Deceased: The Boy Scouts of America

[TimoS]

Port Orchard, Washington, June, 2002-Eagle Scout Darrell Lambert, who had provided more than 1,000 hours of community service as a Scout, was informed by the regional Boy Scouts of America executive that he had one week “to declare his belief in a supreme being” or quit the scouts.

How about if he declared that he believed in the almighty dollar ?

[txhapkido]

I got kicked out of the Boy Scouts for eating a Brownie! Go figure?

[Gene Williams]

Harvey, You didn't read my post very closely. I do not believe that all homosexuality is learned, but some is. I spent 18 years as a psychologist and know what I am talking about. Yes, much homosexuality is genetically based, but that does not make it good for the culture or society in general. It needs to be tolerated but not promoted and defended.

[Iain]

So why is homosexuality bad for society? Gene, you suggest that it needs to be tolerated, but not defended because it's traits somehow make it 'not good' for society. If it's not good, it's bad. Why is it bad?

[kage110]

Harvey, You didn't read my post very closely. I do not believe that all homosexuality is learned, but some is. I spent 18 years as a psychologist and know what I am talking about. Yes, much homosexuality is genetically based, but that does not make it good for the culture or society in general. It needs to be tolerated but not promoted and defended.

Gene,

First time I heard that homosexuality was a a 'psychological' issue. I know people have psychologocal problems and some of those might be because they are homosexual (a friend of mine has had to face that) but being homosexual has, itself, not been proven to be a psychological issue. For those people the choose homosexuality over heterosexuality it is probably because they occupy the middle ground of bisexuality and could swing both ways, hence they can choose which way to swing. Seems to me that you should see a psychologist about your obvious hang-ups about sex. How Freudian is that?

Someone in a recent thread wrote something the the effect that homosexuals should be allowed to feel what they feel but not flaunt it in the face of everyone else. I am not sure how one 'flaunts' ones sexuality but if that means holding hands or kissing (you know, a nice kiss goodbye on the lips that you wouldn't think twice about giving your heterosexual other half) in public then I guess we had better ban that for heterosexuals as well.

Why will it hurt young boys to be faced with the fact that some people like men and some men like men? I seem to remember meeting a few gay couples during my childhood and none of them tried to 'recruit' me or even looked at me like I was anything other than the child of their friend, my mother.

Why doesn't everyone just 'chill' about the issue of sex in general? We are far too up tight about sex in any of its guises. To paraphrase a well known saying, 'sex happens'! Live with it.

[glad2bhere]

I am not surpised to see the old "nature vs nurture" arguement come up regarding Homosexuality. It comes up with so many things in our society including drug-use, alcoholism, violence-- domestic and societal--- crime and so forth. It also crops up when folks start tossing around the idea of eugenics and wanting a smart kid, fastest runner, toughest fighter and so forth.

If you mix into that the instinctive response human beings have to activities associated with bodily discharges and fluids ---- every thing from a runny nose to orgasms and bowel movements its no wonder that we make such a big thing about Homosexuality. We don't know how much of it is nature and how much of it is nurture. It is certainly associate with sexual things so there is the involvement of body fluids and also atypical behaviors which in and of themselves scare a lot of us. And if that is not bad enough there does not seem to be any clear delineation in peoples minds where homosexual behavior (hugging a buddy, kissing your father on the mouth) ends and Homosexual lifestyle (hugging a buddy, kissing your father on the mouth) begins.

As MA maybe it bugs us that Homosexuality plays/played no small part in many modern and historical martial contexts. Its no fun to find out that someone that we feel special about in the military, sports or political arena is a homosexual. Might begin to make us wonder about ourselves---like, how is it that I found myself admiring THAT person? Maybe,---- no--- not me!!!

I enjoy a good discussion as much as the next person, but I AM a little concerned about some of the fear I am hearing concerning Homosexuals and homosexual behavior. Or maybe people are a little nervous about those experimental events they repress from their childhood. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

[Gene Williams]

Hugh, It has nothing to do with being hung up about sex. Again, homosexuality should be tolerated but not promoted or encouraged. That seems simple enough and a reasonable stance for society to take.

[kirigirisu]

Nor should it be suppressed or subjected to idiot bible thumpers trying to "convert" them in order to fill their ranks with future tithe-generators who may or may not carry the same (former) traits of their parents due to genetics and probability or vilified to such an extent that it produces such self-loathing closeted abominations like J. Edgar Hoover, Roy Cohn, most of the Middle Eastern male population, and Adolph Hitler, all of whom probably wouldn't have gone on to spread such misery and suffering if they were allowed to diddle and bugger other consenting adult men and occaisionally take a pearl necklace or two.

Plus, more homos means more women for the straight guys

[Gene Williams]

William, all of your points are well taken, especially the last one

[shotofan]

I could care less. Stright or not, oh well. Deal with it. Homosexuality was have been around for ever. Someone brought up the Greeks. Even the samurai were involed in homosexual activity. When the samurai were at battle, many times they would use their (for lack of a better word) squrie for sexual pessure.

If you are agsnt gays, just don't talk to anybody. All for what you know, that new friend of yours could be gay.. That is why I say deal with it, and move on. You might not like it, but you have to live with it.

[wab25]

First off, I am an Eagle Scout, and I am now a brand new scoutmaster. I have done the camp staff thing and the Philmont thing. In fact my whole family is involved with BSA.

Lets first discuss the idea of having an "open mind" and what it means to be "accepting." Two VERY misunderstood ideas. Having an "open mind" means that everyones ideas are of value and worth consideration upon their merits. Having an "open mind" is not the same as being politically correct. In fact, having an "open mind" is very much not politically correct, because it gives equal weight to everyone's ideas and does not have a predetermined outcome, nor should all "open minded" people always agree. In fact their disagreement is what pushes them to continue searching.

To be "accepting" is to allow other people to come to their own conclusions. This would extend to respecting peoples culture, even though different from our own and even to respecting peoples different religions.

It seems to me that if a person were truly "open minded," and "accepting," then they should be able to tolerate someone who has a different religion, even if that religion happens to be christian. As far as BSA goes, they tolerate and even accept people of all religions. Yes, freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion. But your being aethist shouldn't stop me from being christian or jewish or muslum or buddist...... BSA supports more religions than most people can name. They even have made provisions to support your religion if they don't already yet support it. If you are so aethiest that you can not "do your duty to god," go somewhere else. But don't take away my organization. Don't try to change my organization. Make your own, just as Powell did, there you can do your duty to what ever you want. If your idea really is "more enlightened" and "less ignorant" then people will come and join. But don't impose your religion or rather lack of it on me, and the many BSA members. We have the same right as you do, to believe what we want.

Yes, BSA does get money from the government. But so do many Black groups, and Native American groups and Hispanic groups, and Latino groups and womens groups..... Being a white male I have little chance of ever getting in on those groups. My race is something I can't choose. Religion is a little easier to change. ( by the way, BSA supports ALL races of people. Boy Scouting has spread around the world into many more countries than you can imagine )

As far as homosexuality goes, that is something we don't want to subject our youth to. That is a common sentiment of most of the BSA membership. If you want that to be apart of your organization, fine, more power to you. But, our organization does not want to deal with those problems any more than it has to. And yes homosexuals do cause problems in BSA. Yes, the same problems everyone has used since the 50's. But recruting does take place, especially with young boys. Unfortunately, I have seen it happen, as camp staff we busted many people, adult and child a like, as a direct result of seeing it happen. Even more sadly, we had to help the victim afterwards when we were not there in time to stop it. I realize that there are many homosexuals who are not like this, who are appalled by this, some of them are even friends of mine. But there are enough that are engaged in this recrutment process that there is validity for people to be concerned about it. BSA was formed to be a place were your kids could go and feel comfortable and safe. If you or your child feels uncomfortable due to this restriction, start your own group. But don't take away my place of comfort and safety.

I do believe that people can have whatever culture, religion or sexual preference that they want. I also believe that it should be a persons free choice, not imposed on them or stripped away from them. Seeing another persons religious custum imposes no threat to your own choice, its kind of like being "open minded," or even "accepting," to allow them to do so in your presence. It is the intolerant and truely ignorant people who would strip away all religious, cultural or morality practices. Even stripping away one religion, is dangerous. It limits peoples freedom. If you can take away one religion, you can take away them all. Right now Christians are under attack. In Canada Christian preachers are jailed for preaching out of the Bible, under hate speach laws, the same ones coming here from the Kennedys. As a school teacher you cannot where a cross, though Jewish teachers can wear there little cap( sorry I don't know the name of it ), Muslims and Islamics can wear there religious pieces as well. Even if you are not Christian, you should be on their side, because your religion is next. Even your aethism may be taken from you, depending upon the religion of those in charge. Taking away the freedom of speech, or religion from even one group, takes it away from all. In the end it will come back and bite those who supported taking it away in the first place, it always does. These freedoms were paid for by the blood of many millions of people. Once they are lost, they can only be regained through the shedding of more blood. I hope that we can all be truely open minded enough and accepting enough to allow and support all groups of people. Those damn god fearing people with christian morals have a good thing going in the BSA, well they started it. They built it from the ground up. Just because you don't have one, don't take ours away, build your own. In fact model it after the BSA, it has been very successful. Change only the parts you don't agree with. Many BSA members will probably help you out in doing so, teaching you what they know, helping you to organize and set it up. In taking freedom from one group, however distasteful they may be to you, also takes freedom from you as well.

[Shitoryu Dude]

Odd, then, that for so many years the BSA had no opinion about atheists needing to be sent away. I know, because I was a public and vocal atheist when I earned my Eagle Scout in 1979. Nobody cared - the references to god were better understood to NOT mean "non-atheist" and people understood better that morality did not flow from the church (as history shows, that is where it is usually excluded from).

As far as the anti-gay speech goes, 30 years ago it was stated in no uncertain terms that the reason that homosexuals could not be Scoutmasters is because the BSA was protecting those young boys from being molested by the Michael Jacksons of the world. Child molesters is what the ban was for, and it seemed to be "common knowledge" that all faggots were just waiting for a chance to sodomize those little boys. That line of reasoning has since been proven to be asinine, yet the ban still exists. Why? Because the BSA is a pack of hyper-evangelicals who believe that the bible tells them that gays are immoral sinners of the worst sort and deserve to die and go straight to hell.

The anecdotes of those who have been "outed" for being either gay or atheist while working for the BSA in either a professional or volunteer basis show that the morality that the BSA espouses publicly does not actually exist within the BSA itself. It is a lie and propaganda. If you think the boys themselves don't know this, then you underestimate them greatly. While I expect that there are still good troops out there being run by men who know better than to involve themselves in the petty religous crusades of the BSA upper echelons, they pretty much have to operate in private and bite their tongue.

And as for the BSA accepting tax dollars and being an exclusionary organization, "just like others". Who cares? None of them deserve a penny that they do not raise themselves.

[wab25]

============================
Odd, then, that for so many years the BSA had no opinion about atheists needing to be sent away. I know, because I was a public and vocal atheist when I earned my Eagle Scout in 1979. Nobody cared - the references to god were better understood to NOT mean "non-atheist" and people understood better that morality did not flow from the church (as history shows, that is where it is usually excluded from).
============================

I agree completely. To my knowledge the only atheists turned away are those who have a problem with the oath "to do my duty to god." That really is about all the God the put in the scouts, other than the optional religious award. And of coarse they do allow prayer if the members so desire. In fact, there are no prayers in any of the Round Table meetings or training meetings that I have been to, and they meet in a mormon church.

==========================
Child molesters is what the ban was for, and it seemed to be "common knowledge" that all faggots were just waiting for a chance to sodomize those little boys. That line of reasoning has since been proven to be asinine, yet the ban still exists.
==========================

I realize it is asinine to have to deal with people who do recruit boys to be gay. Sometimes these people are adults, the child molesters, other times these people are the boys themselves. They use peer pressure, many times on the very young boys who are unsecure with themselves. They are pressured to fit in with the group. A person should be able to make such sexual decisions without all the peer pressure. Do all gays try to recruit? no, probably only a minority of them. But, it happens a lot more than is politically correct to say.

But the real point is, that the BSA is a group of people who do not want gays in their membership. That is every bit their right. Just like veterins can have vet only groups, blacks can have black only groups, hispanics can have hispanic only groups, plumbers can have only plumbers groups, there is the whole messanic lodge thing, Martial Artists can have martial artist groups. There are martial arts schools here for lesbians only. To join, you must be female and lesbian. Why cannot the BSA have the same priviledge? Each group can be as open or as closed as it wants. But it is the groups decision, not anyone elses.

=========================
The anecdotes of those who have been "outed" for being either gay or atheist while working for the BSA in either a professional or volunteer basis show that the morality that the BSA espouses publicly does not actually exist within the BSA itself. It is a lie and propaganda.
=========================

The fact that the BSA outs people for not adhereing to the standards laid out is in no way immoral. If I can't tell you what your morality should be, how can you judge mine? You complain about the BSA is defining the publics morality, and then you define BSA's morality. I don't want to say hypocritical, but I do want to point out if something is wrong for one group to do it is wrong for the other to do it as well.

The fact that the BSA stands by their set standards, regardless of the persons rank or position, should say something about there morality, in that they are who they say they are. How many groups or even people, for that matter can say that? Certainly not the politicians lobbying for votes and certainly the lawyers out to sue everybody.

The boys in my troop are worried about learning to be men, learning to be leaders, learning to a productive asset to their community. They will find their sexual identity, and even their religious identity. But at 12 years old, being pressured by the older boys or their leaders, is not the time to make that decision.

[Shitoryu Dude]

Odd how my words got twisted around to mean something else entirely.

[wab25]

I merely replied to your arguements. Which did I twist? They are direct quotes from your post. A little logic sure makes short work of these arguements, which is probably why you should never use logic in discussions of politics or religion.