Boy Scouts - Good or Bad?

jmangum · Post by **jmangum** » Jul 14 2003 9:20 am

From time to time I have read some forum posts that make reference to Boy Scouts - mostly in a negative manner. I was wondering how everyone feels about them.

I know that it can sometimes be a downer to be out on a trail and come across a herd of noisy teens, but on the other hand I am in full support that gets teens off their butts, out from in front of the TV and Play Station and in to nature.

ck_1 · Post by **ck_1** » Jul 19 2003 10:31 am

tinyelvis wrote:this has to be close to the most ridiculous post ever...for those of you who stayed on topic and actually debated the question, bravo.
it's sad that this forum had to be used as a soap box to electronically broadcast personal agendas and philosophical debates of Gods existence and morality.
some people hike to get away from all of this crap. next time, how bout taking your nose out of your textbook and sticking to the question at hand.

by the way, i think the boy scouts are great.

Why'd ya read it then? If you don't like the content read something else.

ck_1 · Post by **ck_1** » Jul 19 2003 10:33 am

Thom wrote: And to those who've expressed interest in leading were it not for their policy on gay leadership: don't let that stop you. That decision was made at a very high level of the organization, and I doubt the sentiments echo all the way down the chain.

Good point.

Snick33 · Post by **Snick33** » Jul 19 2003 2:43 pm

Well put Ck1. Thanks for standing up for our right to disagree and our right to discuss. Threads don't always go where we want them to, but that's what makes this site work.

mttgilbert · Post by **mttgilbert** » Jul 19 2003 2:51 pm

tinyelvis wrote:this has to be close to the most ridiculous post ever...for those of you who stayed on topic and actually debated the question, bravo.
it's sad that this forum had to be used as a soap box to electronically broadcast personal agendas and philosophical debates of Gods existence and morality.
some people hike to get away from all of this crap. next time, how bout taking your nose out of your textbook and sticking to the question at hand.

by the way, i think the boy scouts are great.

Oh where to start...

First of all, the entirety of the discussion was relevant to the topic. I know that can be difficult to understand when you're bogged down in the language, so you'll just have to take my word for it. I would explain it further but I would hate to have to get back on my soapbox...

Second, no one is broadcasting "personal agendas" this is called a discussion. A discussion is a reasonable exchange of ideas. Some of the ideas are very personal to people and I can understand why you might disagree with the viewpoint, but it sounds more like you disagree with sharing the viewpoint.

Third, I don't know which thread you were reading, but I don't recall anyone, ever, calling into question God's existence. In fact, all the arguments here seemed to presuppose gods existence.

Fourth, perhaps if you had kept your nose in a textbook a while longer you would have developed the requisite skills to participate in a cultured debate, instead of resorting to unsupported criticism.

If you would rather be hiking, then go, hike. Don't interrupt a perfectly good discussion with petty criticism. For those of us who can't spend every waking minute hiking (we're too busy with our noses in books), I imagine we'd rather spend our time constructively, engaged in inciteful conversation with other educated people.

sherileeaz · Post by **sherileeaz** » Jul 19 2003 2:52 pm

Snick33 wrote:Well put Ck1. Thanks for standing up for our right to disagree and our right to discuss. Threads don't always go where we want them to, but that's what makes this site work.

Well put Snick and Ck1 and Matt, my sentiment exactly.

Makes it interesting and our right for free speech within limits of the forum.

Red white & blonde errr blue!

We all have something to say and in our own ways. Free speech.

I enjoy diversity. How else can we form a more educated opinion.

Sherileeaz

Daryl · Post by **Daryl** » Jul 19 2003 3:37 pm

Wow, what a topic. Here's my rambling $.02;

I disagree with their stand on homosexuals. Discrimination based on sexual orientation just isn't right.
Furthermore, does the topic of sex come up so often at a Boy Scout meetings that the sexual preference of the troop leader is actually relavent? That would concern me.
Does the BSA ban leaders involved in all sexual activities outside the norm, or just homsexuality. I'm guessing just homosexuality, since I highly doubt they would ask about my sex life if I applied to be a troop leader.
It seems hypocritical to me to teach kids good morals and values and at the same time tell them gay people aren't normal and are not allowed in our club.
I wouldn't be involved in the BSA because I'd like to have my wife and daughters hike/camp with me.
Also, I'd like my children to learn morals, respect, outdoor skills... from their parents. I wouldn't want to trust someone else with that responsibility.

jmangum · Post by **jmangum** » Jul 21 2003 9:18 am

Wow – What a fun, wild ride. When I originally posted the question I had no intent on thread going in the direction it did. I had no idea that we would get into sexual orientation, religion, etc. I had no idea it would be such a “hot” topic. I noticed that the tread has been viewed over 1000 times. I’m sure that there are lots of you out there that have read through it ant thought “I’m not touching that!” – But thanks to all of you that did.

On a personal note – I am an Eagle Scout. I look back on my scouting days and credit my love of the outdoors largely to the program. Not only did I learn to tie knots, use a compass, and build a fire with one match. But I learned to respect nature, and leave things better than I found them. I remember thinking on my first backpacking trip “why would anybody want to do this.” Now days it’s one of my favorite things to do. My Dad was my scoutmaster for much of my scouting days and campouts and outings were a great opportunity for me to bond with him. – It’s been almost 13 years since I received my Eagle and the accomplishment still graces the bottom of my resume. When I applied for my first job after graduating from college. The interviewer was impressed – not with my degree, but that I was an Eagle Scout.

Now that I am all grown up (kind of) I have the opportunity to share my love of the outdoors with my family and with a group of rowdy teenage boys called boy scouts. And I sure hope that several years down the road one of them has a chance to let people know what scouting had done for them.

azhiker96 · Post by **azhiker96** » Jul 21 2003 10:32 am

Daryl wrote:Wow, what a topic. Here's my rambling $.02;

I disagree with their stand on homosexuals. Discrimination based on sexual orientation just isn't right.
Does the BSA ban leaders involved in all sexual activities outside the norm, or just homsexuality. I'm guessing just homosexuality, since I highly doubt they would ask about my sex life if I applied to be a troop leader.

Wonderful turn on the thread. I've thought about this quite a bit. It's not complete but here's my thoughts to date.

Discrimination always has a negative effect on the discriminator. They isolate themselves from many intelligent or interesting people who could have a positive effect on their life. As such, I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt; absorb their positive aspects and reflect the negative.

In America we value freedom. One of those is the freedom to associate with whoever we please. Why shouldn't a group of left-handed, red-haired, nordic descent be allowed to form? If one were to form, should it be forced to accept right-handed people as well? If I had $500 to give as a scholarship and wished to give it to an asian middle school student, should I also have to give fair consideration to blacks, hispanics, pacific islanders, and whites? In plain english, do you have the right to decide who you want to hang out with or does the government (voting population) get to decide that for you?

I think if the BSA wants to exclude homosexuals they have the right to do that in this country. (Although it would be easier for them to exclude people with A negative blood; there's a test for that.) I have the right to not donate any money to them. I can also ask corporations not to fund them. If I really wanted a non-discriminatory Boy scouts organization I could form one.

Overall, I think the BSA is a good group that's just stuck a little bit in the past. I'm glad they take kids into the woods and attempt to give them an appreciatation of nature.

olesma · Post by **olesma** » Jul 21 2003 10:38 am

ck1 wrote:Why'd ya read it then? If you don't like the content read something else.

I saw the original post in question about 5 minutes after it posted. I spent about 20 minutes writing a long response. I then thought better of it and didn't post my thoughts (I have learned to not post when I have a visceral reaction - I'm a bit of a hot-head at times and my posts reflect that. I now wait and calm down a bit before I post). Colin, Rick and Matt (ed: with a particularly well spoken post)basically covered my thoughts albeit in a series of posts instead of one long rambling one.

It's a public access forum, and we have fun (obviously) posting to it. Part of the fun is learning and sharing. If you don't like it - that's fine. If you disagree - that's fine. If you want to upbraid us for posting our opinions - that's fine. If you want to express your own opinions - that's fine. However...

Please excuse us if:
- we ignore you completely and continue to post what we wish
- we choose to stray off topic (or stay on topic, just in a different aspect of the topic)
- we offend you with our reaction - offense generally isn't deliberate
- we offend you with our opinions - we're all different (just compare Colin and I - politically we're from two very different fields of thought, but I still enjoy exchanging ideas with him - even if I disagree with him. ed: Colin - you know I respect you...)

There - all done now. My soap-box is retired till the next time I need it. Probably in 5 minutes or so...

mttgilbert · Post by **mttgilbert** » Jul 21 2003 10:40 am

azhiker96 wrote:Overall, I think the BSA is a good group that's just stuck a little bit in the past. I'm glad they take kids into the woods and attempt to give them an appreciatation of nature.

I think you're right, they are stuck in the past and it is great that they teach an appreciation of nature. The problem is, if they don't unstick themselves from the past and move into the new millenium, are we going to lose them forever? I think it would be a great loss to lose an organization like the scouts. I'm afraid with all the corporate boycotts and judicial decisions in the works that the boyscouts may stand on the brink of extinction. It may be easier for them to just give up than to change.

Thom · Post by **Thom** » Jul 21 2003 10:54 am

Here's another way to look at it.

Sure, on one hand, they've lost a lot of corporate support making the decisions they did. And a lot of people wanted them to make a decision one way or another, particularly after a few key incidents. (I'm not fresh on them, but I remember hearing of them back in the day.) But what if they'd instead taken a gay-friendly policy?

I'm willing to bet that 3/4 of troops (and packs for the Cubs) reside under a church or other religious house as their charter organization. Do we think those congregations would have reacted well to such a decision? Of course not. It would've been quite likely for many troops to have their charters pulled right out from under them.

You seem to consider the decision they made to be suicidal, but a decision the opposite direction could've been just as fatal. At least this way, the organization might be preserved at a local level, while the heirachial executive levels suffer.

olesma · Post by **olesma** » Jul 21 2003 11:05 am

Thom wrote:Here's another way to look at it.
You seem to consider the decision they made to be suicidal, but a decision the opposite direction could've been just as fatal. At least this way, the organization might be preserved at a local level, while the heirachial executive levels suffer.

This was exactly my point from earlier. They made the decision as a practical matter - if they had not chosen that way the bulk of their sponsorship (from religious organizations) would have gone away instantly (I think it was something like 80% of the total troop sponsorship was through religious organizations).

I hope they will survive - and the lack of attention they are recieving now that the whole thing is over is, I think, a good sign. I think it shows that the people who really care about the scouts are still doing their thing, and the people who fought them have either given up, or don't care enough to continue fighting and have turned their attention to other more prominent targets. Either way it means the BSA is free to operate as it wishes for a while.

Again - you guys fire me up. This has been one of the best discussions I've ever had on this forum. Really good stuff.

Snick33 · Post by **Snick33** » Jul 21 2003 11:15 am

I keep looking in disbelief at your age, (22); you are wise way beyond your age. Your response in defense of this thread was well thought out, logical, and calm. Like Olesma, I have to throw away half of what I write when it is written from the gut. You give an old guy like me faith in youth. Now, tell me you are a republican and you'll make my day . . . . . . . .

Daryl · Post by **Daryl** » Jul 21 2003 11:30 am

Thom wrote:Here's another way to look at it.
to bet that 3/4 of troops (and packs for the Cubs) reside under a church or other religious house as their charter organization. Do we think those congregations would have reacted well to such a decision? Of course not. It would've been quite likely for many troops to have their charters pulled right out from under them.

I highly doubt many churches would have kicked the boy scouts to the curb if they allowed gay troop leaders. They didn't even kick out priests that were accused of wrong doing until recently (I know, low blow). It's my understanding that churches encourage forgiveness, acceptance, love... why would they drop the boy scouts because they allow gay troop leaders?

Overall I think the scouts is a great organization, I just think they made a bad decision. Ban pedophiles, ban criminals, ban troop leaders that have proven to be worthless, ban people you have a reason to ban.

olesma · Post by **olesma** » Jul 21 2003 12:02 pm

Daryl wrote:I highly doubt many churches would have kicked the boy scouts to the curb if they allowed gay troop leaders.

Actually - that's not true at all. The Baptist and LDS churches specifically told the BSA that if they did not take the stand they did that thier support would be withdrawn - at an official organizational level (both in regards to atheism and homosexuality).

Daryl wrote:Ban pedophiles, ban criminals, ban troop leaders that have proven to be worthless, ban people you have a reason to ban.

Already done. None of the above people are allowed to participate in the BSA. Technically you cannot even be a convicted felon and hold any leadership position. Worthless leaders are a bit more difficult - as they are with any organization large and small - you never know who is a good leader till you try them out, and then it can be difficult to remove them once they are there.

I myself played a key role in getting an individual banned permanently from the BSA because of abusive behavior. The BSA has some very high standards, but like any large organization with largely volunteer leadership at local levels - people slip through the cracks who otherwise would be prevented from gaining any type of influential role.

Even with all the official decisions and court orders - it is still essentially a "don't ask - don't tell" organization. If you hold up the values, help the kids and don't cause any waves - you can stay with the organization.

olesma · Post by **olesma** » Jul 21 2003 12:04 pm

Snick33 wrote:Now, tell me you are a republican and you'll make my day . . . . . . . .

Snick - this is a perfect example of why I like you. Tell it like you see it brother! (even though I have libertarian tendencies myself)

mttgilbert · Post by **mttgilbert** » Jul 21 2003 12:14 pm

Olesma, Im sure youre right about the churches choosing not to participate in the BSA if homosexuals were allowed. I don't question that, what I question is why this program couldn't be adopted by other programs like the boys and girls club or the YMCAs. This way the BSA would keep their corporate sponsorship (fear of losing this is what I think would drive the BSA to tolerate homosexuals amongst their ranks) and they would still have a place to hold meetings and what-not.
I think if anything the BSA could reach more young people this way. After all, it does seem like if your not part of the church that sponsors the local BSA program, you're not really a member anyway.

(BTW olesma; Go libertarians!)

olesma · Post by **olesma** » Jul 21 2003 12:29 pm

matt gilbert wrote: what I question is why this program couldn't be adopted by other programs like the boys and girls club or the YMCAs.

You sort of answered your own question - the Boys and Girls club is already an organization similar to the BSA - as is YMCA. I have seen a very few YMCA chapters sponsor a BSA troop - maybe 3 or 4. It is essentially funnelling money and membership to another organization through a similar organization. Not really effective.

While the BSA isn't strictly religious in nature, they support general character values that are held by most religions. Its a slam dunk for youth groups in churches to adopt the BSA to support their own internal goals. Pre-made organization, visibility, structured development and activities, nationwide support, lots of training and support material available. Just apply for a charter and you're good to go. Its a no-brainer. It is a shame that more troops aren't sponsored by non-religious entities - but the reality is what it is. At least someone is sponsoring them. I think other organizations do similar things, but they want control over their own money - so the BSA is not an option. Too bad.

matt gilbert wrote:(BTW olesma; Go libertarians!)

I don't agree with their whole platform - but a lot of their ideas make sense, and despite rhetoric and infighting, I'm beginning to see less and less distinguishing characteristics in the actual results of republicans vs. democrats and the way they vote on different bills and so forth. Unfortunately, we are stuck with essentially a two party system for quite a while longer. Oh, well.

Kenny · Post by **Kenny** » Jul 21 2003 12:32 pm

How many farmers have a fox to watch over the chicken coup?
The fox promised "I have allergies to chicken feathers" :twisted:
I am sure the fox has a lot he can offer the chickens, lots of knowledge to pass on, how to be sly and not get caught...
or
How many sheepherders would use a wolf to watch his sheep?
The wolf promised .."I don't even like lamb .... why I am a vegetarian ... really" :twisted:
And the wolf can teach the sheep how to travel way out in the woods.. you know the rest.

Do you invite Mike Tyson to be the celebrity guest at your beauty pageant?
oops .... that's been proven

Why is the scouts such a difficult answer?

Daryl · Post by **Daryl** » Jul 21 2003 1:27 pm

Kenny,

Are you implying that all homosexuals are also pedophiles?

Boy Scouts - Good or Bad?

What do you think of Boyscouts?

Boy Scouts - Good or Bad?

Hey Matt!

Re: Hey Matt!