Update On Adult Leadership Standards

[NJCubScouter 1389]

DaveCO, if you want to promote lone Scouting, that's fine. I have never really looked into it. (Living in the most densely populated state in the country means that isolation is not a big issue.) I just think it is rarely going to be the best alternative in a case where the Scout has a unit available, and especially where a choice of units is available.

[David CO 1783]

For a traditionally religious conservative, having a gay inclusive unit available is the same as having no unit available at all.

 

The highly populated coastal "blue states" are overwhelmingly liberal. It is entirely possible that all of the units in a "blue state" neighborhood are gay inclusive.

 

Supporting gay inclusion, of course you would prefer that Scouts join inclusive units rather than Lone Scouting. But that's not the question.

 

NJ, if this gay inclusive policy passes, would you rather have boys join Lone Scouting or leave Scouting entirely?

Edited July 21, 2015 by David CO

[Cambridgeskip 658]

NJ, he's saying he'd welcome them in without the slightest question, not that he would rip their arm off aggressively.  It's funny he'd do that, because that's exactly what happened when 3 gay men applied to start that troop out of the blue, were made SM and ASMs against the advice of the council because they were unknowns, then turned it into a national sex/porn trafficking ring. 

 

 

That's not what I'm saying.

 

I'm saying I'd treat them broadly the same as someone who is volunteering as their son has signed up, or someone who aged out and wants to carry on volunteering. You of course put them through the same background checks and get the same references, that's sensible and, I assume in the USA, what you have to do legally anyway.

 

All I'm saying is that there is no reason to be any more suspicious than someone with an existing link. You may need to give them some extra training if they have no previous links or experience. If so then so be it. Those people are most likely to be someone that wants to give something back to their community for no more reason than they want to give something and scouting sounds a fun way to do it.

 

And from experience those who come in with no previous links are often the most effective. They don't come in weighed down with the idea of "this is how it has always been done so this is the way we'll do it". They come in with fresh ideas and liven things up a bit.

[skeptic 990]

"The Ineligible Volunteer files were established in the 1920s, with "Perversion" being one of the main categories.  You all refer to a switch in the 80s without ever linking to anything (yet you in particular love to pointedly ask for citations) indicating a new turn to ban homosexuals.  One of the few ways to get in that card catalogue was simply being gay, which is one reason BSA never made those files public.  If BSA allowed gay leaders before the 1980s, why did they begin filing homosexuals as "Ineligible Volunteers - Perversion" 60 years prior?"

 

 

 

The truth is that few leaders if homosexual would let that information become general knowledge clear up to the early seventies, when the Gay lobby began to push and politicize their agenda.  But, if one did become known, it would have been dealt with locally, and they likely ended up in the files.  The files themselves were an anomaly, even today. "Don't talk about it, sweep it under the carpet, look the other way", was the normal response into the seventies; and now that almost universal public and private response is being used to bludgeon BSA due to the fact they actually tried to do "something".

 

What is now being called "local option" was the general rule almost from the beginning; and going back to it will certainly be better than what we have now.

[packsaddle 753]

"The Ineligible Volunteer files were established in the 1920s, with "Perversion" being one of the main categories.  You all refer to a switch in the 80s without ever linking to anything (yet you in particular love to pointedly ask for citations) indicating a new turn to ban homosexuals.  One of the few ways to get in that card catalogue was simply being gay, which is one reason BSA never made those files public.  If BSA allowed gay leaders before the 1980s, why did they begin filing homosexuals as "Ineligible Volunteers - Perversion" 60 years prior?"

 

 

 

The truth is that few leaders if homosexual would let that information become general knowledge clear up to the early seventies, when the Gay lobby began to push and politicize their agenda.  But, if one did become known, it would have been dealt with locally, and they likely ended up in the files.  The files themselves were an anomaly, even today. "Don't talk about it, sweep it under the carpet, look the other way", was the normal response into the seventies; and now that almost universal public and private response is being used to bludgeon BSA due to the fact they actually tried to do "something".

 

What is now being called "local option" was the general rule almost from the beginning; and going back to it will certainly be better than what we have now.

 

Skeptic, I knew there were gay leaders, even gay professionals, back in the '60s - never heard of any 'scandals' though. I don't remember anyone making objections about it either. I don't know how to cite something that comes from personal experience and definitely not if I didn't even know about it at all (reference to the so-called 'perversion' files).

I first learned of the existence of those non-public files in these threads. The old policy to which I referred was the exclusive membership policy that was never mentioned when I first applied as a volunteer a few decades ago. I don't know how to produce a citation for not knowing about something. But on that fateful evening when the DE aired the 'dirty laundry' at our B&G, I did become aware of 'the policy'...but just the tip of the iceberg regarding the controversy surrounding it. It was only after I learned about the shameful and cowardly action by BSA toward the UUA that I began to question BSA decision-making at the national level.

Edited July 21, 2015 by packsaddle

[NJCubScouter 1389]

The highly populated coastal "blue states" are overwhelmingly liberal. It is entirely possible that all of the units in a "blue state" neighborhood are gay inclusive.

There are some areas in some of the "blue states" that are not as "liberal" as you might think. In any event, I don't know how it is going to break down. I know that there are a number of units in my area chartered to Catholic churches, and I'm assuming they are not going to be approving any openly gay leaders. Of course that is just an assumption. I know some of the other churches will be "inclusive", not sure about the rest.

 

Supporting gay inclusion, of course you would prefer that Scouts join inclusive units rather than Lone Scouting. But that's not the question.

Your assumption about what I would prefer is incorrect. I want people to have a choice.

 

NJ, if this gay inclusive policy passes, would you rather have boys join Lone Scouting or leave Scouting entirely?

If those are the only two choices, I would prefer they stay in Scouting through Lone Scouts. But I do not think those are the only two choices. New units can be formed and new CO's can be found, to provide a choice.

Edited July 21, 2015 by NJCubScouter

[Stosh 3452]

But having a program were one doesn't have to be exposed to offensive behavior is no longer a choice for scouts. So the choice discussion is not on the table anymore.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

But having a program were one doesn't have to be exposed to offensive behavior is no longer a choice for scouts. So the choice discussion is not on the table anymore.

What "offensive behavior" are you talking about, Stosh?

[Rick_in_CA 401]

What "offensive behavior" are you talking about, Stosh?

Admitting that people from more accepting religious faiths deserve equal respect as those from less accepting ones. You know, that offensive behavior?

[Stosh 3452]

If you like the color blue, join the color blue club. If you like the color red, join the color red club. And try to keep it in mind that neither club's members like the color purple even though you think they should and it would be best for everyone if they did.

[Rick_in_CA 401]

If you like the color blue, join the color blue club. If you like the color red, join the color red club. And try to keep it in mind that neither club's members like the color purple even though you think they should and it would be best for everyone if they did.

But what if I join the "All Colors Club" which states that "showing respect for people who like any and or all colors is a fundamental value of the ACC", and the ACC teaches it's members that "it's important to show respect to everyone no matter what color they prefer". But after I have joined, I discover that a subset of the members of the ACC say "if you like purple we don't like you and don't want you here". Wouldn't it be appropriate for me to point out that just because I like purple doesn't mean I should be unwelcome? And in fact not allowing people who like purple is going against a stated fundamental value of the ACC?

 

Of course that point will be completely ignored and the anti-purple people will reply: "why don't you just go away and join a purple club instead?".

Edited July 21, 2015 by Rick_in_CA

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Stosh, I don't see what your last two comments have to do with other.

[David CO 1783]

Do you believe that all religions deserve equal respect? I don't.

 

The history and tradition of my religion is not one of according equal respect to all religions, historical or current.

 

Did we accord equal respect to the worshipers of Baal, designers of the golden calf, the practitioners of witchcraft, or the residents of Sodom? No. Certainly not.

 

In our Sunday School classes, we teach that the practitioners of these religious beliefs were evil. No equal respect. No mincing of words. No beating around the bush. They were evil.

 

Why would Rick, or anyone else, be surprised that traditional religious conservatives do not accept the concept of religious equality. Religious freedom, yes. Religious equality, no.

Edited July 22, 2015 by David CO

[eagle77 60]

Do you believe that all religions deserve equal respect? I don't.

 

The history and tradition of my religion is not one of according equal respect to all religions, historical or current.

 

Did we accord equal respect to the worshipers of Baal, designers of the golden calf, the practitioners of witchcraft, or the residents of Sodom? No. Certainly not.

 

In our Sunday School classes, we teach that the practitioners of these religious beliefs were evil. No equal respect. No mincing of words. No beating around the bush. They were evil.

 

 No, but since I'm a member of BSA I should at the very least respect my fellow members and at the very least get the same back from them.

[Peregrinator 85]

 No, but since I'm a member of BSA I should at the very least respect my fellow members and at the very least get the same back from them.

I think one can distinguish between respecting people and respecting their beliefs.