<p>I know several gay people I would be fine with as scout leaders. There are a lot of rules about what leaders can and can’t do. They are never just alone with a scout without another leader present.</p>
<p>The point I was trying to make is it isn’t unique to scouting, and parents do have the ultimate right to always decide who they are comfortable with being around their children. I didn’t want to seem like I was bashing scouting. I am not!<br>
Had I been a boy, I may have have earned eagle. My dad was a scout leader and I went camping with the troop until I was 14. At this point he decided I was too old. Bummer. They took the greatest trips.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Water down the requirements or they will get sued? Where do you get your facts? The requirements are not watered down and since the BSA is a private organization, they can set their requirements any way they like!</p>
<p>One of the things my s (an eagle scout) was told at college was that if he was looking to work in a lab with a professor, very often the profs would choose an eagle scout over a student who wasn’t, because they knew the eagle scout was reliable, responsible, dedicated, committed, etc. They could count on the attributes as being there in an eagle scout, whereas they did not know what attributes a non eagle applicant had.</p>
<p>The Boy Scouts do, indeed, make it possible for special needs kids to participate. That doesn’t mean that they ‘water down’ anything.
Eagle, in fact, is something that any boy can do if he tries hard. It’s not an achievement that marks special skill , but special devotion and attitude. A good badge counselor deals with this all the time. In particular, I am very pleased by the fact that scouting badges do not require a lot of money or special lessons. Scouts don’t have to be great at something to earn a badge - they have to do their best. That’s a rare thing these days when kids are taught to always keep an eye on how things look.
Scout trips are great - and for a real blast , check out Philmont!</p>
<p>I would agree about the quantifiable aspect. I’ve known any number of kids who started clubs so that they could list ‘president of x’, and kids who warped things in other ways for their resume. Scouting is far less prone to this than many other things. And, most Eagles will have started working on this goal long before they were thinking of college resumes. Scouts often give up individual goals for the group too - something that is of great value. Mine gave up a lot to serve as senior patrol leader , for example.</p>
<p>^^^Exactly. The President of the Underwater Basketweavers Club may be active in title only and never actually weave a single basket. But the 100+ man-hours involved with an Eagle project plus the 6-month leadership periods and years of troop commitment are quantifiable. An Eagle project represents a uniform standard that does not vary according to geography or school system.</p>
<p>Boy O Boy, this thread has certainly taken a detour since the first posting 2 years ago!</p>
<p>Hook–no; nice data point–yes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Gay does not equal pedophile. My S’s godparents are a gay couple. A gay man–and professional HS teacher–taught the sexuality education course my S took at our church. I would trust my S with any of them over most heterosexuals I know. </p>
<p>It is so tiring to see this kind of ignorance being propagated in this day and age.</p>
<p>^ Consolation- See my post #141 regarding this. Seems we feel the same way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It can be both. Institutionally requiring members indicates that the organization is religious. Otherwise they would not mandate that the members be religious at all.</p>
<p>Or are you arguing that it is reasonable to consider an organization that institutionally holds no faith of any kind to require its members to be persons of faith?</p>
<p>Try again – were you in Scouts, by any chance?</p>
<p>Gay does not equal pedophile
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don’t think that’s the implication. From what I’ve seen, it’s more along these lines:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Although there are the ignorant, of course, there’s the issue of someone viewing a lifestyle as immoral and therefore having a problem with that person serving in a position that should be that of a role model. This is not to say that they believe that anyone who is not gay is moral, but rather that they would have a problem with outward and persistent signs of immorality. The fact that practicing homosexuals fit this category is a reflection of the demographics of the BSA.</p>
<p>There are many places in the US that would not tolerate a youth director whether it is for Boy Scouts or any activity be gay. The Boy Scouts have a formal restriction in their bylaws about homosexuality. Most organizations do not, but if the word is out, there is no way such a person would be accepted as someone working alone with kids. </p>
<p>This is not the case in the NY area. A lot of people who are gay and open about it working with children. One of my son’s school has several openly gay teachers’ the other supposedly doesn’t (Catholic and with the priest scandals…well). My kids have been active in the performing arts and a good many of those in that field are gay. </p>
<p>But something like this would cause an uproar in some areas. MY MIL goes ballistic at the mention of any such thing as rec leaders, teachers being gay. For her, absolutely not, and that is a reflexion of her environment.</p>
<p>
Well, this is not exactly right. BSA is a youth organization with certain religious elements in its program. While it is non-sectarian, it does have certain religious requirements. Not surprisingly, this creates some controversy, when people who are not religious would like to participate for all the other benefits the organization provides.</p>
<p>The gay leader issue is, in my opinion, a different matter, and I believe that it is in flux. I think there are more and more people, especially in certain areas of the country, who think BSA is wrong on this one. I predict that eventually BSA will allow its chartering organizations (ie., the churches, clubs and other organizations that actually “own” the BSA troops) to decide if they want to have gay leaders or not. Some will, and some won’t.</p>
<p>@Baelor</p>
<p>So gays are axe-murderers now? No, no, that response failed, I’m sorry. Gays are not pedophiles, gays are not axe-murderers, gays will not stalk your kids. Your response doesn’t correlate, the axe-murderer is as bad if not worse than the pedophile, there is NO EQUATING THE TWO. </p>
<p>…Of course, I realize that this belief that we ARE axe-murderers/pedophiles/seed of the devil/etc is very prevelant amongst certain people, maybe you were lampooning their belief.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re right. Your response did fail. Your reading comprehension ability failed. Read my post again and get back to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correct, at least more than the general population.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never equated the two; I never implied that there was any connection whatsoever; I never implied that they were of equal gravity. Show me where my response doesn’t correlate because if you read my post properly, then you would understand EXACTLY what I am saying.</p>
<p>In other words, why don’t you repeat back to me my point, so we can see if you actually understand what I’m saying?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The BSA is a private youth organization. The only religious requirement is to believe in God. There is no requirement to be a member of any denomination or to attend church regularly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Still am in Scouts. Have been for over 20 years in many positions of leadership.</p>
<p>
This is correct. To that extent (and to the extent duty to God and reverence are stressed), there are religious elements to the BSA program. Indeed, it is for this reason that BSA units are no longer chartered by public schools and the like–you can’t have a religious belief requirement for an organization sponsored by a governement entity. In my opinion, BSA acted wisely by making this change rather than carrying on a major court fight on multiple fronts.</p>
<p>It is obviously true that BSA discriminates against people who don’t believe in God. This is also true of more sectarian youth organizations, churches, and lots of other groups. It wouldn’t occur to anybody to criticize a Catholic or Jewish youth organization for limiting membership to co-religionists. What confuses people, I think, is that BSA is non-sectarian. People seem to think that since BSA welcomes Christians, Jews, Muslims, and (presumably) Pastafarians, that it should also welcome atheists. But BSA thinks spiritual beliefs are important, and it’s a private organization, so it gets to make that choice. Those who don’t agree don’t have to join. As I noted, the gay leadership issue is different in some ways, because quite a few of the religious or other chartering groups don’t agree with BSA’s position on this.</p>
<p>
I think DS is a pastafarian - he worships spaghetti and lasagne…:)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Religious does not mean sectarian. No one claimed that the BSA was sectarian. But because they have a religious requirement, they are a religious organization as well as a private youth organization.</p>
<p>I’m sorry if that bothers you. But take it from a fellow Scout – it’s not up for debate; it’s purely factual. This idea is further confirmed by the Scout Oath and Law.</p>