Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CricketEagle

Path To Save Bsa?

Recommended Posts

 

I find it amusing that some people in here suddenly care so much about what certain outside groups think.

Glad to be of service.

 

I care about what the BSA thinks, and what it is willing to do, and not do.

It took BSA less than 3 years to move from "Gay scouts only; no leaders" to "Oh, what the heck, Gay leaders, too." 

So how long do you trust them to hold this time?

 

 

Well, they should have made this local option decision (and it should have been for both leaders and scouts) a few years ago. 

 

In case you haven't noticed, there has been a major sea change in the whole gay rights issue.  Gay marriage is now legal in all 50 states.  When the last decision was made only a handful of states (if any, I don't recall exactly), allowed gay marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is, when political correctness reared its head during the Clinton years, that genie can't be put back in the bottle. If Hillary gets elected it will only get worse.

The people who follow that creed have no desire to live and let live. They want to jam their ideals down the throats of those that oppose them. That was my point elsewhere about their intolerance of others. They will never be satisfied.

I find your second paragraph interesting as it has felt for a very long time that much of the conservative agenda appears to be shoved down the throats of others. The idea that my council, district, troop, etc... could not have specific leaders they desired due to the jamming of others ideals down our throats. Why won't you et al allow us to live and let live and allow us to make our own choices as to who we allow as leaders? (Asked rhetorically). The slippery slope you fear has been our reality for the last few decades, at least now we can return to officially having the leaders we desired. We are not jamming our choice down your throat, we are glad you are no longer able to jam yours down our thoats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stosh complains about the minority ruling the majority, unless the majority votes the way he doesn't like, then he complains about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems outside pressure groups and Mr. Gates in lock step with those groups have made the decision for the BSA.

Let the packs and troops fall where they may and congratulate National for a great job. I don't think this organization, lead by

Gates, and calls homosexual behavior....moral...has any character or integrity. He will get the organization that he wants by his

actions. Sad for scouts. Gates has fixed BSA.

 

Who is calling homosexuality moral?  I never read that in any statements. I did read a statement that left judgement of morality up to individual units. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find your second paragraph interesting as it has felt for a very long time that much of the conservative agenda appears to be shoved down the throats of others. The idea that my council, district, troop, etc... could not have specific leaders they desired due to the jamming of others ideals down our throats. Why won't you et al allow us to live and let live and allow us to make our own choices as to who we allow as leaders? (Asked rhetorically). The slippery slope you fear has been our reality for the last few decades, at least now we can return to officially having the leaders we desired. We are not jamming our choice down your throat, we are glad you are no longer able to jam yours down our thoats.

 

And Ladies and Gentlemen, there you have it in a nutshell, the total polarization of the BSA is complete.  We're going to find out whether this decision was made for the benefit of the majority or minority because not all the feet votes have come in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find your second paragraph interesting as it has felt for a very long time that much of the conservative agenda appears to be shoved down the throats of others. The idea that my council, district, troop, etc... could not have specific leaders they desired due to the jamming of others ideals down our throats. Why won't you et al allow us to live and let live and allow us to make our own choices as to who we allow as leaders? (Asked rhetorically). The slippery slope you fear has been our reality for the last few decades, at least now we can return to officially having the leaders we desired. We are not jamming our choice down your throat, we are glad you are no longer able to jam yours down our thoats.

There were no conservative groups ramming it down your throat. There were no groups outside BSA pressuring BSA to keep their policies. There were no lawsuits forcing BSA to keep an anti-gay policy. There were no sponsors of which I am award who threatened to leave if BSA allowed gays. Even if there were they paled in comparison to the attack on conservatives and religious organizations over the last 8+ years.

 

Remove all of that on both sides and let's start fresh. You STILL have groups on the left saying they're not done with BSA. They now want ALL religious COs to stop discriminating. They even want to "change the culture" of BSA. They're clearly not done until they have BSA looking like THEY want it.

 

That's live and let live from the left? Please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stosh complains about the minority ruling the majority, unless the majority votes the way he doesn't like, then he complains about that.

...or maybe it is when a minority votes in a controlled environment that make them the majority and force that upon the true majority.

 

BSA should have let all registered members vote up or down on the issue. Then we'd have the answer as to who had the majority. Given this issue is split nationally, I find it VERY odd that BSA's board voted over 70% to allow this when not even that many of their own members, let alone the national, feel that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were no conservative groups ramming it down your throat. There were no groups outside BSA pressuring BSA to keep their policies. There were no lawsuits forcing BSA to keep an anti-gay policy. There were no sponsors of which I am award who threatened to leave if BSA allowed gays. Even if there were they paled in comparison to the attack on conservatives and religious organizations over the last 8+ years.

 

Remove all of that on both sides and let's start fresh. You STILL have groups on the left saying they're not done with BSA. They now want ALL religious COs to stop discriminating. They even want to "change the culture" of BSA. They're clearly not done until they have BSA looking like THEY want it.

 

That's live and let live from the left? Please.

 

Contrary to your belief that you are able to see things from the other side, clearly you either cannot or do not. That is too bad. I guess I will go back to being relatively silent and just wait out your remaining years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contrary to your belief that you are able to see things from the other side, clearly you either cannot or do not. That is too bad. I guess I will go back to being relatively silent and just wait out your remaining years.

 

So please enlighten me if you know more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end, at least partially, I don't think Gates or National BSA had a choice.  The BSA itself is NOT a ministry and would not qualify for a ministry exemption to employment, therefore, they had no choice but to allow for employment at the National, Regional, Council level without discrimination.  This includes summer camps, DEs, Scout Store employees.  A prior employment requirement that the applicant be a member of the BSA (and thus restricted based on prior membership policies) would not stand a court challenge; and based on NY camp staff issues and others, it probably had to change now.

 

Did the membership policy itself have to change?  This is a harder question - it could probably have waited - they could have quietly let the employment issues pass and given the COs more time to prepare for the inevitable membership change - and it was inevitabe; the Dale case not withstanding, the Boy Scouts were too high profile, too visible a target to be left alone by those seeking to change our society as a whole; even if those same individuals had no interest in participating in the result.

 

I (re)joined the Scouts for my Son to have a great experience, to be exposed to many new things and ideas that we as a family realistically would not have done.  Even since I was a Scout, I was never comfortable with the BSA position; but then, as more recently, I decided that on the whole, the organization did more good that harm both for my child and for society as a whole.  I never could find an adequate counter argument when publicly confronted about the organization's positions, and thankfully, as a leader, I was never forced to directly confront having to turn someone away over the issue - I do not know what I would have done.

 

Professionally, I spend a lot of time thinking about worst case scenarios and preparing for them, so what is the worst case here ...

I do not think that the Boy Scouts themselves go away.  Think back to our origins, where each Communitty had their own boy scout troop; no Councils, no National, just Scouts and Leaders.

 

What could happen ...

Some churches leave, and without their support, the BSA gets MUCH smaller, but not to the point of disappearing.  More council mergers, less national staff, districts might even disapper entirely for smaller councils.  Lots of summer camp sales and closures - forcing the Troops to provide more of their own advancement programs.  But I do not think that the size gets so small that a critical mass necessary to produce Scouts books, uniforms, and awards does not exist. Self Insuring may no longer be possible, and the cost per scout also goes up, further reducing membership.

 

One possibility of some recovery is that the National Organization takes the Franchise model one step further and allows the Churches take full posession of their Scouting program, paying a single license fee for use of Books, awards, uniforms; but where the BSA is otherwise totally hands off on their operations.  Maybe, like we briefly did with AHG, the leader training and/or camps are opened up and available for the new groups' use.

 

In addtition, the remainder of the BSA can revisit Faith and Gender issues, possibly allowing a return to Military and School sponsorship and/or recruiting.

 

Verses a worst case scenario without the change ...

Congress revokes the BSA charter and the Councils and some religeous sponsors splinter, each taking their own version of the Boy Scout name, their own version of the program.  Those outside your unit have no idea what "Scouting" their are getting, or what skills or leadership development were involved.  Getting back to our roots in a way, some Scout groups form with no relationship to any overall structure.  Unit leaders will be motivated, but lack an organized training structure.  Again, Insurance becomes the issue, and groups get expensive, or finding leaders willing to risk personal responsibility really reduces the size of the program(s); but each unit becomes much more responsive to the needs of the Scouts in that unit.  In the end, it might look much more like venturing units (with a broader age range) as units specilize to what their local population want to do - for some, camping may even disapper.

 

It will be different, no matter how we look at the future - and maybe that it what frightens many of us the most, it won't be the program we grew up with.  But Scouting in the United States will survive.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...or maybe it is when a minority votes in a controlled environment that make them the majority and force that upon the true majority.

 

BSA should have let all registered members vote up or down on the issue. Then we'd have the answer as to who had the majority. Given this issue is split nationally, I find it VERY odd that BSA's board voted over 70% to allow this when not even that many of their own members, let alone the national, feel that way.

 

So, do you have any real poll that shows how the majority feels?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, do you have any real poll that shows how the majority feels?

 

Majority of what? Of the populace nationally? Various polls show the country split on the issue. Of BSA members? They ran the straw poll in 2013 before the last vote and the majority were against it, but one can argue the sample size and methodology (as you can with any poll really).

 

What we can take from either the national polls or the membership pole is that the issue his pretty equally divided, and no where near the 70+% with which the BSA board passed this policy change. That is what I suspect @@Stosh is referring to in part -- the board's vote does not reflect the parity on this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Majority of what? Of the populace nationally? Various polls show the country split on the issue. Of BSA members? They ran the straw poll in 2013 before the last vote and the majority were against it, but one can argue the sample size and methodology (as you can with any poll really).

 

What we can take from either the national polls or the membership pole is that the issue his pretty equally divided, and no where near the 70+% with which the BSA board passed this policy change. That is what I suspect @@Stosh is referring to in part -- the board's vote does not reflect the parity on this issue.

 

Well then, I don't know what you meant by "true majority", since there's no real data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BSA took the only path it could.  And by doing so (poor grammar, forgive me) ... And by doing so, BSA corrected the assertion of sins that some charter partners (churches) do not believe are sins.  BSA had to either avoid those charter partners or allow the charter partners to use their own membership and their own values.

 

As with all change, current society battles will destroy the good to make change.  BSA needs to get out of the way and focus on it's core.  Scout oath and law.  Outdoors.  Citizenship.  Faith.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When has discriminatory practices in anything held the test of time?  Posting the most or shouting down others does not make you right.  This isn't a liberal or conservative thing, it is a discrimination thing.  Churches continue to evolve their beliefs over time and those changes go towards more openness and inclusiveness.  People were against integrating races in BSA and that went away because it became a non-issue, people were against woman being leaders and that became a non-issue.  

 

We need to look at the forest and not the trees, nobody should be talking or demonstrating any sexuality to or in front of the boys/girls.  That is an issue to be taught in other venues (home, church, school), The youth do not care about that, they want to camp and have fun.

 

On of my scout parents was a scout in the 70's and his straight leader did bad things.  People that will do bad things sadly are across the board, so I don't buy the argument that homosexuality or heterosexuality makes someone more predatory than the other.  

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  

×