Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
eagle77

Cradle Of Liberty Council Has Given In

Recommended Posts

It's ironic that Gates said the BSA needs to act quickly in order to control the discussion and yet they are quickly losing control within their own ranks.

 

Something similar happened the last time a change was being considered.  That time there was a leak of the fact that the issue was being discussed, and they decided to accelerate the schedule for considering a change.  There was a lot of work done in a very short period of time, but in the end they failed to address the real issue.  Doing things in a rush often produces poor results.

 

In this case, the decision that is supposedly scheduled for October may very well become irrelevant by that time.  If another council follows Cradle of Liberty, that may open the floodgates for the councils that wanted to make a change the last time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your alternative to "pluralistic American" was both 'conservative' and 'Christian'. I'm just noting that 1) those two linked characteristics that shouldn't necessarily be linked that way and 2) there are more potential alternatives out there than "...a conservative Christians only group".

Your statement implied there were no other alternatives for BSA to choose from.

Rick is just as close minded and prejudiced as anyone, he just thinks it's the right kind of prejudice, as all prejudiced people do.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your alternative to "pluralistic American" was both 'conservative' and 'Christian'. I'm just noting that 1) those two linked characteristics that shouldn't necessarily be linked that way and 2) there are more potential alternatives out there than "...a conservative Christians only group".

Your statement implied there were no other alternatives for BSA to choose from.

You are correct, I wasn't being very clear. True, there are multiple ways the BSA could go, and a liberal Wiccan only group wouldn't be pluralistic either. But the current state of affairs is pretty much one where, at least in the membership rules, its a conservative Christians group that allows others to join as long as they follow the conservative Christan rules. Otherwise why would an Episcopal church that charters a boy scout troop be told that the man they have chosen as their minister is unfit to be a registered leader for their troop because he is openly gay? Because their religious belief that being gay is morally neutral is trumped by a bunch of conservative Christian COs that believe otherwise. Not very nonsectarian is it? That is the point I was (badly) trying to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that clarifies things. Your point is well taken. It will be interesting to see how these sorts of interactions develop in the future as the old membership policy descends into oblivion and local option becomes more widespread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rick is just as close minded and prejudiced as anyone, he just thinks it's the right kind of prejudice, as all prejudiced people do.

You are also engaging in a critical thinking error. Unless you have actually somehow measured the degree of close-mindedness and prejudice of everyone else, there is no way that you can make that claim with any kind of validity. Moreover, I seriously doubt that you can read his mind...I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We used to be a country of laws, but now that the Constitution has been neutered, it's anything goes.

This is not about the Constitution (which, in any event, is far healthier than you seem to think). This is about one organization (the council) doing what it believes is the right thing, and another organization (National) apparently deciding to stop using its power to reverse that decision, on this issue.

 

By the way, how many IH's are there out there that are openly homosexual? I'm sure BSA hasn't done an audit on that yet. Just adds more to the hypocrisy. Either they buckle under or take a cue from their Sccout Law on Bravery and take a stand. As far as I know Brave in the Law has not been watered down to A Scout is Wishy Washy as of yet.

The number of openly gay IH's is irrelevant. The fact that there could theoretically be a gay IH somewhere is not "the" reason for changing the policy. It is, in my opinion, one of many things that show the policy doesn't make any sense. The IH of my troop's CO, for example, is not gay, to my knowledge. But the policy of the CO is strongly in favor of inclusion, as a matter of their faith. Since the Dale decision it seems they have mostly tolerated us being there, and I get the feeling that they're under the impression that the troop would not enforce the National policy if the issue ever came up. I'm not sure what they think would happen if the situation came up and someone decided to call the council about it, and now I am not sure, either. So here I am with a CO with a policy of not excluding gay people, in a council that opposes exclusion, but the National policy is, at least officially, in effect for all units. It's not a viable situation - regardless of what the pastor's sexual orientation may be.

 

As for "Brave", I think it is the Cradle of Liberty Council is being brave, and that the brave thing for National to do would be to be to allow local option (by CO) nationwide, regardless of what each council thinks. instead, the current evidence suggests that the councils may be set free to do what they want. Sort of a double-local-option. I guess we'll see.

Edited by NJCubScouter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@@NJCubScouter you sound like council is a separate organization from national. It's not. The Constituion and the U.S. Supreme Court has said BSA can have its policy. National sets the policy. Councils abide but that policy if they don't then national can revoke their position and the courts would support them. Councils could leave if they don't like what BSA stands for and start their own organization.

 

What Stosh is decrying is how, despite having the law on their side, national has caved to the squeaky money wheel instead of stuck to their guns....so to speak. Once they step aside for that, you can bet more policies will be challenged.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... national has caved to the squeaky money wheel instead of stuck to their guns....so to speak.

 

Of course that assumes it hasn't always been about the money...and the evidence against that idea seems pretty weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all discriminate in one way or the other so all this talk about being non-discriminatory is basically political BS.

No, it's pretty clear that people are talking about specific types of discrimination; what YOU'RE doing is BS, because you're just equivocating, which is little more than wordplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@@NJCubScouter you sound like council is a separate organization from national. It's not. The Constituion and the U.S. Supreme Court has said BSA can have its policy. National sets the policy. Councils abide but that policy if they don't then national can revoke their position and the courts would support them.

While BSA National and the councils often seem to function as one "organization", in a legal sense they are separate corporations, and therefore separate "organizations." As you say, National can revoke a council's charter if the council is not abiding by policies and directives from National, but it seems that in this instance, National is not going to do that. At least, that is how it seems. National has not made an official statement to that effect, unless you count what Mr. Gates said as an official statement - he said that "he" was not going to revoke charters for councils that set their own policy. But I do not think the Cradle of Liberty Council would have announced this decision without getting assurances "behind the scenes" that it's charter was not going to be revoked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While BSA National and the councils often seem to function as one "organization", in a legal sense they are separate corporations, and therefore separate "organizations." As you say, National can revoke a council's charter if the council is not abiding by policies and directives from National, but it seems that in this instance, National is not going to do that. At least, that is how it seems. National has not made an official statement to that effect, unless you count what Mr. Gates said as an official statement - he said that "he" was not going to revoke charters for councils that set their own policy. But I do not think the Cradle of Liberty Council would have announced this decision without getting assurances "behind the scenes" that it's charter was not going to be revoked.

 

It seems the relation between council and national is similar to that of fraternal organizations. They may be somewhat separate, but national can still revoke the charter of the council. Council cannot make up their own policies as they are part of national and under its auspices. Council cannot allow Webelos to drive ATVs because national forbids it. Council cannot allow girls in because national forbids it. So by extension, council cannot make changes to their membership requirements because that is national's purview. 

 

It is speculation to say that the council got assurances. Did the NY council? Who knows, but given how weak BSA is on such things, they have shown they can be bullied in to making decisions. What bothers me is how folks always ask "How scout-like is xxx". Well, how scout-like it is to knowingly violate a standing rule rather than working through the process as a good scout would. No one seems to be able answer that question, rather they fall back on "It's the right thing to do."

 

Well, I think it's wrong to prohibit scouts for using hand guns, black powder, ATVs, etc. Should I just ignore BSA policy, or should I work the process to change it? What's good for the goose....

Edited by Bad Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please tell me we are not equating what this council is doing with Rosa Parks 

 

 

 

Don't be so quick to dismiss the parallels.  BSA didn't accept black scouts in all areas until 1942.  And segregating black and white troops was not dropped as an official policy until 1974.  No matter what one believes, social change happens - it's not overnight, and it's never clean or without debate and controversy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, you can even bring your canon. ;) We have several Civil War and Western re-enactors in our units. One owns a cannon. ;)

 

Our guys are seriously considering thumbing our nose at BSA once this [change] officially goes through. If national is going to allow groups to pick and choose if they want to adhere to a current policy then we will take that as lead to do the same. There's no good reason to bar scouts from using pistols or black powder (and yet allow rifles and shotguns) if there is proper training and supervision. Given the Constitution (for now) gives us the right to keep and bear arms, why would BSA want to infringe on our rights? 

 

Perhaps you should declare yourself a troop that refuses to discriminate against black-powder firearms enthusiasts, or against handgun proponents. 

 

Surely discrimination of any kind is a bad thing (as we are now informed by the zeitgeist), so HQ should be willing to knuckle under and cease their support of discrimination. 

 

Likewise, the discrimination against alcohol imbibers, chainsaw users, convicted felons, and so forth. End all discrimination now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be so quick to dismiss the parallels.  BSA didn't accept black scouts in all areas until 1942.  And segregating black and white troops was not dropped as an official policy until 1974.  No matter what one believes, social change happens - it's not overnight, and it's never clean or without debate and controversy.

 

One can also work the system and avoid violating the rules of the organization. Scouts should set an example and abide by rules rather than picking and choosing which rules they wish to obey.

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...