It makes me really sad that the BSA has chosen their current highly politicized position.
When I was a scout nearly twenty years ago (holy crap, that's weird to say; getting old is funny), I was already agnostic, leaning atheist, and my troop had a quietly but openly gay member, and our scout leaders knew it. The only time religion ever came up was during summer camp at Camp Old Indian in the mountains in South Carolina...there was a non-denominational meeting on Sunday morning in an old chapel. Attendance was encouraged but optional.
I don't know if my troop was just a really open-minded one (in small town South Carolina, that seems really unlikely!), or the policies of the BSA have changed dramatically. I do know that a friend's little brother joined the same troop several years later but with different leadership and did not find it enjoyable and quit within a couple of months. The troop had moved its meetings out of the old train car it used when I was a scout, and into a Southern Baptist church, and apparently the mood of the troop changed with that move.
It's depressing because I'd always assumed that when I had kids, they'd have the same scouting experience I had, and that I'd participate as a volunteer scout leader. It was a wonderful experience for me, and I wish all boys could have those kinds of male role models in their lives, as well as that kind of camaraderie with other boys. But, given the way the organization seems to have changed into a tool for promoting a hate-filled agenda, I guess it's just not going to happen. Even if my kid did happen to be the "right kind" of kid for the BSA, I wouldn't want him being exposed to that kind of backward thinking and I can't support an organization with that kind of agenda.
I'm also from a small town in SC, and I also had a pretty good experience in my troop. The religion and heterosexuality aspects were fairly downplayed and while we went through the motions, my Scout Master told my mother explicitly that I could join as an Atheist as long as I didn't make a big deal out of it. This was about 10 years ago when I left.
The leaders (adult and less adult) make or break a troop. They define the character of the group. For me, scouting became a lot less enjoyable when the Scout Master that started me off stopped being as active in the group. That's probably when I started losing interest in the experience, if I think back on it.
I got all the way up to, but not quite, Eagle Scout. I was Order of Arrow, I filled various leadership roles, and I had almost every requirement except for the project. I lost interest before I went through with the project, however, so I never got Eagle. I have absolutely no regrets about that.
I was partly jaded (lots of people did simple projects that seemed unworthy to me), partly lazy, partly annoyed with an organization which was defined by open bigotry, and partly disinterested without the strong leadership. It hasn't had a single recognizable impact on my life, and I don't know that I'd change anything if I could.
I doubt I'd encourage any of my children to go to scouts now, although the experience was extremely valuable for me.
The rules were probably the same or worse when you were younger.
Not quite true, according to what I've read. The BSA had no official policy on homosexuals or atheists until a few years ago. No position is definitely better than a position of blatant intolerance, in this case.
Admittedly, "reverent" has been in the Boy Scouts Law forever, as far as I know. It does not define "God", though, so it's a pretty flexible sort of thing. The Order of the Arrow, and its borrowing of lots of Native American mythology, seems to make it clear that "God" means whatever your conception of God might be, probably including a simple naturalist concept of greatest good, which I'd have no trouble professing reverence for. Jewish and Muslim kids are welcome in the Boy Scouts, so it can't be merely the Christian God.
Consider: refusal to participate and let youth see your good example hurts only the boys. And really helps no one.
Valid argument. But, the fact that the official position of the Boy Scouts is now against gays and atheists, the only example I could set would be one of lying in order to participate. Being an atheist, I am explicitly prohibited from being involved in Boy Scout leadership. I would have to profess beliefs I do not hold, either actively or passively, in order to take part. I'm not willing to do that. I'm not an angry atheist, or anything, and I don't really care to trumpet my beliefs (or lack thereof) from the rooftops, but I also won't pretend to believe in something I actually believe is generally a destructive force.
Refusing to aid bigots only helps children by demonstrating, amongst other things, the value of civil rights, integrity, and principles. Your strategy of letting bigots slide because they don't hate you does the opposite.
You can be a youth member and be gay as long as you're willing to live as a second class citizen, i.e. not avow that you're homosexual or hold a youth leadership position. They don't specifically bar homosexuals:
Because, you know, nothing is better for our youth than making them deny who they are and teaching them they aren't worthy of being in a leadership position because of their sexual orientation or religious beliefs.
Compare to the girl scouts who have held this position on sexual orientation since 1991:
As a private organization, Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. respects the values and beliefs of each of its members and does not intrude into personal matters. Therefore, there are no membership policies on sexual preference.
And it provides the same result as "don't ask; don't tell": it creates an environment where people are not free to be honest about who they are and sets up a structure that reinforces the idea that one kind of person is inherently better than another. The BSA also does this to boys at an especially formative time in their lives.
Why is scrutinizing the leaders any more acceptable than scrutinizing the boys?
The world is a heterosexual mens' club. The rest of us would like to be included.
I defer to your experiences; only consider Boy Scouts is no different from gym class, the mall or any other place boys congregate.
Also we separate the boys from the girls at this age, because it's helpful (reduces acting out, focuses goals). That's not considered a terrible thing, at least by youth leaders who have a dozen young people to teach/train.
Especially coming from my experiences as a camp counselor, I totally understand the value of separating boys and girls sometimes. I can't think of any circumstance when it would be useful to separate a group of adolescents by sexual orientation, but I won't say such a circumstance doesn't exist.
The problem is, unlike gender (currently disregarding transgender/gender queer/intersexed folks), you can't determine someone's sexual orientation - especially at this age. So it's not so much that the world is a heterosexual mens' club, but more that the heterosexual men think it is. As a result, they speak and behave based on that assumption. This assumption further marginalizes those who may already feel like outsiders within their own community.
I can't say my entire scouting experience was wonderful, but I loved the time I spent backpacking with my troop.
We hiked regularly in the Ocala National Forrest in Florida and took trips in the summer to North Carolina, the Southwest Canyons, and Philmont.
Reservations aside, if my children chose to get involved with Boy Scouts, I would love to be a leader. I'd like to give my time like my dad, who planned and hiked the Southwest Canyons trip, did for me.
But I can't. The BSA considers me an unfit role model.
Remember, the Boy Scouts of America, by design, discriminates against over 50% of the population. Why is it surprising that they'd discriminate against a few more percent?
(Also, polytheists are not allowed. You must believe in exactly one god, though which god it is is up to you)
The fact that Girl Scouts is lame, is an issue you should take up with your local Girl Scout leaders. If they dont go backpacking, climibing, or hiking the high desert, its the local Girl Scout leaders that are to blame.
I thought that we decided that "separate but equal" was an awful idea, that never really leads to equality, a long time ago. You are never going to get the same experience in two completely separate, segregated groups. Sure, there's a chance that the Girl Scout experience could be better, but it's not likely given the lower prominence, funding, and cultural norms that say that girls aren't as into the outdoors as boys are.
From Brown v. Board of Education: 'We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.'
Now, as a private organization, sure, the Boy Scouts should be allowed to discriminate as they please. But they shouldn't be funded by taxpayers if that's the case, through free or discounted access to public buildings, classrooms, and parks.
But if you're gay you can still become a Catholic priest. You might have to cover up being agnostic. But you'll definitely get to work with young boys and help "educate" them.
Since the 1961 promulgation "Religiosorum institutio" (in English, "Careful Selection And Training Of Candidates For The States Of Perfection And Sacred Orders"), the ordination of homosexual priests has been forbidden in the Catholic Church.
I did not. Nor do I think they are. You can put me down for thinking that if say a 40-year old man wants to engage in sex with say a 14-year old male that yes there is definitely homosexuality involved. Is pedophilia also involved? Depends on the ages and which definition used.
Regardless it was a joke but one based on factual events widely reported. I knew I risked a little karma loss for saying something potentially un-PC but sometimes I don't care. Good to widen minds sometimes. :P
The person whose mind is most in need of widening here is you. There is very little connection between pedophilia and homosexuality.
If we define pedophilia as interest in sexually immature individuals, then there is a negative correlation between pedophilia and homosexuality. Pedophiles, no matter which gender of child they abuse, strongly tend to be either heterosexual, or else not interested in adults. And when asked to cite what was attractive about their victims, invariably they cite feminine characteristics such as lack of hair.
When homosexuals are accused of pedophilia, they are inevitably involved with boys who are young but sexually mature. While everyone agrees that this is a bad idea, the relative frequency of this interest is no higher than interest in teenage girls among heterosexuals.
I never said there was a connection between them. If they both occur together in some case, they do. If they do not, they do not. That's pretty obvious. And no my mind does not need widening on this point. Everything I've read so far in this thread where somebody thinks they are enlightening has not revealed something I didn't already know. Instead, I seem to be getting persecuted here karma-wise, in a sense, because some HN'ers are attributing viewpoints to me that I do not have, nor have I claimed to have. It would be funny if it were not so frustrating and lame. For example, to be real clear: I do not think homosexuals are bad people. And I think pedophiles are mentally sick, in a way, at a bare minimum, and sometimes can also be morally evil, depending on the particulars. And I do not think all pedophiles are homosexuals or vice versa. So I don't understand why some folks, if they really read what I said strictly, get miffed.
What my original comment, at the head of this thread, was alluding to, in the real world, is the issue where it seems a rather large number of Catholic priests seem to be either (1) gay, or (2) pedophiles, or (3) both. Are all? Of course not. And of course every situation is different. If a middle-aged priest has sex with a 17-year old altar boy, or whatever, then yes by the official psychological definition he is not necessarily a pedophile. But from a legal standpoint, it's an adult involved with a minor, and the media coverage and community reaction around that will blur into it being an adult with a "child", and with the courts now labeling them, in many jurisdictions, as a sex offender. Which then means he is given the fuzzy and technically innacurate, laymen's label of "a pedophile". I'm confident in predicting that a significant percentage of Americans at least would consider a 40/17-year old sex encounter as pedophilia, regardless of whether that is the official definition or not.
Also, I ask all HN'ers to stay polite. We should all write here as if we were conversing with someone face-to-face in the same room. Thanks and this has been a public service announcement. :P
Most pedophiles identify as straight, not gay, and are more often than not married men. So, if anything, the Boy Scouts are exposing these kids to a higher likelihood of being molested than they would if they allowed openly gay scout leaders.
Read that again. Even though the act of pedophilia in this context is one of male-on-male sex, the pedophile would claim that they are straight. Whether or not that's their real sexual orientation is immaterial.
The point being, that men who have already come out of the closet about being gay are far, far less likely to be child molesters than, well, say, homophobes that troll internet message boards.
Well said. Repression may have something to do with it. Its sad, and probably somewhat due to the vicious cycle of demonizing homosexuals which causes some to act out.
I apologize for my careless remark. I volunteer in a boys club, and from that viewpoint pedophilia (against boys) is by definition homosexuality.
But I agree completely, in the population at large its orthogonal. Again I apologize for a hasty remark.
I'd like to think you're not stupid and homophobic, but your posts keep undermining that. There are pedophiles that rape girls, and there are pedophiles that don't discriminate between the sexes.
I guess you don't understand proper subset. He was implying that all pedophiles are gay (or that all gay people are pedophiles which I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't saying that).
And my comment was related to earl's 2nd sentence. The one right before my reply.
And Earl's second sentence, read properly, also points out that paedophilia is orthogonal to homosexuality. He was proving that A is not a proper subset of B by pointing out the elements of A which are not in B. I assume he didn't bother to mention the elements of A which are in B because they're not relevant to the proof at hand.
I pick my words carefully. Not every reader does as much, and sometimes this happens
Perhaps you're carefully picking which words you read instead of carefully picking which words you write.
