). The current political environment sounds exactly like the kind of calm, reasoned, dispassionate environment where quality research on human sexuality can be conducted.

 

The letter makes the same claim you did, Moosetracker, that "sexual abuse is about power, not attraction." To which the answer seems justifiably to be, "Who the hell cares?" Whether its over power or attraction, a boy will get sodomized. As pederasts are inarguably attracted to people over whom they want to exercise power, this argument by both GLAAD and moosetracker seems like quite the exercise in hairsplitting.

 

It's okay, though, as this is a "settled issue" among "experts." We know this because some of the "experts" who signed this statement of scientific principle include actress Christina Ricci, star of "The Addams Family;" the Reverend Doctor Cindi Love, Executive Director of something called "Soulforce;" Crystal Stehltenpohl, an Actual Graduate Student in the Department of Psychology at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale; the Reverend Moonhawk River Stone, M.S., LMHC, a psychotherapist in private practice; not simply the Reverend but the Most Reverend Mark Shirilau, Ph.D, who describes himself as the Archbishop and Primate (I'm guessing that is an attempt at a theological description and not a biological one) of something called The Ecumenical Catholic Church, a schism of which the Vatican is probably blissfully unaware; and at least one professor of psychology at an online university that the Florida Attorney General is investigating for fraud. I'm not sure if those people are included among the "dozens of experts" referred to in the title, but I'm making a wild guess that they are. All very valid judges of the scientific method, I'm sure.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Science" and "scientists" are a comforting pillar to cling behind, but if you think that an opinion on anything in "science" is settled, then guess what? You may be doing something, but it sure ain't "science."

 

It is even more difficult to make a claim to authority using "science" when we are discussing soft sciences, like the social sciences, and moreover, when the subject of study is sexual behavior...a field where most of us tend to lie to ourselves and our significant others, much less a 24 year old grad student with a clipboard who is asking us very, very, very personal questions. If you don't think this is true, moosetracker, then quick! - describe on this thread your most embarassing sexual experience!

 

 

Still here?

 

 

Do you think it possible that much of the evidence social "scientists" are basing their conclusions on is sketchy at best?

 

I honestly doubt that psychology can have "settled science" in the same way that only the hard sciences can. Perhaps only mathematics can, actually. I don't think the basic axioms of math have changed much over the last thousand years or so, but you can find a graveyard of discarded concepts in physics, in physiology, in astronomy, in cosmology, in biology, in chemistry, and most other "hard" sciences. Google "phlogiston," "spontaneous generation," "the aether," "heliocentrism," "the steady state universe," or "Lamarckism." Each was in their time considered to be state of the art, "settled" science that the experts in their field all cited as fact.

 

If we look specfically at psychology, the field for which you are claiming an authority, the Freudian theory of psychoanalysis was considered settled science until quite recently. Now it's considered an antique, and most clinicians consider its claims to be pseudoscience at best. Was "science" wrong then, when it claimed that children claiming to be molested by their parents were actually hysterics and that every girl secretly wanted to have sex with her father? If "science" was wrong then, could it be wrong now?

 

As recently as the 1960s and 1970s, pedophilia and more specifically, pederasty was thought by most psychologists and psychiatrists to be curable and manageable through drugs like Depo-Provera - advice that the Catholic bishops of that era took to heart with tragic results. If we should not have trusted "science" then, why should we trust it when it makes claims about homosexuality now? Because we're smarter now? Many psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, judges, and philosophers claimed that laws against sexual contact with children were the "artifact of a restrictive morality" in the 1970s (the same era as one of the three studies GLAAD cites). "Science" at that time claimed that imprisoned child molesters should be "deinstitutionalized," that intrafamilial child abuse was both extremely rare and less damaging to the child than sexual assault by a stranger, and that children were often complicit in their own rape, and that reporting sexual abuse could be more damaging to the child than silence. And that's from the textbooks, popular culture was much worse!

 

So why could "science" be wrong then but not now, moosetracker?

 

Until the APA changed its position on homosexuality, it was the official position of the APA that homosexuality was a behavioral disorder and that it was treatable. Under pressure from homosexual psychologists, they reversed their position. So, was science "wrong" then when it was settled, but is "right" now when the results are more pleasing to an increasingly secular society?

 

Should we trust "science" more because it is an accordance with our current views of morality? There was not a single scientific or medical textbook on embryology or obstetrics that did not state that human life began at conception until just after Roe v. Wade - a change that did not seem to be based on any new scientific discovery, just a new moral climate. Were embryology and obstetrics "wrong" then and not true "science?"

 

You could certainly argue that science "evolves," and old concepts are discarded as new ones emerge.

 

But how do we know when we should hit the scientific Pause button and decide that now, certainly, once and for all...we have "settled" science? Will the claims of social scientists on the inherent safety of homosexuals as leaders in Scouting be held forever, or could they change as science's claims on the mutability of child molesters has changed?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So are you saying rapist of women or children who are nice and whisper sweet things, and ask "Do you like it?" are not being violent... Sorry, you are dead, dead wrong! A women or child does not need to be killed or cut up to the point of deformity for rape to be a violent act against them.. Nor, for the rapist to gain a sense of power and control over them.

 

Also prepubescent boys and girls are not men & women.. Sorry again you are wrong..

 

Do you also believe that if a women is truely raped she can shut her reproductive system down? And if a women is being raped since she can't do anything about it she should just lie back and enjoy it? But, wait a minute those two words of wisdom contradict each other, if they lie back and enjoy it, then by the other persons words of wisdom, they are no longer being raped, for they are then a willing participant.. I mean unless the women kicks and screams and fights then per wise guy #1 it really isn't rape at all...

No offense, moosetracker, but what are you going on about? None of that has any relation to what was being discussed, nor did I say that rapists weren't violent. You are confusing motives and method. Why are you discussing the violent rape of women, a horrible act but not at all relevant to what was being discussed? If you're going to respond to an argument, you should address the original point.

 

There are not many prepubescent boys in the boy scouts, and no girls at all. Why are you talking about them? Prepubescent, pubescent and post-pubescent boys are all males, which is the term I used. Homosexuals are defined by their interest in male persons, as most dictionaries state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that was a long winded tirade about nothing.. I did not say it was a settled issue if homosexuals are more likely, least likely or equally likely.. I will say the majority of research has proved homosexuals ARE NOT more likely, but some research will side with you.. The scientists with the odd results, I will not automatically label quacks, though I prefer the majority of the research, which disproves the results of the few..

 

Who I said I would highly question their standing with other psychologists is any scientist who state ALL pedophiles whose victimize young boys are due to molester being a homosexual.. Which is what you stated. Those scientist can be filed away in history with the scientist who tried to prove that black people where linked more to apes then the human species, had lower intelligence, and could not survive without the guiding hand of a master..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the heck is with this site and trying to post? Everytime I try to post it seems I get some type of error message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the heck is with this site and trying to post? Everytime I try to post it seems I get some type of error message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this idea is being explored in a number of other threads. However your questions are still good.

 

As has been brought up before the BSA is now in a no-win position where there is no answer that will please everybody.

 

I still think the local option is the best solution. I don't think the BSA can continue being exclusive, not when it appears that two thirds of the

councils don't want it that way. And I don't think you can force a CO to accept members they don't want.

 

There will be people who will stomp off but I am agreeing with some of the other posters here that there won't be very many.

There will be troops that will avoid each other but overall I am really thinking this is going to settle down, and fairly quickly.

Believing in anything coming from NBC is like believing in the tooth fairy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this idea is being explored in a number of other threads. However your questions are still good.

 

As has been brought up before the BSA is now in a no-win position where there is no answer that will please everybody.

 

I still think the local option is the best solution. I don't think the BSA can continue being exclusive, not when it appears that two thirds of the

councils don't want it that way. And I don't think you can force a CO to accept members they don't want.

 

There will be people who will stomp off but I am agreeing with some of the other posters here that there won't be very many.

There will be troops that will avoid each other but overall I am really thinking this is going to settle down, and fairly quickly.

To repeat, Lodge489 states he got the two-thirds figure directly from a member of the executive council, not from NBC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The worrisome issue of bad press is not my concern. Right now, chartering organizations have the right to exclude non-catholics, females, etc. I believe they should still have the right to do so - at their own risk. I think, maybe naively, that there will be enough COs that would not turn away homosexuals that it would not become an issue.
ghst- the problem is the BSA has already set their precedent the other direction... BSA currently allows CO's most notably the LDS units to "tweek" the national program to fit the individual unit's needs. BSA allows individual units to keep females out of leadership roles if they want to. But, BSA says a unit cannot currently CHOOSE to allow a gay or atheist to be a leader.

 

That really is the rub in my book. Why can certain CO's impose their will on the program in one direction, while another CO cannot? Its an option to exclude, with no option to include right now. Might have something to do with the number of LDS units and $$ brought in, I'm guessing...

 

See, if the ACLU and gays come at BSA with enough money, we'll drop the religious CO's in a heartbeat and all be flying rainbow flags at the next Jambo !!! ACLU has been going about it all wrong these so many years :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"If national made a policy change across the board to accept gays, would the LDS and Catholic CO's (maybe some others) drop their charters? Maybe, maybe not... I'm guessing on principle, most would want to, but I'm not sure how they face the youth they serve once they no longer have access to the program and the council camps . etc."

 

I don't know that the large church COs would lose anything. Some churches already have scout organizations outside the BSA (Royal Rangers, Royal Ambassadors, Pathfinders, etc.). Some churches already have outdoor camp properties (I found cysc.com, here's a link to WI UMC camps http://wiumcamps.org/). Here's commentary from the SBC (http://www.christianindex.org/8614.article) on their interest in pursuing a different course based on the decision. The AHG exists for at least some of the same reasons. If the LDS church said "no more scouts" it would no doubt end. I suspect the same is true for the SBC and to a lesser level for the Catholics and Methodists. Some of their scouts might join other troops but others wouldn't.

 

If in fact the local option leads to local law suits I would expect some large defections.

 

dcsimmons-

 

I guess I just do NOT see the value in a local law suit. Part of the charm of local option is if the ACLU (or any other entity for that matter) wants to sue, they have to pony up the time / resources / money to sue each individual unit... and to what end? To force that ONE unit to change their membership policy? One of the reasons BSA national is an easy target is that one ruling can and will affected EVERY single unit across the nation. No so if they win against one unit. It spreads the risk across a larger area and most likely makes it cost prohibitive to go after it at the unit by unit level.

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  

×