The Boy Scouts

[ZirconBlue]

Ok, I'll bite. Why not?

I just don't see why "worldwide", "immediately identifiable", or "with its highest rank having benefits outside the group" would even be on my list of priorities when looking for activities for my children to participate in. (Maybe the last one, but I'm not entirely sure what you meant by it.)

 

[RobRoy]

It is that you seem to have some kind of hypothetical ideal scouting organisation based on your reading of a few documents, that has no bearing on any actual organisation. It seems rather similar to how fundamentalists view religious documents as being the sole source of wisdom and focus exclusively on their own reading of them.

So you seem to be focused on defending some conceptual scouting organisation that does not actually exist. It is kind of like saying "Well Catholicism real take on the issue is X irregardless of what the Pope and Cardinals say".

If your hypothetical scouting organisation existed we likely wouldn't be having this debate. Most people here seem to agree with certain values that scouting upholds, but those who take issue take issue with the organisation of the BSA.

There’s a lot wrong with this, though not everything. You seem to have something of a negative tone here, but perhaps I’m just reading into that when you use negatively charged words like “fundamentalist”. Unless, perhaps, you consider a fundamentalist to be a good thing?

In either case, I digress.

Yes, I do have a “hypothetical ideal of scouting”, no it is not based on my “reading of a few documents” as my previous posts should have illuminated, and no, the hypothetical and the current BSA are not completely different except in regards to the policy of discrimination of homosexuals and atheists. Otherwise, they are exactly matched. I’m not certain where you got the concept that I have some other kind of BSA in mind altogether. Maybe you could point these out to me so that I can address any misconceptions.

I just don't see why "worldwide", "immediately identifiable", or "with its highest rank having benefits outside the group" would even be on my list of priorities when looking for activities for my children to participate in.

Sorry, originally you said: I'm not sure I even consider those to be good things. This is what I’m questioning. While they may not be on your list of priorities, that doesn’t remove them from a list of potentially beneficial outcomes from membership in Scouting.

(Maybe the last one, but I'm not entirely sure what you meant by it.)

Eagle Scouts have immediate access to a number of college scholarships. I don’t know how closely colleges look at an Eagle Scout award, but I have heard some anecdotal statements that it got them into a particular college. I’ve also heard the same about job applications, but again, this is anecdotal. Within the US Military, they qualify for immediate rank advancement from E1 to E2 or an E3 depending on the branch. There is also the fraternal aspect of being an Eagle, as only about 2% of all Boy Scouts ever have attained the rank. Among other associations, IIRC my Scout history correctly, of the 12 men who have walked on the moon, 11 of them were Eagles. It's a nice identifier.

 

[ponderingturtle]

There’s a lot wrong with this, though not everything. You seem to have something of a negative tone here, but perhaps I’m just reading into that when you use negatively charged words like “fundamentalist”. Unless, perhaps, you consider a fundamentalist to be a good thing?

Am not trying to attach a specific connotation to the meaning but using its literal definition. Literally it is taking scripture as the absolute truth, so in Christianity it is putting what you take from the bible ahead of what churches say.

I was not using it as a pejorative label but an accurate description.

Yes, I do have a “hypothetical ideal of scouting”, no it is not based on my “reading of a few documents” as my previous posts should have illuminated, and no, the hypothetical and the current BSA are not completely different except in regards to the policy of discrimination of homosexuals and atheists. Otherwise, they are exactly matched. I’m not certain where you got the concept that I have some other kind of BSA in mind altogether. Maybe you could point these out to me so that I can address any misconceptions.

Well I would think you would want a BSA that actually wants you involved and does not consider you to be fundamentally immoral.



Sorry, originally you said: I'm not sure I even consider those to be good things. This is what I’m questioning. While they may not be on your list of priorities, that doesn’t remove them from a list of potentially beneficial outcomes from membership in Scouting.

Eagle Scouts have immediate access to a number of college scholarships. I don’t know how closely colleges look at an Eagle Scout award, but I have heard some anecdotal statements that it got them into a particular college. I’ve also heard the same about job applications, but again, this is anecdotal. Within the US Military, they qualify for immediate rank advancement from E1 to E2 or an E3 depending on the branch. There is also the fraternal aspect of being an Eagle, as only about 2% of all Boy Scouts ever have attained the rank. Among other associations, IIRC my Scout history correctly, of the 12 men who have walked on the moon, 11 of them were Eagles. It's a nice identifier.

So it is all about networking and old boys club perks?

 

[RobRoy]

Am not trying to attach a specific connotation to the meaning but using its literal definition. Literally it is taking scripture as the absolute truth, so in Christianity it is putting what you take from the bible ahead of what churches say.

I was not using it as a pejorative label but an accurate description.

Good to know.

Well I would think you would want a BSA that actually wants you involved and does not consider you to be fundamentally immoral.

I’m assuming you’re using “you” in the general sense, rather than specifically at me. The BSA doesn’t consider me “to be fundamentally immoral”. In the general sense, yes, you’re quite correct, hence my statement that my “hypothetical and the current BSA are not completely different except in regards to the policy of discrimination of homosexuals and atheists.” Hence the reason that I support the change in policy and those who are actively working to change that policy, hence my position in regards to responding to the Boy Scouts on such issues . . . all of which I stated previously.

So it is all about networking and old boys club perks?

No. I’m not certain how you’re arriving at that conclusion given the majority of my posts in this discussion have made clear the number of benefits I have seen and continue to see in Scouting. The above statement was only in reference to a few of the benefits that an Eagle Scout might receive outside of the organization as ZB asked me. There are many more, and more worthwhile benefits to be found from simply being a Scout and being part of the Scouting program.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Sorry, originally you said: I'm not sure I even consider those to be good things. This is what I’m questioning. While they may not be on your list of priorities, that doesn’t remove them from a list of potentially beneficial outcomes from membership in Scouting.

"I'm not sure I even consider those good things" doesn't mean that I think they're bad things. They may be neutral. And the "I'm not sure" is my get-out-of-jail-free card.

In serious, an organization being "worldwide" does not inherently make it better than a "national" or "local" organization. I tend to prefer local organizations, myself. You've pointed out one of the drawbacks of a large organizational structure: the BSA as a whole is pushing an agenda that some (many?) individual chapters don't appear to support.

I don't really see any benefit in being "immediately identifiable".

As to your last point:

Eagle Scouts have immediate access to a number of college scholarships. I don’t know how closely colleges look at an Eagle Scout award, but I have heard some anecdotal statements that it got them into a particular college. I’ve also heard the same about job applications, but again, this is anecdotal. Within the US Military, they qualify for immediate rank advancement from E1 to E2 or an E3 depending on the branch. There is also the fraternal aspect of being an Eagle, as only about 2% of all Boy Scouts ever have attained the rank. Among other associations, IIRC my Scout history correctly, of the 12 men who have walked on the moon, 11 of them were Eagles. It's a nice identifier.

This all sounds nice for that 2%, but, since it's unlikely any particular individual will attain that status, I'm not sure it's much of a selling point. And it may ultimately prove a detriment to those who try, but fail, to attain that level.

 

[RobRoy]

"I'm not sure I even consider those good things" doesn't mean that I think they're bad things. They may be neutral. And the "I'm not sure" is my get-out-of-jail-free card.

Ahhh, clever, clever Cicero. Just take care you don’t end up as he did!

In serious, an organization being "worldwide" does not inherently make it better than a "national" or "local" organization. I tend to prefer local organizations, myself.

Agreed, but taken altogether, a worldwide organization allows some benefits that a regional or even national organization can’t. For example, you have the opportunity to travel to other countries and participate with other Scouts in events and activities, use Scouting camps and facilities around the world, etc.

You've pointed out one of the drawbacks of a large organizational structure: the BSA as a whole is pushing an agenda that some (many?) individual chapters don't appear to support.

Correct, this is a drawback to the national organization of the BSA. Individual charters and councils are subject to the National Council’s policies. However, the BSA is only a national organization, not a worldwide organization. Scouting is worldwide, and most other countries do not have the same restrictions that the BSA does. Some of the pressure on the BSA is also coming from the worldwide organization.

I don't really see any benefit in being "immediately identifiable".

I’ve found myself in a couple of situations where, while wearing my uniform, others were more willing to offer assistance or aid, or seek assistance or aid, because I was equated with the Scouts. There is also a certain recognized proficiency and authority whether I’m wearing the uniform or not. It’s pretty well understood by those who know me that if a fire needs to be started, if first aid or CPR needs to be administered, if there is some question to wilderness survival, I’m the one to turn to.

Maybe I just like being needed, or viewed as an authority on something other than movie quotes.

This all sounds nice for that 2%, but, since it's unlikely any particular individual will attain that status, I'm not sure it's much of a selling point. And it may ultimately prove a detriment to those who try, but fail, to attain that level.

Any dedicated Scout can attain the rank. For various reasons, after about 15-16, they tend not to, even though they have another 30 or so months remaining.

However, that wasn’t really the point. The potential for these benefits are what makes pursuit of the Eagle award worthwhile. Which is another potential reason to prefer Scouting to any other organization. It’s not the most preferable, just potentially so.

 

[quarky]

Its the uniform that killed it for me. My dad was opposed to gestures that minimized our individuality. Possibly his knee jerk reaction to the brown shirts and all. There is an implied militarism and patriotism in scouting. I'm all in favor of learning how to tie knots; paddle a canoe; start a fire, etc. Its the "junior soldier" aspect that could be seen as creepy.

The badges start to look a lot like military medals, if you blur your eyes slightly.

 

[Alice Shortcake]

Being a)the wrong sex and b)child-free I've never had anything to do with the Boy Scouts, but when I was a kid several of my neighbours joined the Brownies/Girl Guides and tried their best to badger me into doing the same. I declined, principally because I simply wasn't a joiner-inner, but also because I found the whole thing utterly ridiculous. The hideous brown uniform and weird Jungle Book titles for the adult leaders were enough to put me off, but there was also a promise to "love our God and serve our Queen". I didn't believe in God and had absolutely no respect for Mrs Mountbatten, so that was another strike against them.

It beats me that atheists who wouldn't touch any other homophobic organization with a bargepole would want to have anything to do with the Boy Scouts.

 

[Mister Agenda]

I think most of us would like to see the homophobia addressed as well, not just the policy against atheists.

 

[Dr. Keith]

It is that you seem to have some kind of hypothetical ideal scouting organisation based on your reading of a few documents, that has no bearing on any actual organisation.

I can't speak for Rob, but my ideal scouting organization is not hypothetical, it is just historical. My best friend in scouting was an atheist and many great people I met through scouting were homosexuals. The scouting of my youth was not perfect, but it was better than what we have today.

The BSA has changed fundamentally since I earned my Eagle and I haven't agreed with any of these changes. Those who have changed it have done so under the guise of "returning to our values" when no such values ever were a part of the BSA. The BSA used to be a very large umbrellas organization that allowed many voices to be heard. Now it is closing up the tent and allowing only church approved messages. I find that chilling.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I can't speak for Rob, but my ideal scouting organization is not hypothetical, it is just historical. My best friend in scouting was an atheist and many great people I met through scouting were homosexuals. The scouting of my youth was not perfect, but it was better than what we have today.

The BSA has changed fundamentally since I earned my Eagle and I haven't agreed with any of these changes. Those who have changed it have done so under the guise of "returning to our values" when no such values ever were a part of the BSA. The BSA used to be a very large umbrellas organization that allowed many voices to be heard. Now it is closing up the tent and allowing only church approved messages. I find that chilling.

The thing is that I am not sure you are accurate. It would be kind of like saying how the priests and such you knew in the local catholic church is the church you want, not the one aiding and abetting child rape and spreading dangerous lies about condoms. That is the real church as an organisation, you just where involved in a group that did not represent the real organisation.

This is why when I a atheist friend brought up his son joining scouts I suggested he be open to this. I think you can find groups that are decent despite my experience with scouting in this area and my issues with the BSA.

 

[RobRoy]

The thing is that I am not sure you are accurate.

Actually, the description is pretty accurate.

The concept of barring homosexuals from Scouting in the BSA came about due to the discovery of adult leaders abusing boys under their care. The knee-jerk reaction was that pedophile = homosexual. So in addition to the two-deep leadership program that has grown up, it was firmly established that BSA leaders could not be “avowed homosexuals” in a misguided attempt to protect the boys. As far as I’m aware, the first such case of actually barring a homosexual was in the mid-to-late 90s. There was no such restraint prior to this.

There also wasn’t much concern over atheists or agnostics being Scouts or leaders until the early 90s either when certain individuals made a point of their beliefs (or lack) were refused or removed from membership and decided to sue. When they lost, this became legal precedent for the Scouts to continue their discrimination and further entrenched their position on this matter. Again, as far as I’m aware the first such case of this was also in the early 90s, I want to say like 1995.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Actually, the description is pretty accurate.

The concept of barring homosexuals from Scouting in the BSA came about due to the discovery of adult leaders abusing boys under their care. The knee-jerk reaction was that pedophile = homosexual. So in addition to the two-deep leadership program that has grown up, it was firmly established that BSA leaders could not be “avowed homosexuals” in a misguided attempt to protect the boys. As far as I’m aware, the first such case of actually barring a homosexual was in the mid-to-late 90s. There was no such restraint prior to this.

There also wasn’t much concern over atheists or agnostics being Scouts or leaders until the early 90s either when certain individuals made a point of their beliefs (or lack) were refused or removed from membership and decided to sue. When they lost, this became legal precedent for the Scouts to continue their discrimination and further entrenched their position on this matter. Again, as far as I’m aware the first such case of this was also in the early 90s, I want to say like 1995.

Sounds more like they stepped up enforcement

 

[Meadmaker]

Actually, the description is pretty accurate.

The concept of barring homosexuals from Scouting in the BSA came about due to the discovery of adult leaders abusing boys under their care. The knee-jerk reaction was that pedophile = homosexual.

I'm not sure that's even correct. I think it is simply that scouting often involves a lot of close proximity in an all male setting. That close proximity includes sharing tents and other sleeping quarters, and changing clothes in front of other people.

Would you let your 15 year old daughter share a tent with a middle aged man? Not if you had any sense, you wouldn't. So, how about letting your 15 year old son and a gay middle aged man? Isn't that the same thing?

The truth is that I don't think it's the same thing, but there's enough similarity that I would forgive parents who would feel uneasy about letting their kids go camping with a homosexual leader. The real solution is what scouting eventually adopted, which is that adults and children simply ought never to be alone together, regardless of the sex of the individuals.

 

[Kestrel]

Would you let your 15 year old daughter share a tent with a middle aged man? Not if you had any sense, you wouldn't. So, how about letting your 15 year old son and a gay middle aged man? Isn't that the same thing?

I can't recall the adult leaders ever sharing a tent with the boys during my scouting days.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I can't recall the adult leaders ever sharing a tent with the boys during my scouting days.

Yeah, that would've set off all sorts of red flags, I'm pretty sure.

 

[Kestrel]

Yeah, that would've set off all sorts of red flags, I'm pretty sure.

This was in the 1960s, well before the great national sexual abuse panic of the 1980s.

 

[leon_heller]

When I was a patrol leader around 1956, our scoutmaster shared a tent once with another patrol leader, claiming that his tent had been flooded. I was rather surprised as I knew that it was specifically forbidden in the regulations, and no other tents were flooded. The other lad left the troop shortly afterwards, suddenly. I never heard anything untoward about the scoutmaster, though; we all looked up to him as a role model, and liked him a lot. After I left a couple of years later I saw him in church one Christmas (that was just before I became an atheist), without his wife and child, looking very unhappy. I looked at him across the church and nodded, but he avoided eye contact. My mother subsequently told me that he'd been found guilty of molesting boys in the troop.

 

[RobRoy]

Sounds more like they stepped up enforcement

As you like.

I'm not sure that's even correct.

I just report the news, I don’t make it. If you have evidence, rather than conjecture, please present it. I’ve been wrong before, and I’m happy to be wrong again. This happy

The truth is that I don't think it's the same thing, but there's enough similarity that I would forgive parents who would feel uneasy about letting their kids go camping with a homosexual leader. The real solution is what scouting eventually adopted, which is that adults and children simply ought never to be alone together, regardless of the sex of the individuals.

I don’t disagree with this. I simply feel that the current Scouting policies in place don’t require discrimination because of homosexuality, and the evidence has all suggested that the BSA equates homosexuals with pedophiles. Since girls are allowed in the BSA’s Venturing (14 to 21) and Exploring (15 to 20) programs, which are typically led by male Scoutmasters, you’d think given your reasoning that the BSA would be as equally concerned with the issue on the other side, yet they’re not. They feel their current policies adequately protect Venture and Explorer scouts.

 

[GreyArea]

NThe reading of the oath clearly does not indicate that you must believe in God(s), that is a policy statement by the BSA. Instead, as I’ve said at least once before, the Scout Oath you must do your best to do your duty to God. Within the Scouting, including the BSA, the definition of God, and how that duty is fulfilled, is left up to the individual Scout and their specific religion or lack thereof. Where the atheist has no God, then there is no duty that must be fulfilled.

What happens today when members of the BSA (children or adults) are discovered to be atheists?

If I'm reading you correctly, a lot of local people don't make a big deal about it. But setting aside the question of honesty and oaths, the next concern I would have is that atheist members (of whatever age or role) would be kicked out for violating organizational policy. If some overzealous person wants to make a stink about it, what could that atheist member could do to avoid expulsion?

If they are kicked out, is it because they are found to have violated the oath, as it is clarified out by current policy? Or just the policy itself?

Have you ever seen, or heard of, your explanation (quoted above) being accepted by the higher-ups after a member has been discovered to be an atheist? If not, do you think it would succeed in convincing them to not expel the person in question?

I think you make a good argument for why atheism should not be an offense, but I'm not even in scouting so it's not me your argument would have to convince.