PDA

View Full Version : Boy Scouts are done!



beachbunny
05-24-2013, 06:20 AM
I'm sure glad I do not have to deal with it.

Ralph
05-24-2013, 07:59 AM
I assume you refer to the "openly gay" decision.

The best advice on these matters I can give anyone is to keep your private life private. For the most part no one really cares what you do and are unlikely to pry into personal matters. In the army the rule was "keep your indescretions away from the flagpole." Violation of that rule brings to question a person's judgement and self-discipline - both highly desirable characteristics of a soldier.

The problem with a lot of these guys is that they not only want to do whatever it is they do but want to rub your face in it, usually babbling about, "This is who I am." Maybe so but who someone is involves a lot more than their ***uality IMO and thinking otherwise places undue importance on a not very significant part of a man's character.

outdoors
05-24-2013, 08:35 AM
As an Eagle Scout I have to say I am very disappointed in the decision. I must also say that the direction Scouting has been heading over the last 10 to 15 years will find them with little or no relevance sooner than later. It all boils down to $$ and having a sponsor for a troop. With the recent decision the sponsor, and the $$ will soon dry up.

I also think its the idea that in life we can't have any losers in life. Every Johnny has to feel good about the experience even if he did not follow thru and complete the task. They hand out that Eagle now like its candy. I think it was 1987-89 they made it so you could get to First Class quick, because they did a study that if boys don't make it to first class within some time frame they quit scouting. Effectively handing badges out to keep kids in scouting. Not to mention the way they camp. When I found out about the fact they won't allow a tipi with a stove inside I said you are really dumb and I am done. My two boys will spend their time at NOLS for a semester and learn some real leadership and some self reliance in life.

Enough with my rant.

Outdoors

Randy
05-24-2013, 08:52 AM
The decision disappoints me, but does not surprise me.
A little background...I am an Eagle Scout. I spent 6 summers in various leadership positions in summer camps, 3 years as a para-professional intern for a local council and then 11 years as a professional in roles ranging from District Executive to Field Director in 2 different councils.

The issue, as mentioned above, will boil down to the local chartered partner (sponsor). Though the national organization has now bent over and compromised its principles, the local sponsor reserves the right to uphold the membership standards of its own organization. The problem, the BSA is a huge corporation, likely ranking in the realm of the Fortune 100 if it was a for-profit corporation. It has deep pockets and rarely has lost a battle in any court. The local organization will become a target for some attorney or law firm the minute it excludes a boy based on his 'orientation'. The local sponsor cannot absorb the costs of fighting these battles.

The BSA national board is made up of lots of Fortune 500 executives. Rightly so. Many are former Scouts and Eagle Scouts. The rub comes when they have to bend to the pressures of corporate America and fairness and equality and all that rubbish. By sitting on that board they also become targets for lawsuits regarding discrimination. They are not going to jeopardize their careers by making decisions that to so many are right. They basically must make the decision that keeps them and their corporation out of the line of fire.

This could go 2 ways. In the 90's Bank of Amigo defunded the BSA based on its 'discriminatory' policies, as did Levi Strauss. What happened, corporate and private money flowed away from those companies by the truck load. The BSA membership increased as well as funding from private sources. The same could happen again. However, I fear that because of our current political climate that corporate money will slowly dry up for the BSA as well as potential members looking elsewhere for quality experiences in the outdoors.

The real litmus test will be to watch the reaction of the largest chartering organizations in the country; the Mormon Church, the Methodist Church, the Catholic Church. These 3 organizations have adopted Scouting as their program of choice for young men in their churches. If they walk away from the BSA and develop their own, in-house programs, Scouting as many of us know it and have enjoyed it over the years will be done.

Ralph
05-24-2013, 10:26 AM
I don't recall the name but I understand there is a new organization based on the Baden Powell principles that is getting a lot o interest. Scouting as I knew it (I joined in 1950) was a good program. As it happened, I was in the old Eagle Rock Council where a lot of early scouting began. Our camp was Glen Gray in the Ramapos in northern NJ either the oldest or second oldest scout camp in the US, depending on when you start counting. From the date of purchase and prepartion it is the oldest. (The lake is manmade and it took a year to construct the dam and for the lake to fill.) From the date the camp opened for campers it is the second oldest. That area was a hotbed of boy's organizations . Frank Gray had a group in Montclair, NJ (he founded the camp), Both Dan Beard and Ernest Thompson Seton had their groups in Suffern, NY, right up the road from Glen Gray. These were all merged into the Boy Scouts early on.

Glen Gray is no longer a scout camp but is still around, as a part of the Bergan County park system, managed by the Old Guard of Camp Glen Gray, formed by Frank Gray shortly after the camp was opened and of which I am a member. (FWIW I am a Star Scout, JASM, Brotherhood member and former lodge chief of the OA and was the 1956 or 57 (I forget which) poster boy so you could say I was pretty active.

Scouting had/has a lot to offer and I hate to see it deteriorate. The gay decision is actually the least significant evidence of that. More important, I think, is the watering down of principles like personal responsibility, actually earning rank and position and living up to the scout Oath & Law (even at my age I consider these good guidance for living a good life).

In a way, it is ironic that the reason Baden-Powell organized the scouts was the deplorable physical, ethical and moral condition of English boys at the time, yet, here we are again.

robcollins
05-24-2013, 03:05 PM
I'm an Eagle too, had a gay kid in my patrol as a kid. If anyone heckled him or anyone else in my patrol, woe be to them, we had the "LOYAL" part down cold. I'm glad he was there, his dad wasn't, too busy ignoring/alienating his son who, in my opinion, still lives the Scout Law. If he proselytizes anything, it's his faith in God.

I've heard folks really pissing & moaning about it at my church, mostly people with no involvement. I'll be a leader when my 4 year old is ready, he already loves to camp and hike.

Quite frankly, I think if you're of the opinion that inclusion of gays or atheists is going to ruin the Scouting movement, I think you believe the media too much. I've been to roundtables in my neighborhood, there are too many awesome people involved working their butts off with smiles on their faces loving what they do. I can't wait to get back into it, green & red socks & all.

koolaidnd
05-24-2013, 03:35 PM
I am an Eagle Scout an don't really care about the decision. The program has been falling apart for years. To be honest, I saw it happening when I was still in the program 11 years ago.

Ralph
05-24-2013, 03:48 PM
When I was active in scouts I don't recall anyone asking about anyone's religon or personal life. As far as I recall our sponsor was the local school, that is where we had meetings. There were 30-40 boys involved so I imagine one or more was probably gay. There were no militant atheists but at that time no one really cared. As far as I can remember we respected each other's privacy and neither situation was ever mentioned. Our troop was very much into the outdoors, camping, hiking, some canoeing and that was enough.

In fact, as I think about it I'm not sure when your various "orientations" became so crushingly significant. They weren't important to me then and aren't important to me now. If the scouts, or anyone, for that matter, want to make some positive improvements they can convince everyone to:

1. Mind your own business.

2. Drop the notion that every detail of your life has to displayed in public, and that everyone has to agree on everything.

robcollins
05-24-2013, 03:50 PM
I haven't heard anyone bashing the USMC, Army, Navy, or Airforce for letting gays in. I'm glad, even though I never was in the service, I'd have choice words.

Quite frankly, BSA represents what's good about our society. Selfless service, hard work, and an alternative to TV. Between Wilderness Survival, Rifle Shooting, Shotgun Shooting, (now 2! separate badges) Backpacking, Camping, Cooking, Orienteering, Fishing, and a ton of other merit badges, I'd expect to see more people on this site advocating it.

Homo***uality isn't contagious, guys, selfless behavior is learned... Complaining about individuals sure isn't teaching selflessness, it's personifying the opposite.

Treebeard
05-24-2013, 04:05 PM
I am definitely opposed to it, and it will definitely be the downfall of the BSA. My best friend took his son out of the BSA and told them why- We're Christians and we oppose homo***uality, simple as that.

The BSA has gotten away from the harder core outdoors experience of when I was a kid definitely. I noticed it right off the bat going to my buddies kids functions a few times. One mile 'backpacking' trips overnight, dragging a COOLER... Oh my.

I agree that a new organization based on the root principles of Scouting would be good (Baden Powell style). As far as comments about gays in Scouting being ok- I recall there being the word REVERENT in there. Homo***uality is not compatible with Scouting, or anything else for that matter it's un-natural.

As far as your last comments go robcollins, you can say as you like. If you're a Christian, you may want to read Romans 1:32 a few times over.

Ralph
05-24-2013, 04:18 PM
One big difference between military service and the boy scouts is that the services involve adults and judicial enforcement of standards of conduct.

There is a very real possibility, in fact I would say a virtual certainty, that once the gay ban is lifted and fully implemented that the BSA will be sued by someone for allowing their kid to be seduced/abused by one of his fellow scouts.

As far as being un-natural I'm not so sure about that. Homo***uality was apparently common enough throughout recorded history (and probably long before that) to warrant special, one might say obsessive, prohibitions, more so than other trangressions.

As far as being "Christian" what did Jesus have to say about the subject? Please don't cite Romans. Jesus didn't write Romans, Paul did and Paul had a noticable hangup about all such things.

one-eyed Bob
05-24-2013, 05:52 PM
I am an Eagle Scout also. I don't think most boys are sure of their ***uality at 12 years of age. *** was never an issue in the Scouts since there were no girls. Perhaps this will change things. I don't believe there should be any gay adults allowed to lead the boys; parents will revolt for sure. As has been said, some things are better left unsaid.

Treebeard
05-24-2013, 11:10 PM
Everyone who seems to support homo***uality seems to always bring Jesus into this. Jesus didn't teach on homo***uality because he had much bigger fish to fry, and it was all covered in the old testament- therefore no need to reinvent the wheel, or cover that subject again. Paul was an Apostle, and if you believe his writings are false, then you cannot claim to be a Christian. I don't know if you are or not, but all the Bible is Divine Word in my belief. Homo***uality IS un-natural. Just because people have been genetically damaged enough to participate in it, doesn't mean it's natural. A man and a man don't produce offspring.


One big difference between military service and the boy scouts is that the services involve adults and judicial enforcement of standards of conduct.

There is a very real possibility, in fact I would say a virtual certainty, that once the gay ban is lifted and fully implemented that the BSA will be sued by someone for allowing their kid to be seduced/abused by one of his fellow scouts.

As far as being un-natural I'm not so sure about that. Homo***uality was apparently common enough throughout recorded history (and probably long before that) to warrant special, one might say obsessive, prohibitions, more so than other trangressions.

As far as being "Christian" what did Jesus have to say about the subject? Please don't cite Romans. Jesus didn't write Romans, Paul did and Paul had a noticable hangup about all such things.

Ralph
05-25-2013, 04:33 AM
"Everyone who seems to support homo***uality seems to always bring Jesus into this. Jesus didn't teach on homo***uality because he had much bigger fish to fry, and it was all covered in the old testament- therefore no need to reinvent the wheel, or cover that subject again. Paul was an Apostle, and if you believe his writings are false, then you cannot claim to be a Christian."

I don't "support" homo***uality. I do acknowledge it exists and has for a very long time. I also think undue importance is placed on the subject by both proponents and opponents. ***uality is universal but composes a very minor role in a person's character. Homo***uals are not "bad" anymore than hetero***uals are "good".

Treebeard, I didn't bring Jesus into the discussion, you did.

A Christian follows the teachings of Jesus. For the most part these are recorded in the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The variations between these authors are attributable, I believe, to different viewpoints of time, place, education and writing ability. Paul was a prolific letter writer who, for that reason, is over-represented in the New Testament. Paul injected his own opinions into the matter. If Jesus had nothing to say on a subject, Paul, pen in hand, was there to correct that ommission. Divinely inspired? Perhaps. Those who prefer the writings of Paul over the message of the Four Gospels are more "Paulists" rather than "Christians".

Yes, the Old Testament has something to say on the matter. The Old Testament has a lot to say about a lot of things that are not only no longer practiced but are universally condemned - human slavery and genocide among them. Any reading of the Old Testament has to consider the time and place and the acceptable social practices of the people to whom it was addressed.

O8h7w
05-25-2013, 05:28 AM
Any reading of the Old Testament has to consider the time and place and the acceptable social practices of the people to whom it was addressed.

Which very much applies to any reading of anything, for example these words I write right now. Also, as Ralph noted, the author has to be taken into account. Please note that the Bible does not say it contains the words of God, except for in a few special occurrences.

I'm from Sweden, from a small town with three churches where only one had a significant activity for children. This was scouting, but not as you know it, since it included both boys and girls. Actually, my group included more than half of all the children the same age in town for a couple of years.

There were badges handed out for some sort of test, there were badges handed out when you had took part in something like an extended hike or the annual week-long summer camp. There were many lessons about life to be learned, and respecting peoples privacy and minding your own business - while not outspoken - perhaps the most important lesson. ***uality wasn't really discussed as that was a taboo subject at that time and place. More importantly it did not matter, and I believe it should not.

I feel that any ***uality that doesn't produce children is quite irrational, but then so is a lot of human behavior. I try not to judge people, and other peoples ***uality is certainly not my business. But I can't help feeling they're missing out on something fundamental here...

Ralph
05-25-2013, 07:23 AM
"I feel that any ***uality that doesn't produce children is quite irrational"

Here we part company. I believe, for a variety of reasons, that we were created. The details are another discussion on another forum. Most mammals, indeed, most creatures, have specific and fairly narrow breeding seasons. The Creator, for whatever reason, saw fit not to apply this to humans. Male humans produce sperm continously and copiously while females ovulate monthly with the ovum capable of fertilization for a narrow period. Both male and female humans have more or less continual desire and can copulate freely at any time without regard to any possibility of conception. I believe the Creator intended this to be so. Moreover, the Creator invented *** why would He be prudish about it?

O8h7w
05-25-2013, 07:41 AM
I agree with all of that. You will never hear me say that the Creator is someone rational... quite the opposite, in my opinion.

Ralph
05-25-2013, 07:52 AM
Interesting view. I doubt an irrational Creator could design the complex biochemical and biomechanical systems that make up the human body.

O8h7w
05-25-2013, 08:09 AM
I think a rational one might have designed somewhat less complex systems... :)

But, well, my view comes mainly from my reading of the Bible. To be specific, the story of creation. But I think it's a little too far off-topic... ah, I'll go create another thread :)

74 or more
06-03-2013, 07:07 PM
Homo***uality IS un-natural. Just because people have been genetically damaged enough to participate in it, doesn't mean it's natural. A man and a man don't produce offspring.

I feel like it's important to this conversation not to confuse the word "natural" and "normal". Just because something isn't normal doesn't mean it isn't natural. It isn't normal for someone to have no pigment in their skin (i.e. Albinism/Albino) but that doesn't mean it isn't natural. Something that occurs in nature is natural.