Clinton brushes off the Scouts
Chris Mattingly
the Jamboree.
There are speculations that this is because of his gay policies, but
no one can be sure. (yeah, right)
Just thought you all would like to know....
Later
Chris
--
"Don't you just hate it when reality and fantasy merge?"
Flames, death threats, etc. to: /dev/null
Replies, comments, etc. to: oz...@rbdc.wsnc.org
John P. Lemek
>Just heard on the radio that Clinton turned down an invitation to
>the Jamboree.
>
>There are speculations that this is because of his gay policies, but
>no one can be sure. (yeah, right)
>
>Just thought you all would like to know....
Does anybody know if President Clinton is the honorary BSA President? It seems
like I remember Reagan holding this title, but I can't remember if Bush did
also?
John
Rick Busdiecker
the Jamboree.
There are speculations that this is because of his gay policies, but
no one can be sure. (yeah, right)
My guess is that it has more to do with BSA's anti-gay policies :-)
I'm really hoping that there's something that can be done to turn
National around. I got a lot out of Scouting before it decided to
start acting like a branch of some fundamentalist church.
I'm really hoping that someday my son (currently age 3.7) will be able
to get something out of the program as well, but as things stand now,
I know that my wife would view his joining BSA in much the same way
that she would view his joining the Klan . . . and I can't really say
that I blame her -- her view is that `they' are a bunch of bigots and,
well, frankly, as an organization BSA is standing firmly behind a
policy of bigotry, no matter how many past and present members
disagree with it.
I've tried writing to National, but they won't even acknowledge my
mail much less answer my questions, or give the slightest hint that
they might abandon their reactionary policies. At least I have four
more years to work for change.
I'm glad that GSA doesn't have this problem. My daughter is seven and
is very interested in joining the Brownies.
--
Rick Busdiecker
Lehman Brothers phone: (212) 640-9419
World Financial Center
Building 3, 11th floor e-mail: <r...@lehman.com>
New York, NY <r...@cmu.edu>
David A. Scocca
>Just heard on the radio that Clinton turned down an invitation to
>the Jamboree.
>There are speculations that this is because of his gay policies, but
>no one can be sure. (yeah, right)
Well, I seem to remember Ronnie R. blowing us off in 85 (he sent Nancy to
give that stiff little wave and tell us not to do drugs. I tell you, it
thrilled me to the bottom of my soul. Hah.)
(Not that I'm a Ronnie fan, just pointing out it's not a matter of Clinton
v. the Boy Scouts as you seem to hint.)
Dave
--
* The Minstrel in the Gallery "Heteroskedastic" *
* D. A. Scocca sco...@uncvx1.oit.unc.edu *
* "My love does not, cannot _make_ her happy. My love can only *
* release in her the capacity to be happy." --J. Barnes *
David A. Scocca
(Rick Busdiecker) writes:
>I'm really hoping that there's something that can be done to turn
>National around. I got a lot out of Scouting before it decided to
>start acting like a branch of some fundamentalist church.
I agree. The problem seems to be this... to a much larger extent, the BSA
depends more than does the GSA (which you mentioned more positively later
in the post and which I accidentally wiped out) on the chartered
organizations, which often happen to be churches... (In the GSA, I believe
the GSA organization has a lot of the control that is in the chartered
org. in the BSA)... Hence the BSA has to not offend these chartering
organizations....
For example, every year my home council's camp rents the whole place out
for the weekend to a group called the "Royal Rangers," which appears to be
the result of the Adventists (or some other group, I'm not sure precisely)
deciding the religious component of Scouting was insufficient for their
needs... Can you picture what happens to the size of the BSA if, say, the
Mormons walk? I'd bet if National had to choose between losing a major
religious group (particularly the Mormons, since their decision to have
ALL their boys in the program gives them disproportionate impact) and
losing, say, all the United Way funding, they'd take the membership over
the $$.
Fear of lawsuits, too. The number one reason you should not expect to see
girls in regular troops in the reasonable future is sheer terror of what
happens if Joe Scout gets Josie Scout pregnant behind a tree somewhere....
(or, even worse, if it's Johann Scoutmaster...)
I don't think we can put the problem simply at National's door. I think
more realistically the problem is that these attitudes are much more
prevalent in the Scouting population than in the population at large, and
this gives National no incentive to do what's morally right.
Maybe we just need to hang in there, be the voice of reason, and hope
someone hears us at some point.
Stephen Farlow
pro-abortion, pro-homosexual and has no business calling himself a
Christian.
I am an Eagle Scout and have been since 1964 and am proud of it. I
encourage BSA not to back down to pressures to remove God from the
oath and law and not to allow homosexuals in BSA.
This upsets me. My son will be old enough in 1994 to join boy scouts
and I have been looking forward to that day so that he and I can enjoy
scouting together. However, if BSA allowed homosexual leaders, I would
be absolutley certain to do all I could to find a troop with leaders
that have a "normal" sexual preference.
Let's pray for Willie that God will convict him of his sins and cause
him to repent.
Robert Craig
>In <RFB.93Au...@cfdev1426.lehman.com> r...@lehman.com
>(Rick Busdiecker) writes:
>
>I agree. The problem seems to be this... to a much larger extent, the BSA
>depends more than does the GSA (which you mentioned more positively later
>in the post and which I accidentally wiped out) on the chartered
>organizations, which often happen to be churches... (In the GSA, I believe
>the GSA organization has a lot of the control that is in the chartered
>org. in the BSA)... Hence the BSA has to not offend these chartering
>organizations....
[extra stuff deleted]
>... Can you picture what happens to the size of the BSA if, say, the
>Mormons walk? I'd bet if National had to choose between losing a major
>religious group (particularly the Mormons, since their decision to have
>ALL their boys in the program gives them disproportionate impact) and
>losing, say, all the United Way funding, they'd take the membership over
>the $$.
>
In Canada, we run our program the same way: Charter Groups in all essence
are a franchise operator of the program for Scouts Canada. The "contract"
with each operator (sponsor/partner) is different. The Mormons operate a
closed group in which only members of the church can participate (both male
and female), the United Church of Canada has an open group in which anyone
can join (I do mean anyone!)
>Fear of lawsuits, too. The number one reason you should not expect to see
>girls in regular troops in the reasonable future is sheer terror of what
>happens if Joe Scout gets Josie Scout pregnant behind a tree somewhere....
>(or, even worse, if it's Johann Scoutmaster...)
I'm sorry, many countries have operated FULLY co-ed programs around the
world. Part of the program is discussion and advice from leaders on
societal issues that should be covered anyways (either through the
schools or in Scouting): safe sex, relationships, etc. If Joe Scout and
Josie Scout are going to be doing something behind a tree somewhere, do you
honestly think they are not going to do it if Josie was not in Scouts???
If they want to do it, they are going to do it. Scouting is not the only
place in our society where males and females can get together; Society is
interesting that way : )
>I don't think we can put the problem simply at National's door. I think
>more realistically the problem is that these attitudes are much more
>prevalent in the Scouting population than in the population at large, and
>this gives National no incentive to do what's morally right.
>Maybe we just need to hang in there, be the voice of reason, and hope
>someone hears us at some point.
While agree about your comments on doing what is morally right, I think the
only thing members of the BSA can do is put the problem at National's door,
the policy, the attitude initiates from National and filters its way down
to the youth-leader level.
>Dave
Bob
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Craig | Be Prepared.....For Life!
Carleton University Library | Preparing them for life is what
Ottawa, Canada | Scouting is all about.
rcr...@library.carleton.ca |
(613) 727-1887 (home) | "Teach them, train them, let them
(613) 788-2600 ext. 2728 (work) | lead..." -B.P.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl M Kadie
[...] [President Clinton] has no business calling himself a
>Christian.
I didn't know that Christians judged each other this way.
[...]
>However, if BSA allowed homosexual leaders, I would be absolutley
>certain to do all I could to find a troop with leaders that have a
>"normal" sexual preference.
[...]
Sounds like a good compromise to me. Just as today you can avoid a
troop with leaders you disapprove of (on moral, religious, or even
racial grounds), so you would be able to if the BSA allowed homosexual
leaders. Indeed, you'd have a better chance of avoiding such leaders
after the change since they would have less reason to be in the
closet.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= ka...@cs.uiuc.edu =
Warren Davis
Rick Busdiecker <r...@lehman.com> wrote:
>In article <CBK2v...@rbdc.wsnc.org> oz...@rbdc.wsnc.org
>(Chris Mattingly) writes:
>> Just heard on the radio that Clinton turned down an invitation to
>> the Jamboree.
>>
>> There are speculations that this is because of his gay policies, but
>> no one can be sure. (yeah, right)
>>
>
>My guess is that it has more to do with BSA's anti-gay policies :-)
>
>I'm really hoping that there's something that can be done to turn
>National around. I got a lot out of Scouting before it decided to
>start acting like a branch of some fundamentalist church.
My son is in Cub Scouts and I am currently serving as a Den Leader. There
is no reason that kids can't still get a lot out of Scouting! All the
furor and worry about the policies and attitudes of "National" are totally
above the heads of the kids in Cub Scouts, anyway. All they are concerned
with are accomplishing the achievements and electives and having fun!
>
>I'm really hoping that someday my son (currently age 3.7) will be able
>to get something out of the program as well, but as things stand now,
>I know that my wife would view his joining BSA in much the same way
>that she would view his joining the Klan . . . and I can't really say
>that I blame her -- her view is that `they' are a bunch of bigots and,
>well, frankly, as an organization BSA is standing firmly behind a
>policy of bigotry, no matter how many past and present members
>disagree with it.
If you want to change the BSA, get involved with it, ...with the kids, and
make sure *they* don't grow up to be bigots. The kids are affected more by
the leaders that they are in contact with than the "organization".
As my children have been growing up, I have become a bit concerned with
the violence among teens and in gangs. Even in the suburbs, white gangs
are carrying guns... ...and then I went to Cub Scout camp with my son
this summer, and saw a different kind of teen, the Scout camp counselors,
who all had positive, yet diverse, directions. ... a neat bunch of kids. I
have no problem with these kids being role models for my son.
I don't think "National" or "organization" is BSA. BSA is >Boy< Scouts of
America... it's the kids.
( ...step down now from my soap box... )
____________________________________________________________________________
Kipp Davis | pai...@u.washington.edu | (206)685-1491
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob McGwier
Stephen Farlow:
>pro-abortion, pro-homosexual and has no business calling himself a
>Christian.
Judge ye not . . .
Bob
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert W. McGwier | n4...@ccr-p.ida.org
Center for Communications Research | Interests: amateur radio, astronomy,golf
Princeton, N.J. 08520 | Asst Scoutmaster Troop 5700, Hightstown
Warren Davis
>sfa...@NeoSoft.com (Stephen Farlow) writes:
>
>[...] [President Clinton] has no business calling himself a
>>Christian.
>
>I didn't know that Christians judged each other this way.
We are not *supposed to*, but many do. I believe that it's God's job to
judge, and we are told something like... "Judge not, lest you be judged".
Our role is "merely" to love one another. ...but this is a discussion for
another newsgroup.
Beth Allerton
I have been his den assist/leader for 3 years. BSA is in the dark ages.
How their anti-gay/chauvenistic leanings are accepted by so many amazes me.
As a Girl Sc leader, I am very thankful our organization promotes getting
along with others and cultural diversity. I am ashamed of BSA. I have
put up with enough ignorance and prejudice for the sake of my son, who,
I hope, has learned more about Christian values at home than in Scouts.
Any way for a US citizen to join Canadian Scouts as a lone Scout?
P.S. For the guy who's glad the policy is intact... how do you know your
son's leaders/fellow scouts are all "straight"? What do you do about his
school teachers, Sunday school folk, doctor, etc. ?? Do you query each one
on THEIR sexual lifestyle?? No? They also influence your son. I'd rather
our kids learned accepting others and leave the judging to a higher authority
(you've heard of that concept?) Just because someone is gay does not mean
they are a pediophile (sp right?) - learn the difference. (flame off)-Beth
Michelle NG
>
>In article <scocca.745129445@gibbs> sco...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (David A. Scocca) writes:
>>In <RFB.93Au...@cfdev1426.lehman.com> r...@lehman.com
>>(Rick Busdiecker) writes:
>>
>
>>Fear of lawsuits, too. The number one reason you should not expect to see
>>girls in regular troops in the reasonable future is sheer terror of what
>>happens if Joe Scout gets Josie Scout pregnant behind a tree somewhere....
>>(or, even worse, if it's Johann Scoutmaster...)
>I'm sorry, many countries have operated FULLY co-ed programs around the
>world. Part of the program is discussion and advice from leaders on
>societal issues that should be covered anyways (either through the
>schools or in Scouting): safe sex, relationships, etc. If Joe Scout and
>Josie Scout are going to be doing something behind a tree somewhere, do you
>honestly think they are not going to do it if Josie was not in Scouts???
>If they want to do it, they are going to do it. Scouting is not the only
>place in our society where males and females can get together; Society is
>interesting that way : )
>
get together not jsut in Scouting. I do know
that lots of countries has female in Scouting long time ago. Those
things may happen anywhere if they are going to happen, that's not
the problem of Scouting but the problem of individuals, it relates to
the culture , morality, education ,.. of the people in the country.
I was a female Scout too, and that was when I was in Hong Kong and I
don't think the leaders had any problem with this issue cos' first:
Scouts/kids in that age group there just won't do things like that, and
second, even if they are older, I beleive that they just won't do that
during a situation like that.
Furthermore, currently I am leading a Scout Group too and we jsut
don't have any probelm dealing with that issue!!
>>I don't think we can put the problem simply at National's door. I think
>>more realistically the problem is that these attitudes are much more
>>prevalent in the Scouting population than in the population at large, and
>>this gives National no incentive to do what's morally right.
>>Maybe we just need to hang in there, be the voice of reason, and hope
>>someone hears us at some point.
>
>While agree about your comments on doing what is morally right, I think the
>only thing members of the BSA can do is put the problem at National's door,
>the policy, the attitude initiates from National and filters its way down
>to the youth-leader level.
>
>
>>Dave
>
>Bob
>--
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Robert Craig | Be Prepared.....For Life!
Michelle
--
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
MICHELLE NG
m...@descartes.uwaterloo.ca / \
/ | \
bit...@skcla.monsanto.com
In article <RFB.93Au...@cfdev1426.lehman.com>,
r...@lehman.com (Rick Busdiecker) writes:
>I got a lot out of Scouting before it decided to
> start acting like a branch of some fundamentalist church.
>
I personnally find the thought that BSA is acting like a fundamentalist
church interesting. I'm currently the committee chair for a troop
chartered by an Episcopalion Church. I and about 1/3 of the troop happen
to be Catholic. The Scoutmaster who just retired is a Protestant and
the new Scoutmaster happens to be Jewish and is getting a kick out of
having the "KEYS" to the church. If having a belief in God causes one to
acting like a fundamentalist church then there must be a lot more
fundamentalists than I thought.
>
> well, frankly, as an organization BSA is standing firmly behind a
> policy of bigotry, no matter how many past and present members
> disagree with it.
>
BSA's policys towards Gays makes a lot of sense if one first considers
that Boy Scouting could actually be stopped by a couple of well published
casess of child abuse. If the perception (not the fact) were that Scouting
was for gays, the support for program would disappear.
When a parent turns over a Scout to the adult leadership for any outing
it is done on pure (possible ill founded) faith in that the individual and
the system will not harm the youth.
Steve Bittner
bit...@skcla.monsanto.com
The opions are my own. Nobody else would want them.
Dan Kary
> depends more than does the GSA
I believe your use of "GSA" here refers to Girl Scouts. The US organization
is called Girl Scouts of the United States of America or GSUSA. I'm not
a member of GSUSA but I know several and they object to being called "GSA".
I'm not flaming you, but we should all try to remember to use the GSUSA name,
the GSA initials kind of make it sound like they are part of or associated
with BSA and GSUSA is completely separate and prefers that people be aware
of that fact.
> on the chartered organizations, which often happen to be churches...
I don't think it's just chartered organizations that influence BSA decisions,
I think it is our entire society. Back in the 40's and earlier, BSA was racially
segregated. Our society now thinks segregation is immoral, but in the 40's
a large percentage of the population (maybe not even a majority) thought that
racial segregation was "good" and some even thought integration was "immoral".
The BSA changed after society changed. I think BSA policies regarding gays is
as consistent with our current society as it's policies towards blacks was in
the 40's.
> Fear of lawsuits, too. The number one reason you should not expect to see
> girls in regular troops in the reasonable future is sheer terror of what
> happens if Joe Scout gets Josie Scout pregnant behind a tree somewhere....
> (or, even worse, if it's Johann Scoutmaster...)
I agree completely. Many European scouting organizations are co-ed and are
often given as examples of how co-ed scouting could succeed in the US. I think
US society is different enough from Europe, expecially in the area of attitudes
and behavior regarding sexuality, that it would not work in the US. Is teen
pregnancy as big a problem in Europe as it is in the US? My understanding is
that it is not near so much a problem in Europe. Teen pregnancy is a symptom
of US societies attitudes toward sexuality, which I think are generally not
real good. Again, change society and scouting will follow.
> Maybe we just need to hang in there, be the voice of reason, and hope
> someone hears us at some point.
We all need to go much further than just hanging in there. We have to change
our entire society. BSA is not a social or political activist organization,
they are not going to lead the change in any area.
> Dave
Dan Kary
--
"And that, my liege, is how we know the earth to be banana shaped."
Robert Craig
>...BSA is in the dark ages.
>How their anti-gay/chauvenistic leanings are accepted by so many amazes me.
>As a Girl Sc leader, I am very thankful our organization promotes getting
>along with others and cultural diversity. I am ashamed of BSA.
As a _Girl_ Scout Leader you should also know that GSUSA has a policy that
refuses to allow boys membership into your organization. However, I do have
to mutually agree with your comment on anti-gay leanings and even a
chauvenistic leaning (however, one must credit the BSA with their attempts
at allowing females into various positions--it is a start).
>I have
>put up with enough ignorance and prejudice for the sake of my son, who,
>I hope, has learned more about Christian values at home than in Scouts.
>Any way for a US citizen to join Canadian Scouts as a lone Scout?
In Canada (and I thought internationally) Scouting is not solely set up to
teach Christian Values. Scouting has religion (spiritual awareness) as
part of their program. If the BSA is set up differently or your son is a
member of a closed group--my apologies.
I know you were probably asking in a sarcastic tone, but there are
Canadian Scout Troops in the USA many (almost all) are associated with Air
Force Bases in the US where Canadian Troops are located or in Washington D.C.
set up in association with the Canadian embassy. If you are really interested,
I can get a contact list. I do know Americans in the past have been involved
with Canadian Troops but that was due to special circumstances.
(other stuff deleted)
YIS,
Bob
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Craig | Be Prepared.....For Life!
William J Turner
>I am not surprised slick Willie would brush off BSA. He is anti-family,
>pro-abortion, pro-homosexual and has no business calling himself a
>Christian.
I can't say I'm surprised either, but he *certainly* has as much right calling
himself a christian as you do. (I'm sorry, I suppose you're a "born-again"
ultra-fundamentalist. Then, IMHO, he may even have *more* of a right.)
Don't get me wrong. I don't believe anyone should bash anyone else because of
their religious views (or anything else, for that matter), but it seems to me
the ultra-fundamentalists, and I know a few, don't listen to anyone else's
views. If they don't agree with their own, then that person is wrong. So
sad...
>I am an Eagle Scout and have been since 1964 and am proud of it. I
>encourage BSA not to back down to pressures to remove God from the
>oath and law and not to allow homosexuals in BSA.
You can have this opinion if you want. (I don't agree, but I'm not you and
you're not me.) You just have to realize, there are *many* people who feel
differently, and it is very possible that they may actually change national's
policies. (Might take a *long* time.)
>This upsets me. My son will be old enough in 1994 to join boy scouts
>and I have been looking forward to that day so that he and I can enjoy
>scouting together. However, if BSA allowed homosexual leaders, I would
>be absolutley certain to do all I could to find a troop with leaders
>that have a "normal" sexual preference.
I agree with Beth. (I think that was who it was.) How do you know your son's
teachers, etc, aren't gay, and how do you know if he joins (and homosexuals
still aren't allowed as leaders) that his leaders aren't homosexual? I know a
few homosexuals, and they are all perfectly "normal" people, except for their
so-called "abnormal" sexual preference. Seems to me, that homosexual leaders
have just as much to give to the program as those that are straight.
>Let's pray for Willie that God will convict him of his sins and cause
>him to repent.
I assume you also believe the floods in the mid-west were God's way of
punishing us for homosexuals and abortion? Incredible. Simply incredible.
Will Turner
ASM, Troop 182, Mid-Iowa Council, Ankeny, Iowa
Eagle Scout, class of 1987
Vigil Honor member, Mitigwa Lodge #450, Order of the Arrow, W.W.W.
Weuchsowagan--One Who has Knowledge
--
Will Turner, N0RDV ---------------------------------------------
wjtu...@iastate.edu | "Are you going to have any professionalism, |
tw...@isuvax.iastate.edu | or am I going to have to beat it into you?" |
TUR...@vaxld.ameslab.gov ---------------------------------------------
Bob Weisbeck
|> In <CBK2v...@rbdc.wsnc.org> oz...@rbdc.wsnc.org (Chris Mattingly) writes:
|>
|> >Just heard on the radio that Clinton turned down an invitation to
|> >the Jamboree.
|>
|> >There are speculations that this is because of his gay policies, but
|> >no one can be sure. (yeah, right)
|>
|> Well, I seem to remember Ronnie R. blowing us off in 85 (he sent Nancy to
|> give that stiff little wave and tell us not to do drugs. I tell you, it
|> thrilled me to the bottom of my soul. Hah.)
|>
|> (Not that I'm a Ronnie fan, just pointing out it's not a matter of Clinton
|> v. the Boy Scouts as you seem to hint.)
|
I read in the local paper that Ronnie didn't come in 85 because he was in the
hospital for prostate (sp) surgey.
I was wondering after reading that if the President came to other jamborees?
I could see Ronnie comming in 81 because again AP Hill is close to DC. But
did Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc... go to other jamborees that were spread out
over the country. Also besides Valley forge in 64 and 57 where were other
Jamborees held?
bunz,marcus p
Yes, Bush was honorary president of the BSA. Last spring someone
commented that they had just received a new Eagle Scout card
that still had Bush's signature on it.
So, it would appear as though Clinton is making a point of
ignoring the BSA. I suppose it should not come as a surprize.
Marc
Beth Allerton
rcr...@library1.library.carleton.ca (Robert Craig) writes:
>
>As a _Girl_ Scout Leader you should also know that GSUSA has a policy that
>refuses to allow boys membership into your organization. However, I do have
>to mutually agree with your comment on anti-gay leanings and even a
>chauvenistic leaning (however, one must credit the BSA with their attempts
>at allowing females into various positions--it is a start).
>
discussion wandered to troops. MANY of the leaders and the "teacher" had the
policy not to allow boys with a single female parent into their troop. I was
told that single moms can't give time/energy to the troop committee. At the
same time they did not want a "woman" teaching the boys - they need to be lead
by men. I can see a tiny bit of the point, after all, I wanted my son to have
male role models, but when you have an attitude like that you are teaching the
boys that women are 2nd class citizens to some degree.(Moms leading cubs(young)
is OK) This is why the GSUSA wants women to lead our girls, so they
can see women in stronger roles. But we take male leaders without a qualm ...
in fact my daughter's Junior assistant leader was a man. There are some GSUSA
leaders that take their hubbys along camping to pitch tents, etc. That's just
as chauvenistic and deplorable as the BSA's attitude. ... My son came to
many Brownie meetings as a tagalong, which was OK as long as he was younger;
once he got to the same age as the girls, they didn't want him around, nor
did he want to hang out with them. I don't have as much of a problem segreg-
ating the sexes of the children. I remember very well not wanting BOYS around,
kinda like the relationship Calvin and Susy have in the cartoon strip. That's
how American kids relate to each other. It's not going to change overnight,
but with so many children in coed daycare, it may change sooner than we think.
><stuff deleted> If the BSA is set up differently or your son is a
>member of a closed group--my apologies.
bit much for a youngster who is still not sure about Santa Claus. Of course
he will say what he is told to say, does he really believe? Thankfully the
requirements are broad enough to cover individual family preferences, but at
some time these kids will question that belief ... whoops , time to boot 'em
out! (well, if it works for the 16 yr old questioning his sexuality....) I
guess I have a problem with the judging that seems to go on more in Boy Scouts
than Girl Scouts. Hopefully it is just my area.
I see I've ranted a bit, but not more than some I've read here, so I'll leave
it as is. Obviously a pet peeve of mine. -Beth
bunz,marcus p
>
> >Just heard on the radio that Clinton turned down an invitation to
> >the Jamboree.
>
> >There are speculations that this is because of his gay policies, but
> >no one can be sure. (yeah, right)
>
> Well, I seem to remember Ronnie R. blowing us off in 85 (he sent Nancy to
> give that stiff little wave and tell us not to do drugs. I tell you, it
> thrilled me to the bottom of my soul. Hah.)
>
> (Not that I'm a Ronnie fan, just pointing out it's not a matter of Clinton
> v. the Boy Scouts as you seem to hint.)
was still recovering from a Colon Cancer operation and sent Nancy
in his place. All things considered, she probably wasn't a bad
alternative since Drugs are a concern of the BSA.
(Though she may not have been very inspiring.)
The WSJ article indicates that Clinton did have someone lined up,
but that the stuckee backed out at the last minute as well.
All things considered, the WSJ article didn't consider this one
of Clinton brightest moves, and suggested that it may come
back to haunt him at some point in the future.
The article also did a good job of playing up other values that
are associated with Scouting which should be remembered
and should be used to put the contraversy assocated with the
BSA into perspective.
>
> Dave
> --
> * The Minstrel in the Gallery "Heteroskedastic" *
> * D. A. Scocca sco...@uncvx1.oit.unc.edu *
> * "My love does not, cannot _make_ her happy. My love can only *
> * release in her the capacity to be happy." --J. Barnes *
Marc
bit...@skcla.monsanto.com
>>
> In a N.FL Region Pow Wow class on den administration, the
> discussion wandered to troops. MANY of the leaders and the "teacher" had the
> policy not to allow boys with a single female parent into their troop. I was
> told that single moms can't give time/energy to the troop committee. At the
> same time they did not want a "woman" teaching the boys - they need to be lead
> by men.
>
short sighted policy have heard of yet.
First, the main purpose of scouting is to help the scout grow and should
be dependant on how much the boy needs the experience not whether or not
his mother has time to make browns for a fund raiser etc.
Second, most (not all) single parent families these days has an ex-spouse with
visitation rights and obligations. Our troop has several dads that have
discovered the a campout is a perfect way to spend time with their sons.
It sure beats sitting around an apartment wondering what to do or going
out shopping. I've even seen some enthusiasm from the mothers at the
idea that the ex would be out on the hard ground, in the rain and/or snow
which Chicago is famous for. These families have added a lot to our troop
organization and as a group contributed more than their share to running
of the troop. Our troop is currently running 10-15% single parent families
or about 5-7 families out of 50 scouts.
Steve Bittner
bit...@skcla.monsanto.com
all opions are my own. nobody else would want them.
David A. Scocca
>In article <CBnFp...@cunews.carleton.ca> rcr...@library1.library.carleton.ca
>(Robert Craig) writes:
>>In article <scocca.745129445@gibbs> sco...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu
(David A. Scocca) writes:
>>
>>>Fear of lawsuits, too. The number one reason you should not expect to see
>>>girls in regular troops in the reasonable future is sheer terror of what
>>>happens if Joe Scout gets Josie Scout pregnant behind a tree somewhere....
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>(or, even worse, if it's Johann Scoutmaster...)
>>I'm sorry, many countries have operated FULLY co-ed programs around the
>>world. Part of the program is discussion and advice from leaders on
>>societal issues that should be covered anyways (either through the
>>schools or in Scouting): safe sex, relationships, etc. If Joe Scout and
>>Josie Scout are going to be doing something behind a tree somewhere, do you
>>honestly think they are not going to do it if Josie was not in Scouts???
>>If they want to do it, they are going to do it. Scouting is not the only
>>place in our society where males and females can get together; Society is
>>interesting that way : )
>>
> I am totally agree what Rob said. It's ridiculous!! Guys and girls
> get together not jsut in Scouting.
bothered by Joe and Josie doing it as it is bothered by BEING SUED cos Joe
and Josie did it behind a tree at scout camp rather than at 4-H camp, the
church picnic, the stairwell at the high school etc.... The BSA doesn't
care where the hell they do it so long as they ain't liable....
All actions of the BSA can be explained in terms of Membership, Money, or
Lawsuits.
Timo Kiravuo
>BET...@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu (Beth Allerton) writes:
>>>
>> MANY of the leaders and the "teacher" had the
>> policy not to allow boys with a single female parent into
>> their troop.
This is a joke, right?
I mean not allowing kids to join because their parents are
divorced or their father is dead and their mother did not
remarry.
Or is this really happening somewhere? In scouting? On this planet?
--
Timo Kiravuo, kir...@hut.fi
Helsinki University of Technology, Computer Center, Finland
Mike Heath
>P.S. For the guy who's glad the policy is intact...
That wasn't me, but I don't have a problem with the policy.
>how do you know your son's leaders/fellow scouts are all "straight"?
Well, my sons are in Cub Scouts, so "fellow scouts" doesn't apply. I know
all the leaders, plus they are parents also. I realize that there is still
a possibility, but I figure the odds are greatly reduced.
>What do you do about his school teachers,
I pick them.
>Sunday school folk,
I have faith in the church.
>doctor, etc. ??
I change when I find out (and it has happened).
>Do you query each one on THEIR sexual lifestyle?? No?
I don't go looking for gays, and I have a few gay friends, but I do
intentionally minimize my children's exposure to them.
For me, there is a much larger consideration. There's a disease going
around called AIDS. There, currently, is no cure. From my understanding,
there are two high risk groups for contracting the disease. Gays and
intravenous drug users. I minimize my family's exposure to both groups.
I confess that I don't sort out the intravenous drug users from the non-
intravenous drug users. I avoid them all. I don't think my family is any less
for it.
I should note that I also don't go around preaching to my children about the
"evils" of homosexuality. I have talked to them about it. Told them what it
meant. And basically, let them form their own opinion. I can't guarantee that
I was unbiased, but I don't try to force opinions on my kids.
Call me a bigot. I deserve it. I think if you look up the definition of
bigot, you'll find that it's a pretty broad term. It probably fits most
people.
>Just because someone is gay does not mean
>they are a pediophile (sp right?) - learn the difference.
I know the difference. I fail to see the similarity. Maybe I missed it,
but I didn't see anybody confusing the two.
--
Mike Heath
Austin, TX
mi...@pencom.com NeXTMail accepted
Rick Busdiecker
In article <RFB.93Au...@cfdev1426.lehman.com>,
r...@lehman.com (Rick Busdiecker) writes:
> well, frankly, as an organization BSA is standing firmly behind a
> policy of bigotry, no matter how many past and present members
> disagree with it.
BSA's policys towards Gays makes a lot of sense if one first considers...
Get a clue. Your `arguments' in favor of bigotry are based on bad
assumptions (like `gay' means `pedophile') and faulty logic (like `not
gay' means `will not harm the youth').
The idea the the organization would fall apart based on ``a couple of
well published casess of child abuse'' sounds very strange coming from
a Catholic.
Robert Craig
>Please note what I said is the motivating force... the BSA is not so much
>bothered by Joe and Josie doing it as it is bothered by BEING SUED cos Joe
>and Josie did it behind a tree at scout camp rather than at 4-H camp, the
>church picnic, the stairwell at the high school etc.... The BSA doesn't
>care where the hell they do it so long as they ain't liable....
So why does the BSA permit rifle shooting? I don't see a good enough
argument here. In the Utopian society, an organization can't be held
responsible for the actions of an individual. I know this doesn't happen
but the point of this issues is that through PROPER EDUCATION within
the BSA, it would be hard to make the BSA liable for the actions.
There is also the other side of the coin, by not letting females into
the movement (in the U.S.), there have been all sorts of lawsuits and
groups pulling out funding. I don't see the gain here except for
maintaing archaic values.
>
>All actions of the BSA can be explained in terms of Membership, Money, or
>Lawsuits.
Fair enough. I think this could be said about any organization! : )
>
>Dave
Bob
>--
>* The Minstrel in the Gallery "Heteroskedastic" *
>* D. A. Scocca sco...@uncvx1.oit.unc.edu *
>* "My love does not, cannot _make_ her happy. My love can only *
>* release in her the capacity to be happy." --J. Barnes *
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Craig | Be Prepared.....For Life!
Rick Busdiecker
I agree with Beth. (I think that was who it was.) How do you know
your son's teachers, etc, aren't gay, and how do you know if he
joins (and homosexuals still aren't allowed as leaders) that his
leaders aren't homosexual? I know a few homosexuals, and they are
all perfectly "normal" people, except for their so-called
"abnormal" sexual preference. Seems to me, that homosexual leaders
have just as much to give to the program as those that are
straight.
I agree with the sentiment expressed here completely. I'll also add:
How do you (Stephen Farlow) know that your son isn't gay. If he is,
his life will certainly be a lot rougher if his father hates him for
his sexuality.
Hopefully, if he is and he loves and respects you enough to come out
to you, you'll be able to face your bigotry head-on and overcome it.
I've heard my father say many bigoted, anti-queer things in the past.
However, since one of my siblings came out to him (he was the last one
in the family to be told), he's come a long way.
In some ways, I feel sorry for my father because it must be very
difficult to come to grips with the idea your prejudice is not only
wrong, but has hurt someone close to you. Mostly, however, I feel
proud of my father for doing what he's done to get past his prejudice.
I know of other parents who couldn't do it and who have effectively
lost their children because of it.
It disturbs me that BSA rejects gay Scouts and Scouters, but it really
scares me that BSA may be teaching self-hate to Scouts who have not
yet discovered their sexuality. This is an organization that is
supposed to be preparing young people for life, but National's
decision to make anti-queer policy, and especially their attempts to
rationalize it in the name of a twisted notion of morality, could
contribute to some confused young person choosing to end their life.
Rick Busdiecker
Eagle Scout, 1980
bit...@skcla.monsanto.com
> In article <1993Aug12...@skcla.monsanto.com> bit...@skcla.monsanto.com writes:
> In article <RFB.93Au...@cfdev1426.lehman.com>,
> r...@lehman.com (Rick Busdiecker) writes:
>
r...@lehman.com (Rick Busdiecker) writes:
>The idea the organization would fall apart based on ``a couple of
>well published cases of child abuse'' sounds very strange coming from
>a Catholic.
It is exactly because I'm a Catholic that I appreciate the power of
child abuse publicity. The Chicago Catholic Church has been moved
out of a centuries old policy of hiding pedophile priests and to
cooperate fully including opening personnel files with a political
district attorney over a few well publicized cases of child abuse.
For the Church to no longer protect its own and to bow to civil
authority, it is must have been shook to the core.
I contend that BSA is more vulnerable to child abuse publicity than
the Catholic Church and if BSA receives the same treatment in
the press as the Church, it will be severely damaged. (I do not
contend that the Church did not deserve the treatment)
Steve Bittner
bit...@skcla.monsanto.com
the opinions are my own. nobody else would want them.
bunz,marcus p
> >In article <16C28E02...@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu>,
> >BET...@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu (Beth Allerton) writes:
> >>>
> >> MANY of the leaders and the "teacher" had the
> >> policy not to allow boys with a single female parent into
> >> their troop.
>
> This is a joke, right?
>
> I mean not allowing kids to join because their parents are
> divorced or their father is dead and their mother did not
> remarry.
>
> Or is this really happening somewhere? In scouting? On this planet?
the boys who do not have a father would benefit MOST from scouting
and it should give them at least a little more exposure to a
male role model. (Though if you have a GOOD Scoutmaster that
"is seen and not heard", there wouldn't be too much interaction.)
The only possible explaination, and this would be stretching
for an excuse, would be that the troop requires a parent also
participate at some predefined level (e.g., attend two
camping trips each year), no women, no exceptions. In which case
another male adult should be allowed (e.g., uncle, [much]
older brother), or the rule should be waived when another male
isn't available and an alternate duty should be provided.
I suppose I'm part of shift in Scouting, as I don't see any reason
female leaders should not be accepted, and females should not participate
on trips (my wife disagrees :-) ). The first time I was a Webelos
leader I had one mom and dad come on our tent trips with their
son (the cabin trips were male only due to single room cabins).
I had no problem with it, and the mom had a good time. I'm
starting again with Webelos this year, and I have two boys who
are in single parent families (due to divorce or death). Since
their mothers both have been camping in the past, they are more
than welcome to attend our trips (actually they will be required,
since I want the trips to be 1 adult, 1 child), and I'll be sure
the cabins have two rooms. Who knows, I may even get my wife to attend.
> --
> Timo Kiravuo, kir...@hut.fi
> Helsinki University of Technology, Computer Center, Finland
Marc
Becky Lamb
Our council has a rule (is it also a national one?) that no adult is
allowed to sleep in the same tent (also room?) with a child that is
not their own child. No matter how many other adults/children are in
the sleeping area with them. How does this apply to cabins? I have
heard comments about leaders sleeping outside in tents while the youth
all slept in the cabin.
Robert Johnson
>sco...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (David A. Scocca) writes:
>>
.
.
.
>> Maybe we just need to hang in there, be the voice of reason, and hope
>> someone hears us at some point.
>We all need to go much further than just hanging in there. We have to change
>our entire society. BSA is not a social or political activist organization,
>they are not going to lead the change in any area.
>> Dave
>Dan Kary
In Santa Cruz County, United Way just last week finally decided to pull
their funding out of BSA. In two leadership meetings I attended before
and after the decision, I was surprised by the apparently unanimous feeling
that the BSA was right to not yield to the U.W. and to uphold its moral
standards. I say 'apparently' because, even though I disagreed with their
position I said nothing. I had plenty of excuses (first meeting of the
year...first time I've met these people...don't want to alienate anyone,
etc.), but the fact is, I was embarrased to appear to support people who
are very unpopular in my neck of the woods. Until people like me get the
courage to be unpopular in defense of an ideal such as fairness to all
people with regard to membership, the likelihood of change is small.
As a practical matter, I don't forsee the emergence of a large number
of gay scout leaders. In our pack the leaders are the parents of the
kids and although there are gay men in heterosexual marriages they are
surely the minority of a minority.
- Robert
--
=============================================================================
Robert Johnson (UTS Kernel Development, Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale, Ca.)
joh...@uts.amdahl.com (408)992-2104
The preceeding is the official Amdahl position on the subject -- NOT !!
=============================================================================
Michael Nelson
has adopted a youth protection policy, and included literature in its
scout handbooks to prevent abuse. I think the policy might be a good
suggestion for a faq.
-Michael Nelson
bit...@skcla.monsanto.com wrote:
: It is exactly because I'm a Catholic that I appreciate the power of
Peter Galambos SST-C2139
The last Eagle paperwork we got back from National had Bill Clinton's
signature on the certificate as honorary president, and George Bush's
on the platic card (I assume they are using up their existing stock).
Just wanted to clarify that Clinton is indeed the honorary president.
Pete Galambos
Committee Chairman - Troop 670 - Cascade Pacific Council
Daniel Snoek
Yes, Bush was honorary president of the BSA. Last spring someone
commented that they had just received a new Eagle Scout card
that still had Bush's signature on it.
So, it would appear as though Clinton is making a point of
ignoring the BSA. I suppose it should not come as a surprize.
Marc
"
that I have (Summer '92, Winter '93, Summer '93) they all display the New BSA
Gold Eagle Cards with George Bush's signature as Honorary President. Even this
summer's one. Interesting.....well, I'm glad I got one before they changed it
(Whenever they do so)
The recent Eagletter also mentioned the discontinuation of certificates from
the Air Force for Eagle due to budget constraints. I'm sure they don't get all
that many requests, could there be other reasons?
It also mentioned that if a Eagle enlists in the Marines they will start at E-2
rather than E-1...how much of a difference is there between the two?
*****************************************************************
* Daniel Johann Snoek | U.C.S.D. Class of '97 *
* E-Mail: dsn...@terapin.com | - Revelle College - *
*********************************| Mechanical Engineering *
STOW Coran
>Just heard on the radio that Clinton turned down an invitation to
>the Jamboree.
>There are speculations that this is because of his gay policies, but
>no one can be sure. (yeah, right)
>Just thought you all would like to know....
>Later
>Chris
>--
>"Don't you just hate it when reality and fantasy merge?"
>Flames, death threats, etc. to: /dev/null
>Replies, comments, etc. to: oz...@rbdc.wsnc.org
Here in Australia, our Governor-General is usally Chief Scout of
Australia. However when our current GG was asked to join and become
Chief Scout, he refused, ostensibly 'cos he is an atheist and can't
honestly make the promise.
The Scout Association of Australia was slightly miffed.
I remember seeing a cartoon cut from a paper posted in our hall where
the GG Bill Heyden crawls inot his house and says to his wife "Some Boy
Scouts helped me across the highway"
N.B. The Boy in Boy Scouts was quietly dropped off our name about 20
years ago..
______________________________________________________________________
Coran Stow os9...@fir.canberra.edu.au
ROVERS - Thermonuclear Scouts (good .sig accidentally deleted)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
wal...@wkuvx1.bitnet
oz...@rbdc.wsnc.org (Chris Mattingly) writes:
> Just heard on the radio that Clinton turned down an invitation to
> the Jamboree.
>
> There are speculations that this is because of his gay policies, but
> no one can be sure. (yeah, right)
> My guess is that it has more to do with BSA's anti-gay policies :-)
You could be right...I think that it runs more along the lines of why
former President Reagan couldn't attend the Jamboree a while
back...because of his surgery (in 1985); why Bush didn't attend in
1989 (because of pressing matters dealing with the economy..).
The days of having the President to attend a open-air event which
would require much military and Secret Service support is just about
over...for security reasons, those of you that remember, every person
had to be checked by police officers before Nancy Reagan, representing
her husband, came out of the helicopter to address the assembled
arena.
That was at a cost to the BSA of well over $87,000 to provide that
support for that one nine-minute segment.
Nowadays, when it is more cost-effective, the President will simply
"phone in" his remarks to the body, as Bush and later Clinton has done
many times with various groups in Washington and elsewhere.
> I'm really hoping that there's something that can be done to turn
> National around. I got a lot out of Scouting before it decided to
> start acting like a branch of some fundamentalist church.
>
> I'm really hoping that someday my son (currently age 3.7) will be able
> to get something out of the program as well, but as things stand now,
> I know that my wife would view his joining BSA in much the same way
> that she would view his joining the Klan . . . and I can't really say
> that I blame her -- her view is that `they' are a bunch of bigots and,
> well, frankly, as an organization BSA is standing firmly behind a
> policy of bigotry, no matter how many past and present members
> disagree with it.
>
> I've tried writing to National, but they won't even acknowledge my
> mail much less answer my questions, or give the slightest hint that
> they might abandon their reactionary policies. At least I have four
> more years to work for change.
Well, if you just addressed your letter to the BSA National Office in
Irving, Texas, you would not get a reply. Many of the letters that
are sent there won't get answered, partly because of the subject
matter and partly because of the fact that the staff that opens and
reads that mail has been reduced from 12 to 8.
A better answer, and one that I would recommend you send your letter
stating your views to, is the following:
Mr. Jere Ratliff, Chief Scout Executive
National Office, Boy Scouts of America
S100
1325 West Walnut Hill Lane
Irving, Texas 75015-2079
(You will get back a autopenned letter from his office stating the
BSA's official policy on homosexuality and Scouting...and a copy of
the BSA's official policy on religion and the role it plays in the
Scouting programs. Both of those items have been posted before as
part of the policies FAQ of this newsgroup. )
Because I don't know the CSE personally, I don't know if he reads or
gets access to personal letters sent directly to him as opposed to the
generic "BSA National Office", which is read by members of the BSA's
Editorial Staff and those that deem important to the CSE are sent
upstairs to his office. If you really feel that strong about it,
please resend the letter to him personally. I am sure that you will
receive a response, even if it's the autopenned one.
Please don't give up on the BSA and it's way of dealing with such a
sensitive and serious problem as this one...the BSA for years have
been dealing with folks that one way or another want to shape the
program to fit "society's parameters". For examaple, in the 50s, the
BSA resisted urges from southern states and allowed black youth to
attend ANY Council camp, and not just the ones that were "created"
separately for Black youth that many Councils had. There was a
principle here, one that stated that "a Scout is a friend to all and a
BROTHER to all other Scouts..." and that extended to those of a
different racial group than the majority....the BSA integrated their
programs much earlier than the military or most schools did, and in
fact assisted in a large part with public acceptance and later outrage
that such events were going on to separate black citizens from white
ones.
The BSA has a set of standards that they have stood by from day one. I
don't like all of them, and there are many others that don't.
However, when I decided to serve as a volunteer and later as a
paraprofessional, I had to decide for MYSELF which is the greater: to
become a agent for change in my community, in my nation, through my
personal actions and example; or if I wanted to be a part of something
to make a statement or to force people to do things the way I see them
as being needed to be done. I opted for the latter, and while the
BSA's policies toward gays and toward a belief in SOMETHING HIGHER
THAN ONES' SELF has been around since the very start of the BSA in the
United States, only *now* with the present climate are we all able to
even talk about those policies.
I personally feel that by the time your son is Tiger Cub age (age
seven or starting the first grade), the BSA will bend a little and
American society will bend a little to accommodate the BSA's desires
not to be swayed at every turn in the trail. Remember, this was the
same organization that stated up til the early 70s' that women have
only one or two places to be in Scouting...and that is with the
younger boys. This was the same organization that stated that blacks
could only serve in "black, urban districts" as professionals to be
successful and the same organization that stated that women would
NEVER be allowed to attend Boy Scout summer camp, serve as
Scoutmasters or Assistants or to become members of the Order of the
Arrow (Scouting's national honorary society).
I was around when all of those were stated, to rounds of enthusiastic
applause...I was also around when those things were "broken" and some
eqaulity slipped in. There were lots of big court battles over each
one of those issues...but what broke it was the attitude of the
volunteer and professional in the field that told National "Hey, we
should at least try it....what do we have really to lose??"
Gotta get some sleep...let me know when your son reaches Tiger Cub
age, please...I would love to write back and extend a personal invite
to your wife, yourself and your son to become a part of the family and
fun of Scouting.
Settummanque!
Mike L. Walton
former Paraprofessional, Scouter et. al.
Greenwood, Kentucky
(-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-)
( Settummanque, the blackeagle... ) )
( (MAJ) Mike L. Walton (among other "endearing" names) ( )
( AIS/MR Recreation/Leisure Specialist, Lifeskills Inc. ___)_ )
( Phone 502-782-7992 (home) 502-842-2274 (office) |-=-|] )
( 3201-D Cave Springs Avenue -- Greenwood, KY 42104-4439 -------- )
( WALTOML@WKUVX1 / "No such thing as strong coffee, only weak people" )
( KYBLK...@AOL.COM (America Online) / (available Scouting speaker) )
( "I don't speak for Lifeskills, Inc. or WKU...but man, do I speak!!!!" )
(=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=)
Kevin Quah
>
>Get a clue. Your `arguments' in favor of bigotry are based on bad
>assumptions (like `gay' means `pedophile') and faulty logic (like `not
>gay' means `will not harm the youth').
>
>The idea the the organization would fall apart based on ``a couple of
>well published casess of child abuse'' sounds very strange coming from
>a Catholic.
Excuse me, correct me if I'm wrong. But aren't pedophiles (specifically
male Scout leaders that sexually abuse Scouts under their charge) actually
gay men who prefer younger men (ie.boys). I know that some of these people
may actually be married, but that does not necessarily make them
heterosexual at heart. These people have crossed over the line and
abused their authority and trust. But my point is they(male sexually abusive
scout leaders) must necessarily be gay at heart.
The BSA's policy excluding gays is discriminatory. But it is legitimate
discrimination. We discriminate among people all the time. Employers
discriminate among potential job applicants based on qualifications,
attitude etc. Better qualifications and attitude does not necessarily equal
better job performance (ie. there may be exceptions). But just because there
are exceptions do not make such practices invalid. Employers increase the
probability of choosing a better employee by discriminating in this way.
There are no absolutes when it comes to screening practices - only
probabilities.
Do not try to debunk this analogy with one replacing "qualifications" with
"race". It will break down because there is absolutely no correlation between
race and job performance( Of course, I have absolutely no scientific evidence
to back up this claim - but it is the "politically correct" thing to say and
if there are any studies or opinions to the contrary then they must be
BIGOTTED and RACIST.....hmmm... don't take this too seriously folks - it
is beside the main point).
The BSA has a problem with sex abuse among its members. By excluding gays,
it decreases the probability of such abuses. Therefore, it is a reasonable
and legitimate discriminatory practice. It will not totally eliminate the
problem (there ain't no silver bullet), but it will minimize it. While
there is no way to tell empirically that a person is gay, those that are
openly gay can be actually be identified (I think I am stating the obvious
- dah!).
David A. Scocca
>|> >
>|> > Does anybody know if President Clinton is the honorary BSA President? It seems
>|> > like I remember Reagan holding this title, but I can't remember if Bush did
>|> > also?
>|> >
>|> > John
>The last Eagle paperwork we got back from National had Bill Clinton's
>signature on the certificate as honorary president, and George Bush's
>on the platic card (I assume they are using up their existing stock).
>Just wanted to clarify that Clinton is indeed the honorary president.
As far as I know, the honorary president has ALWAYS been the US President,
and vice versa.
(Although back in the teens, TR stayed on in some honorary capacity after
he was no longer President...)
Dave
David A. Scocca
>Excuse me, correct me if I'm wrong. But aren't pedophiles (specifically
>male Scout leaders that sexually abuse Scouts under their charge) actually
>gay men who prefer younger men (ie.boys). I know that some of these people
>may actually be married, but that does not necessarily make them
>heterosexual at heart. These people have crossed over the line and
>abused their authority and trust. But my point is they(male sexually abusive
>scout leaders) must necessarily be gay at heart.
>The BSA's policy excluding gays is discriminatory. But it is legitimate
>discrimination.
[...]
>The BSA has a problem with sex abuse among its members. By excluding gays,
>it decreases the probability of such abuses. Therefore, it is a reasonable
>and legitimate discriminatory practice. It will not totally eliminate the
>problem (there ain't no silver bullet), but it will minimize it. While
>there is no way to tell empirically that a person is gay, those that are
>openly gay can be actually be identified (I think I am stating the obvious
>- dah!).
Well, of course we can extend this... obviously, in order to prevent women
who are leaders in the Boy Scout program from sexually abusing the scouts,
we should restrict these leadership positions to lesbians.
And we should encourage girls organizations to recruit ONLY gay men and
straight women, to balance things out and protect their youth as well....
The probability that a gay man will molest boys is about the same as the
probability that a straight man will molest girls.
David A. Scocca
>I am not sure if this has been mentioned in this thread, but BSA National
>has adopted a youth protection policy, and included literature in its
>scout handbooks to prevent abuse.
Well, it seems to me that some of the BSA's approach (requiring family
discussions on child abuse, for example, as (I believe) an "entry
requirement" seems more designed to keep abusive parents and their kids
out of the program rather than to stop abuse itself.
"Just don't sue US"
Michael Nelson
David A. Scocca (sco...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu) wrote:
: In <24hq2k$j...@jadzia.CSOS.ORST.EDU> nel...@CSOS.ORST.EDU
: >I am not sure if this has been mentioned in this thread, but BSA National
: >has adopted a youth protection policy, and included literature in its
: >scout handbooks to prevent abuse.
: Well, it seems to me that some of the BSA's approach (requiring family
: discussions on child abuse, for example, as (I believe) an "entry
: requirement" seems more designed to keep abusive parents and their kids
: out of the program rather than to stop abuse itself.
The youth protection policy itself deals mostly with preventing situations
where abuse can accure (such as 1 on 1 situtations between an adult an youth)
and reporting suspected abuse.
-Michael Nelson
: "Just don't sue US"
Peter Johnston
>short sighted policy have heard of yet.
>
>First, the main purpose of scouting is to help the scout grow and should
>
>Second, most (not all) single parent families these days has an ex-spouse with
>visitation rights and obligations. Our troop has several dads that have
>discovered the a campout is a perfect way to spend time with their sons.
>It sure beats sitting around an apartment wondering what to do or going
>out shopping. I've even seen some enthusiasm from the mothers at the
>idea that the ex would be out on the hard ground, in the rain and/or snow
>which Chicago is famous for. These families have added a lot to our troop
>organization and as a group contributed more than their share to running
>of the troop. Our troop is currently running 10-15% single parent families
>or about 5-7 families out of 50 scouts.
>
>Steve Bittner
>bit...@skcla.monsanto.com
>all opions are my own. nobody else would want them.
>
Hi fellow scouters.
My name is Peter Johnston, I am the cub leader at 1st Port Jackson Sea
Scouts, Sydney Australia. My group nearly closed year last due to a non-existent
committee and all leaders had left. The group was the first Sea Scout group in
Australia and the local Branch did not want to close it.
In an effort to recruit new cub members I was given a copy of a waiting list
from a neighboring group (which supports me a lot in my hour of need).
On this waiting list were a couple of boys from single parent families. One of
these boys was apparently (according to other cub leaders whom know him
personally) a rogue and could not be trusted, they would not have him in their
pack.
Well, I recruited this boy, as I could not justify a case not to recruit
him without seeing him in action. This boy has turned out to be a great kid,
whenever he is at cubs he responds very well and shows that he enjoys the
movement. His mother has seen a change in the boy, and now helps out as much as
she can with group activities. This is her way of doing more for the boy.
Mother and son are both currently holidaying in Poland (Home country) and have
taken with them photos etc to show our group to groups in poland.
This boy needed Cubs and is proud to be a member of 1st Port Jackson.
What I would like to point out is that the scouting movement is for the kids,
not the adults. Why should we deny someone from joining the movement because
they don't have two parents living under the same roof. My experience is that
the scouting movement will benefit all, and especially those from a single
parent family, as these kids will experience some human interaction that they
possibly would not see without scouts.
--
| Peter Johnston, pet...@g2syd.genasys.com.au
| Genasys II Pty. Ltd., North Sydney.
| Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own not the companies |
Dave
>In article <1993Aug12...@skcla.monsanto.com> bit...@skcla.monsanto.com writes:
>>Not allowing boys from single parent homes into Scouting is problably the most
>>short sighted policy have heard of yet.
Who's idea is it to bar children from scouting based upon the childs parents?
I feel it is wrong. For what do we do next? Those whose parents live on the
DHSS (Social Security)? Those who have got one of their parents in prison?
What about the child whose parents couldn't care less what they got up to.
Or take it further by barring those in Care (In England these are children who
are looked after by the Local Council this could be because they are orphans,
not 'looked after' by their parents, or are trouble makers). Just writing
that last sentence has made me realise that I have met scouts who come in the
first four headings, but not any who are in Care. Perhaps this is somthing
to ponder about? Even so the scouts from single parent families I've known
weren't any more of a problem than those with two parents with good jobs.
>>First, the main purpose of scouting is to help the scout grow and should
>>be dependent on how much the boy needs the experience not whether or not
>>his mother has time to make browns for a fund raiser etc.
Agree.
>What I would like to point out is that the scouting movement is for the kids,
>not the adults. Why should we deny someone from joining the movement because
>they don't have two parents living under the same roof. My experience is that
>the scouting movement will benefit all, and especially those from a single
>parent family, as these kids will experience some human interaction that they
>possibly would not see without scouts.
So this makes three people across the world that oppose an idea to bar children
who are in single parent families.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave cmh...@cck.cov.ac.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dennis J. Wilkinson
bit...@skcla.monsanto.com writes:
In article <1993Aug12...@skcla.monsanto.com> ,
bit...@skcla.monsanto.com writes:
>In article <16C28E02...@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu>,
>BET...@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu (Beth Allerton) writes:
>>>
the
>> policy not to allow boys with a single female parent into their troop. I
was
>> told that single moms can't give time/energy to the troop committee. At the
>> same time they did not want a "woman" teaching the boys - they need to be
lead
>> by men.
>>
>short sighted policy have heard of yet.
>
The original poster had to be kidding... right???
My troop, at one point, was made up nearly *exclusively* of boys from either
single-parent or divorced-parent homes, and this was long before the policy
opened up the SM and ASM position to women. Many of our single mothers have
been extremely effective members of our troop committee (single dads, too, in
the few cases where we've had motherless scouts.)
This was being taught on a REGIONAL level??? By whom? I certainly hope that
this individual's comments were brought to someone's attention. No matter what
training you're doing in the BSA, you should be sticking to whats in the
printed policy so that someone can reference it later. You may not always
agree with the printed policy, but then again, most human beings are quite
good at forming their own opinions now, aren't they?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis J. Wilkinson, II (dwilkins...@qmail.umassd.edu)
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth - Design/CS Project
Rick Busdiecker
Rick Busdiecker writes:
>Get a clue. Your `arguments' in favor of bigotry are based on bad
>assumptions (like `gay' means `pedophile') and faulty logic (like `not
>gay' means `will not harm the youth').
Excuse me, correct me if I'm wrong.
Ok . . . .
But aren't pedophiles (specifically male Scout leaders that
sexually abuse Scouts under their charge) actually gay men who
prefer younger men (ie.boys).
A pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to children.
Actually, the only times that I've seen claims as to relative numbers,
they have indicated that the vast majority of pedophiles are
heterosexual men. I think that the only breakdowns that I've seen
claimed are along gender and sexuality lines.
I was not addressing the question of whether man who rapes a boy is
gay, and I'd prefer not to dwell on that question. However, I will
point out that it isn't a simple question and that rape has a lot more
to do with dominance and control than with sexuality.
In any case, I was pointing out faultly logic. One example was
assuming that if a person is gay, that person is a pedophile (or even
more likely to be a pedophile than someone who is straight). Another
example was assuming that if a person is not gay, they will not harm
the youth. I suppose I should now add to that one cannot conclude
that a youth who has not been raped has not been harmed.
The BSA's policy excluding gays is discriminatory. But it is legitimate
discrimination. We discriminate among people all the time. Employers
discriminate among potential job applicants based on qualifications,
attitude etc.
The BSA policy is prejudicially discriminatory and is not legitimage
discrimination. It is discrimination based on bad assumptions and
faulty logic. It is also harmful in variety of ways to individual
Scouts and to the organization as a whole.
--
Rick Busdiecker <r...@lehman.com> and <r...@cmu.edu>
Lehman Brothers
3 World Financial Center ``Never let your sense of morals prevent
New York, NY 10285-0900 you from doing what is right.''
(212) 640-9419 - Isaac Asimov (as Salvor Hardin)
Richard Clements
>rcr...@library1.library.carleton.ca (Robert Craig) writes:
>>As a _Girl_ Scout Leader you should also know that GSUSA has a policy that
>>refuses to allow boys membership into your organization. However, I do have
[...]
>Maybe in your area. In a N.FL Region Pow Wow class on den administration, the
>discussion wandered to troops. MANY of the leaders and the "teacher" had the
>policy not to allow boys with a single female parent into their troop. I was
>told that single moms can't give time/energy to the troop committee. At the
>same time they did not want a "woman" teaching the boys - they need to be lead
I haven't seen that in our area. We have single Mom's (and single
Dad's) that are very active. The only people I have seen that have a
problem with women teaching boys is the women we are trying to recruit
as leaders. We had to work very hard to keep the two women Den
Leaders from quiting when them boys became Webelos. They were worried
because the boys would be doing more "man" things (wood working and
camping). The advice I gave is that in our den (I work with an other
man) we ran into some areas that neither of us had any experence in;
that's what the parent tallent surveys are for.
BTW, We are also trying to get a woman to take over as Asst. Cubmaster
with the idea she will become Cubmaster the next year.
>boys that women are 2nd class citizens to some degree.(Moms leading cubs(young)
>is OK) This is why the GSUSA wants women to lead our girls, so they
>can see women in stronger roles. But we take male leaders without a qualm ...
>in fact my daughter's Junior assistant leader was a man. There are some GSUSA
My understanding is that GSUSA national will accept men in any
position except primary leader and first aider. I've been told that
the local council doesn't want men in any registered position. A
friend wanted to help with his daugther's troop. He was told no thanks
they didn't want men by council. He is now Cubmaster for his son's pack.
He has probably the best pack in the Council. They missed a chance at a
supper leader.
--
Rick Clements (Ric...@pogo.WV.TEK.COM)
Fester the Penguin
>male Scout leaders that sexually abuse Scouts under their charge) actually
>gay men who prefer younger men (ie.boys). I know that some of these people
>may actually be married, but that does not necessarily make them
>heterosexual at heart. These people have crossed over the line and
>abused their authority and trust. But my point is they(male sexually abusive
>scout leaders) must necessarily be gay at heart.
I shall happily correct you, since you're wrong.
According to FBI statistics, the vast majority of male adults that abuse
boys are not gay. Apparently, the sexual abuse is less of a sexual
thing than a need to exert power. For a more in-depth explaination, please
consult medical books - I'm an engineer. From memory, I believe that less
than one percent of all child abuse cases involve a homosexual offender.
Considering that the general population is certainly more than one percent
gay, one can easily deduce that the chances of a gay person being a child
molester are less than the chances of a straight person being a child
molester. Oddly enough, white male fundamentalist Christians show the
largest percentage of child molesters.
>The BSA has a problem with sex abuse among its members. By excluding gays,
>it decreases the probability of such abuses. Therefore, it is a reasonable
>and legitimate discriminatory practice. It will not totally eliminate the
>problem (there ain't no silver bullet), but it will minimize it. While
>there is no way to tell empirically that a person is gay, those that are
>openly gay can be actually be identified (I think I am stating the obvious
>- dah!).
Given the numbers, allowing gays to be leaders will (statisticially)
decrease the probability of child abuse - by less than 5%, but every
little bit helps :-).
Tom Cronin
Eagle Scout... '89
--
*** OREGON CITIZENS ALLIANCE is an anagram for ELECT NICE NAZI LIAR GOONS ***
Thomas Cronin | "Extinction is not something to comtenplate;
cro...@ecn.purdue.edu | rather, it is something to rebel against."
fes...@sonata.cc.purdue.edu | from _The_Fate_of_the_Earth_ by J. Schell
Kevin Quah
Thank you for your response. I am glad that we can discuss this issue
without resorting to the name calling and labelling which we see too often
when this issues is being discussed. At least we are making a good effort
to find the truth.
I accept your argument that gay does not necessarily mean pedophile.
But I submit that in the context of male scout leaders abusing scouts, these
male scout leaders must necessarily be homosexual to do that. Let us understand
homosexual to mean same sex attraction or sexual interaction. A man is male,
a boy is male. It is a homosexual kind of interaction. Or am I supposed to
understand that boys belong to a separate sex from men? If I am to believe
that, at least try to convince me. Does age somehow change a person's sex?
For such abuse to take place there must be some sexual attraction in the first
place. It is a precondition, which you agree to since you have written.
>A pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to children.
In the context of scouting, male scout leaders who abuse scouts are
necessarily homosexual.
ie. if you accept to be true:
(pedophile male scout leader) => (homosexual)
The infalible contrapositive must be true:
not(homosexual) => not(pedophile male scout leader)
But I believe you may still have trouble accepting the first premise
since you write that:
>I was not addressing the question of whether man who rapes a boy is
>gay, and I'd prefer not to dwell on that question.
If you are not comfortable with addressing such a question, we should
end this discussion as there is nothing more to be said.
Anyway, the point is moot since we cannot really determine a person's
sexual orientation - unless he/she admits it. Even then...(a whole other
story).
You go on to say that such abuse has more to do with dominance and
control than with sexuality. I can see your point of such abuse
involving dominance and control, it probably does. But I still believe
that the precondition is still the sexual attraction between the sexual
predator and the victim. It has to start with the physical attraction.
I think you were using the word "sexuality" to mean a loving and mutually
beneficial kind of relationship. I am not talking about that, I am
talking about the physical attraction and expression of sexuality.
We can continue this discussion if we keep it civil in an honest
search for the truth and if we each make an effort to see the other
person's point of view first before commenting. Keep in mind that
our ability to understand another's point of view is limited by
the person's ability to express himself or herself and by the
listener's ability and (most importantly) his willingness to
understand the other person's point of view.
If I did not make a good effort to understand your point of view, let
me know.
Sincerely
Kevin Quah
chris kennedy
discussion of this very problem and came to a very different conclusion.
But first lets look at what you say. Less than one percent of all child
abuse cases invlove gay men. Two problems here, one is this all chlid abuse
or child sexual abuse, two is this all childern or just boys. My understanding
is that sexual abuse is a small part of all abuse and that most sexual
abuse of girls is much more likely to occur than of boys.
The statistic that I had heard centered around the definition of gay, if you
take an orientation argument, that anyone who is sexually attacted to a
member of the same sex is gay, then obviously is someone is being sexually
attracted to a boy and they are a man that fits the definition of gay and
%100 of men who mollest boys, by definition, are gay. If we take what I feel
is a more appropriate defintion, activity, then the number that I had heard was
that roughly 25% of men who molest boys have a history of adult homosexual
behavior. Compared to about 2% of the general population. Obviously neither
of us have the figures right at hand so it is a question of what the specifics
of your FBI numbers or my National Law Enforcement statistics (FBI?)
are closer to reflection the actual situation. I don't know and we
would definitely need to look more closely at the numbers before a
final decision could be made.
Chris
bit...@skcla.monsanto.com
Rick Busdiecker writes:
>A pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to children.
>Actually, the only times that I've seen claims as to relative numbers,
>they have indicated that the vast majority of pedophiles are
>heterosexual men. I think that the only breakdowns that I've seen
>claimed are along gender and sexuality lines.
The question here is not whether more pedophiles are heterosexual or
gay (at least not until girls join BSA). The assumption
is that a large percentage of gay men attracted to scouting are pedophiles.
It is the percentage of gay scounting volunteers that are pediphiles not the
percentage of all gays that are pedphiles that is important.
This is the assumption and I have no idea of the percentages.
Most heterosexual men volunteer for scouting to help their son. Maybe
you can enlighten me on a motivation for gay men to become volunteers?
As a committee chair I have the job of reviewing all volunteer's motivation
and must take action if I found any volunteer that had questionable
motivation.
>The BSA policy is prejudicially discriminatory
Definately, it prejudges a group of people (gay volunteers) and
discriminates against them.
>and is not legitimate discrimination.
This is the question that is being debated and really
depends on the percentage of gay volunteers that do so to
be very close to young boys.
Steve Bittner
bit...@skcla.monsanto.com
all opinions are my own. nobody else would want them.
Richard Threlkeld
> In article <CBK2v...@rbdc.wsnc.org> oz...@rbdc.wsnc.org (Chris Mattingly) wr
> >Just heard on the radio that Clinton turned down an invitation to
> >the Jamboree.
> >
> >There are speculations that this is because of his gay policies, but
> >no one can be sure. (yeah, right)
> >
> >Just thought you all would like to know....
>
> Does anybody know if President Clinton is the honorary BSA President? It see
> like I remember Reagan holding this title, but I can't remember if Bush did
> also?
>
All presidents since the start of scouting have attended the National
Jamboree, I believe. Clinton is the first to fail to do so. Not
a good move on his part.
-------------------------------------------------------
r...@softin.lonestar.org (Richard Threlkeld)
Don't pay any attention to that man behind the curtain. (Oz)
Carl M Kadie
[...]
>All presidents since the start of scouting have attended the National
>Jamboree, I believe. Clinton is the first to fail to do so. Not
>a good move on his part.
[...]
As an honest scout you should retract this falsehood. Here is a
repost from just a few days ago:
========================================================
From: wal...@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: rec.scouting
Subject: Re: Clinton brushes off the Scouts
Message-ID: <1993Aug14....@wkuvx1.bitnet>
Date: 14 Aug 93 23:48:32 CDT
r...@lehman.com (Rick Busdiecker) writes:
oz...@rbdc.wsnc.org (Chris Mattingly) writes:
> Just heard on the radio that Clinton turned down an invitation to
> the Jamboree.
>
> There are speculations that this is because of his gay policies, but
> no one can be sure. (yeah, right)
> My guess is that it has more to do with BSA's anti-gay policies :-)
You could be right...I think that it runs more along the lines of why
former President Reagan couldn't attend the Jamboree a while
back...because of his surgery (in 1985); why Bush didn't attend in
1989 (because of pressing matters dealing with the economy..).
The days of having the President to attend a open-air event which
would require much military and Secret Service support is just about
over...for security reasons, those of you that remember, every person
had to be checked by police officers before Nancy Reagan, representing
her husband, came out of the helicopter to address the assembled
arena.
That was at a cost to the BSA of well over $87,000 to provide that
support for that one nine-minute segment.
Nowadays, when it is more cost-effective, the President will simply
"phone in" his remarks to the body, as Bush and later Clinton has done
many times with various groups in Washington and elsewhere.
[...]
Settummanque!
Mike L. Walton
former Paraprofessional, Scouter et. al.
Greenwood, Kentucky
(-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-)
( Settummanque, the blackeagle... ) )
( (MAJ) Mike L. Walton (among other "endearing" names) ( )
( AIS/MR Recreation/Leisure Specialist, Lifeskills Inc. ___)_ )
( Phone 502-782-7992 (home) 502-842-2274 (office) |-=-|] )
( 3201-D Cave Springs Avenue -- Greenwood, KY 42104-4439 -------- )
( WALTOML@WKUVX1 / "No such thing as strong coffee, only weak people" )
( KYBLK...@AOL.COM (America Online) / (available Scouting speaker) )
( "I don't speak for Lifeskills, Inc. or WKU...but man, do I speak!!!!" )
(=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=)
=====================================================
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= ka...@cs.uiuc.edu =
Vance Kochenderfer
>
>Most heterosexual men volunteer for scouting to help their son. Maybe
>you can enlighten me on a motivation for gay men to become volunteers?
Maybe they want to support an institution that has done a pretty good
job of helping boys despite the policies of National? Naaahh, a gay
man wouldn't want to waste his time trying to improve society...
>As a committee chair I have the job of reviewing all volunteer's motivation
>and must take action if I found any volunteer that had questionable
>motivation.
Do you review their motivation, or just make assumptions? If a single
man with no children wants to become a leader, do you assume he is a
molester? If a man joins with his son, do you assume he is safe?
I truthfully don't know how to tell who will and who won't be a
pedophile, but YPP has been implemented to protect the boys. (Haven't
been to it yet, though.) Two-deep leadership is a must.
Vance Kochenderfer
Virginia Tech | "Man, don't hit me with them negative waves
vkoc...@nyx.cs.du.edu | so early in the morning." -Oddball
Gene W. Smith
>This is the question that is being debated and really
>depends on the percentage of gay volunteers that do so to
>be very close to young boys.
This is not the right question either. What you want to consider is
the probability of a person who *tells you* that he is gay is
volunteering because he wants to be "very close" to young boys.
A little thought will show that this is a competely different
question.
--
Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Rick Busdiecker
In article <1993Aug16.2...@en.ecn.purdue.edu> cro...@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Fester the Penguin) writes:
>According to FBI statistics, the vast majority of male adults that abuse
>boys are not gay.
. . .
Tom you have to be careful how you use statistics . . . . But
first lets look at what you say. Less than one percent of all
child abuse cases invlove [sic] gay men . . . . is this all
childern [sic] or just boys.
It looks like part of your question was answered by the text to which
you responded.
The statistic that I had heard centered around the definition of
gay, if you take an orientation argument, that anyone who is
sexually attacted to a member of the same sex is gay, then
obviously is someone is being sexually attracted to a boy and they
are a man that fits the definition of gay and %100 of men who
mollest [sic] boys, by definition, are gay.
I think that you missed Tom/Fester's point and that you have assumed that
all men who rape boys are sexually attracted to them. By my reading
of his article, it suggested that ``the sexual abuse is less of a
sexual thing than a need to exert power''.
This is not inconsistent with data collected on men who rape women.
While I haven't seen anything discussing their sexual orientation,
I've seen a lot to suggest that many (most? all?) such men are
extremely misogynistic and that what causes them to rape has much more
to do with power and control than with sexual desires.
--
Rick Busdiecker <r...@lehman.com> and <r...@cmu.edu>
Lehman Brothers
3 World Financial Center ``Nothing so needs reforming like other
New York, NY 10285-0900 people's habits.''
(212) 640-9419 - Samuel Langhorne Clemens (Mark Twain)
Rick Busdiecker
For such abuse to take place there must be some sexual attraction in the first
place. It is a precondition, which you agree to since you have written.
>A pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to children.
I have two comments in response to this. The first is that my
definition was one of the off-the-top-of-my-head variety and I think
that at this level of detail there are probably several well accepted
definitions. The second is that attempting to arrive at a universally
accepted definition of `pedophile' doesn't really move the discussion
forward.
In the context of scouting, male scout leaders who abuse scouts are
necessarily homosexual.
I disagree with this. There's a discussion of this point in another
sub-thread, so I won't bother duplicating that conversation here. See
article <1993Aug16.2...@news.nd.edu> and my reply to it.
In any case, I really think that this is far enough off the track as
to be irrelevant. The original topic of discussion centered on the
legitimacy of BSA's policy of prejudicial discrimination against gay
men and boys. So far, I have yet to be convinced that the policy is
based on anything other than xenophobia.
If I did not make a good effort to understand your point of view, let
me know.
That is something that only you can know :-) I guess that ultimately,
my questions to you and to those with similar viewpoints are:
- Even if it could be shown that (I'm intentionally taking things to
an extreme here) being openly gay precluded the possibility of
raping a boy, that is, that all man-boy rape involved men who were
either heterosexual or `closeted' gay men, would you still be
inclined to discriminate against openly gay men?
- Do you truly believe that this issue is one of the safety of the
boys in the program, or could it actually be more of an expression
either of a desire to impose a particular moral view or of
fear/hatred/whatever of people who you and/or others see as
`different'.
I suspect that these may be hard questions to answer. I think that
most people have difficulty spotting rationalization in themselves
most of the time. This is probably some sort of defense mechanism as
virtually everyone I've ever met, myself included, seems to have a
fairly strong need to believe that they are basically reasonable. At
least for me, when I catch myself rationalizing, I feel like I've been
doing something unreasonable.
--
Rick Busdiecker <r...@lehman.com> and <r...@cmu.edu>
Lehman Brothers
Greg
>
> Rick Busdiecker writes:
>>A pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to children.
I know this is going to seem incredibly petty, but for anyone who knows a
smattering of latin, this really grates.
A pedophile is someone who loves feet. The word you are looking for is
paedophile. paed... as in paediatrics, paediatrician, etc. Not ped.. as
in pedestrian, pedal, pedantic... ;-)
Don't bother flaming me for this, I just needed to get that off my chest.
Greg
--
Greg Harewood
NMR Physics, UKC.
Kevin Quah
I cannot quite agree with the statistics that you say you remembered.
You may have mixed up child abuse (both girls and boys) with your
figures for those involving men and boys. I take your point that sexual
abuse probably involves a need to exert power mainly because the sexual
predator will probably need to exert such power to keep the victim
quiet. But I still think such abuse has to start with some kind of
physical attraction for the victim.
But here are some points
to consider:
1) Society wisely separates the opposite sexes in places such as
public restrooms, changing rooms and dormitories. Ask yourself
why. You may say that you will be able restrain yourself around
someone you are attracted to in such places, but if you consider
whether the entire population can be so restrained in such
situations - you can be sure that "incidents" will happen.
2) The underlying principle is to take REASONABLE precautions to
keep people away from avoidable temptation. For example: it
would not be prudent to put a thousand dollars on the dashboard
of your car and park it in an unsafe place. Of course it would
be unreasonable and downright criminal for anyone to break into
your car to steal the money. But the point is that you should take
reasonable precautions and not unduly tempt people.
3) In the same way, the BSA can and should take precautions to prevent
people who may have an "unhealthy" interest in each other from
being together in close proximity. Allowing openly gay scouts or
leaders into the organization would cause a great deal of discomfort
and could lead to possible sexual incidents. This same question
has to be dealt with by the military as soldiers,airmen and sailors
often have to share bunks beds and changing rooms. Allowing
openly gay people into such a situation means reasonable precautions
have not been taken (little kid loose in a candy store analogy).
Yes many good kids will not steal candy, but you can be sure many will.
Precaution: Don't let little kids loose in a candy store.
4) At the same time, I support the don't ask don't tell policy.
A person's sexuality is a private matter eg. you don't go on a
witch hunt to find out who is a little kid so you can decide
who can be let loose in the candy store. This would be an example
of an unreasonable precaution. I know it is a little
easier to identify little kids in real life but please bear
with my poor analogy. Let's pretend we can't identify them
until they reveal themselves.
But once someone is open about his sexual orientation, then
authorities in an organisation should use such information to ensure
that individuals are not placed in situations of undue temptation
or conflict of interest. This is also a political precaution
because if should any incident occur and if it is known that the
BSA knew about the gay sexual orientation of the male scout leaders,
you can be sure that the parents and the media would be shouting
bloody murder and cover-up. After all, an adolescent boy is
sexually a male(dah!). Remember that adolescence is just an artificial
phase of growing up created for modern society. In many societies
of the past, 13 years is the age of adulthood for males.
Greg
>Most heterosexual men volunteer for scouting to help their son. Maybe
>you can enlighten me on a motivation for gay men to become volunteers?
>As a committee chair I have the job of reviewing all volunteer's motivation
>and must take action if I found any volunteer that had questionable
>motivation.
In my experience, most of the best Scouters - and they *are* a minority - are
people like myself who have only recently gone through Scouts themselves and
are continuing to gain from it themselves. I general I have found motivation
to be strong where people
1. Have respect for and belief in the principle Scouting embodies
2. Have a belief that you can run a troop better than the next man and perhaps
ought to put something back and do so rather than see your troop go down
the pan.
3. Have seen what can be done and the good you can do for people's lives.
With many parents, there is no strong belief or enthusiasm, it is much more
a case of having been dragged into it or that if you don't do it noone else
will, or particularly, if you do it yourself then you can do better for your
own son.
I'm not trying to tar everyone with the same brush, but I am saying that the
few people under 25 who are involved in the running of Scout troops tend to
be some of the best there is. They're also the people pushing the rock
climbing, caving, canoeing.. and so on. So, while you have to look for
a motivation, take care not to jump to the wrong one, or you may start losing
some of your best people.
..
>Steve Bittner
>bit...@skcla.monsanto.com
>all opinions are my own. nobody else would want them.
Cheers,
Rick Busdiecker
percentage of all gays that are pedphiles that is important.
Actually, if one can accept this issue as a reflection of a legitimate
concern, as opposed to thinly veiled prejudice, then what is important
is determining what legitimate indicators exist, for gay and straight
volunteers alike, that a person's involvement is likely to be harmful.
[that a large percentage of gay men attracted to scouting are
pedophiles] is the assumption and I have no idea of the
percentages.
The assumption is purely speculative. If a policy is to be built upon
this assumption, it is the responsibility of those proposing and/or
supporting the policy to show that the assumption has a legitimate basis.
Most heterosexual men volunteer for scouting to help their son. Maybe
you can enlighten me on a motivation for gay men to become volunteers?
As a committee chair I have the job of reviewing all volunteer's motivation
and must take action if I found any volunteer that had questionable
motivation.
Do you ever accept straight volunteers who are not joining in order to
help their sons? If so, what are their motivations? Why is it
difficult to believe that a gay man might have similar motivations?
What if a gay man *does* volunteer in order to help his son? Given
that you've indicated that this is a legitimate reason for
volunteering, would you support his volunteer efforts?
The only time that I've served as an adult BSA leader so far was
before I was married and before I had any children. A lot of my
motivation was simply that I liked camping and hiking and had a lot of
fond memories of my Scouting experiences. I also liked sharing what I
had learned with kids who seemed to genuinely appreciate it. It also
made me feel good to think that I was doing something to help others.
Since starting a family, I've helped with some of my daughter's
activities, some of which involved having a lot of young girls around.
I assure you that my motivations had nothing to do with my sexuality.
I think that the idea of having sex with a child is disgusting. To
the best of my knowledge, that view is shared by virtually everyone
that I know, gay and straight alike.
--
Rick Busdiecker <r...@lehman.com> and <r...@cmu.edu>
Lehman Brothers
bunz,marcus p
> In article <1993Aug13.1...@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, m...@troy.cc.bellcore.com (bunz,marcus p) writes:
> |> In article <KIRAVUO.93...@gamma.hut.fi>, kir...@hut.fi (Timo Kiravuo) writes:
> |> > >In article <16C28E02...@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu>,
> |> > >BET...@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu (Beth Allerton) writes:
> |> > >>>
> |> > >> policy not to allow boys with a single female parent into
> |> > >> their troop.
> |> >
> |> >
> |> > I mean not allowing kids to join because their parents are
> |> > divorced or their father is dead and their mother did not
> |> > remarry.
> |> >
> |> > Or is this really happening somewhere? In scouting? On this planet?
> |> This certainly would appear to be an unusual situation. I'd think that
> |> the boys who do not have a father would benefit MOST from scouting
> |> and it should give them at least a little more exposure to a
> |> male role model. (Though if you have a GOOD Scoutmaster that
> |> "is seen and not heard", there wouldn't be too much interaction.)
> |>
> |> The only possible explaination, and this would be stretching
> |> for an excuse, would be that the troop requires a parent also
> |> participate at some predefined level (e.g., attend two
> |> camping trips each year), no women, no exceptions. In which case
> |> another male adult should be allowed (e.g., uncle, [much]
> |> older brother), or the rule should be waived when another male
> |> isn't available and an alternate duty should be provided.
> |>
> |> I suppose I'm part of shift in Scouting, as I don't see any reason
> |> female leaders should not be accepted, and females should not participate
> |> on trips (my wife disagrees :-) ). The first time I was a Webelos
> |> leader I had one mom and dad come on our tent trips with their
> |> son (the cabin trips were male only due to single room cabins).
>
> Our council has a rule (is it also a national one?) that no adult is
> allowed to sleep in the same tent (also room?) with a child that is
> not their own child. No matter how many other adults/children are in
> the sleeping area with them. How does this apply to cabins? I have
> heard comments about leaders sleeping outside in tents while the youth
> all slept in the cabin.
I'm only familiar with 5 council camps, St Louis (MO) Area Council,
Monmouth (NJ) Council, Ocean (NJ) Council, York (PA) Council,
and Daniel Webster (NH) Council, but we've had no problem
with Adults and Scouts sharing cabins. Monmouth is a little
paranoid in that they have separate showers for Adults and Scouts.
But at Daniel Webster I noticed that while the counceler were
separated from the participants, the male and female councelers
appeared to share the same quarters (don't really know for sure, there
were two other rooms), but they were definately under the same
tarp one night.
I suspect that as long as there are separate cots, there is no
problem.
Other councils might have their own rules.
>
> |> I had no problem with it, and the mom had a good time. I'm
> |> starting again with Webelos this year, and I have two boys who
> |> are in single parent families (due to divorce or death). Since
> |> their mothers both have been camping in the past, they are more
> |> than welcome to attend our trips (actually they will be required,
> |> since I want the trips to be 1 adult, 1 child), and I'll be sure
> |> the cabins have two rooms. Who knows, I may even get my wife to attend.
> |>
> |> > --
> |> > Timo Kiravuo, kir...@hut.fi
> |> > Helsinki University of Technology, Computer Center, Finland
> |>
> |> Marc
Marc
Dwight Tovey
>In article <1993Aug16.0...@g2syd.genasys.com.au> pet...@g2syd.genasys.com.au (Peter Johnston) writes:
>>In article <1993Aug12...@skcla.monsanto.com> bit...@skcla.monsanto.com writes:
>>>Not allowing boys from single parent homes into Scouting is problably the most
>>>short sighted policy have heard of yet.
>
>Who's idea is it to bar children from scouting based upon the childs parents?
I missed the start of this thread, so maybe I missed something important here.
But I don't think there is any official policy to exclude children of single
parent homes from scouting. In fact, one of the Den Leaders in our pack is
a single mother. She's a bit frazzled, but her son is one of the most active
members in the pack. There have been some outings where she couldn't make it,
so the other adults in the pack made arrangements to take her son. Maybe
some groups don't want to be bothered with single parents, but that is at
an individual group level, not a general policy for all scouting groups. If
there is a pack or troop that is excluding a child because of the parent's
marital status, perhaps their district exec should be made aware of the
situation.
Like I said, I missed the start of the thread, so maybe there were some
extra details that change the situation.
/dwight
--
Dwight Tovey | I didn't claw my way to the top of
Locus Computing Corp. | the food chain to eat vegetables.
(310)337-5978 |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Internet: dwi...@locus.com | The views I express are entirely my
bit...@skcla.monsanto.com
>
> A pedophile is someone who loves feet. The word you are looking for is
> paedophile. paed... as in paediatrics, paediatrician, etc. Not ped.. as
> in pedestrian, pedal, pedantic... ;-)
> Greg Harewood
> NMR Physics, UKC.
My spelling has enough problems.
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary
pedophile: "one affected with pedophilia"
pedophilia: "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred
sexual object"
"paed- or paedo- --- see PED-"
Americans continue to ruin the English language. No wonder I have
such problems with it. Dorland's Medical Dictionary agree's with
Webster. I don't have an "English" based dictionary. Could you
look it up in a real English dictionary? I would be interested in
knowing if this is just another example of the colonys going bad.
Steve Bittner
bit...@skcla.monsanto.com
Kevin Quah
I thought your original definition:
> >A pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to children.
argument can stand? I think some rationalization is going on here.
I dare you to read what you wrote:
>I have two comments in response to this. The first is that my
>definition was one of the off-the-top-of-my-head variety and I think
>that at this level of detail there are probably several well accepted
>definitions. The second is that attempting to arrive at a universally
>accepted definition of `pedophile' doesn't really move the discussion
>forward.
In response to your question:
> - Even if it could be shown that (I'm intentionally taking things to
> an extreme here) being openly gay precluded the possibility of
> raping a boy, that is, that all man-boy rape involved men who were
> either heterosexual or `closeted' gay men, would you still be
> inclined to discriminate against openly gay men?
These men cannot be heterosexual by definition because they are
engaging in same sex acts. They can only be homosexual or bisexual.
The premises of this question are not acceptable.
(Note: I used to fall for loaded questions. Not anymore.
For example:"Have you beaten your wife today?"
is an example of a loaded question. Answering the question
with an unqualiified affirmative or negative is a tacit
admission of being a wife-beater(if you have a wife).
Nice trick though ;)
> - Do you truly believe that this issue is one of the safety of the
> boys in the program, or could it actually be more of an expression
> either of a desire to impose a particular moral view or of
> fear/hatred/whatever of people who you and/or others see as
> `different'.
>
Yes, I believe it is one of safety of the boys in the program.
It is a question of taking reasonable precautions.
(See article 6958 in particular the kid in the candy store analogy).
The second part of your question is really a trap. I really hate
these loaded questions. The way you set it up, any answer must
be one of imposing moral views,fear and hatred on people
who are different. I know it is
"politically incorrect" to impose standards of behavior on
people and anybody who does runs the risk of being labelled
that favorite liberal word "bigot". Anyway I believe that
the BSA has a right to impose standards of behavior of
its members.
Lynn=McKee%...@bangate.compaq.com
As much as I hate to add fuel to this fire, I feel the need to respond:
>Quote from Rick Busdiecker <r...@lehman.com>
>Since starting a family, I've helped with some of my daughter's
>activities, some of which involved having a lot of young girls around.
>I assure you that my motivations had nothing to do with my sexuality.
>I think that the idea of having sex with a child is disgusting. To
>the best of my knowledge, that view is shared by virtually everyone
>that I know, gay and straight alike.
What about when the "child" is 16 or 17? (or in the case of Exploring
18,19, or 20)? I have 16 and 17 year old girls in my Explorer Post,
who aren't children! And please don't tell me a Gay male won't "hit on"
older boys. It happend to me at work when I was in High School. So, I
for one will continue to think there is cause for concern.
However, I'm sure that when we all become "enlightened" ;-) the BSA
in its infinite wisdom will have policy that will cover these situtations
as well as our current Youth Protection Policy. BTW Good training,
even if it borders on "Adult Leader Protection Policy" ;-).
On last comment and I'll be quiet. Since I'm new to this newsgroup,
is this the only topic, or y'all also discuss Scouting topics (as opposed
to Policy Topics)?
YIS,
Lynn McKee
Eagle Scout
Post Advisor, Troop Committe, Dist. Committee ...
David A. Scocca
>This is not the right question either. What you want to consider is
>the probability of a person who *tells you* that he is gay is
>volunteering because he wants to be "very close" to young boys.
(1) Isn't it sort of obvious that a Scout Leader who says "I am gay" is
not very likely to be trying to "fool" the other leaders into letting him
do something to the boys? Hell, don't ask don't tell is EXACTLY what you
DON'T want if you're afraid of sexual abuse problems.
(2) Let's be evenhanded. Maybe we should be worried about straight women
who say they want to work in the program because they want to "be close
to" the boys. Maybe we should require women in the scouting program to be
lesbians.
Simple observation over the years tells me that, despite all the possible
problems of media attention, much of this fuss is simply society's hang-up
about things sexual. If we compare the real incidence of sexual abuse in
the BSA to the incidence of emotional, physical, etc. abuse, we see the
BSA is going for the headlines more than for the problem.
Dave
--
* The Minstrel in the Gallery "Heteroskedastic" *
* D. A. Scocca sco...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu *
Greg
Yeah... All I have handy is 1970 shorter OED. It hasn't got the word in
any form... but:
Pedo- : see PAEDO-.
Paedo-, pedo-, occas. paido-, bef. a vowel paed-, ped-, comb. form of Greek
(pi)(alpha)is, (pi)(alpha)i(delta)- boys, child ; as in Paedogenesis,
Zool. production of offspring by immature or larval animals ; so
Paedogenetic a. Paedology, child study.
SO yeah, paedo is prefered, pedo is allowed (boo...) and it leaves you to
work ou the rest yourself ;-)
-phile : see -PHIL.
-phil (fil), -phile (), comb. element repr. Gr. (Theta)i(lambda)os loving,
dear. In Gr., found only in names, with the sense `dear, beloved',...
[more greeek while I can't be bothered with]
>
>Steve Bittner
>bit...@skcla.monsanto.com
I think for the sake of argument I'll claim that as a victory. Me, paedantic?
Nah...
Cheers,
Greg
bit...@skcla.monsanto.com
> Rick Buksdiecker Writes:
> Actually, if one can accept this issue as a reflection of a legitimate
> concern, as opposed to thinly veiled prejudice, then what is important
> is determining what legitimate indicators exist, for gay and straight
> volunteers alike, that a person's involvement is likely to be harmful.
>
_____
Determining these indicators and making a "judgement" on all individuals
is the primary duty of the troop committee. The amount of help one gets
from Council could easily be put in a thimble (smile) and I'm sure in
many troops the function is totally ignored. The policy about gays
is almost tokenism from National in dealing with leadership selection.
And ineffective at that. Determining if a man or women is gay or heterosexual
has never been one of my strong suits. (lack of caring either way is
the main reason).
However, if an adults sexuality becomes an issue for any reason,
it problably be better for the scouts if a different individual was
helping the troop.
______
Steve Bittner
bit...@skcla.monsanto.com
These opinions are strickly my own.
Any relationship to BSA policy is most likely a mistake.
Roy Radow
>>In article <RFB.93Au...@cfdev1426.lehman.com>, r...@lehman.com (Rick Busdiecker) writes:
>>
>> Rick Busdiecker writes:
>>>A pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to children.
>A pedophile is someone who loves feet. The word you are looking for is
>paedophile. paed... as in paediatrics, paediatrician, etc. Not ped.. as
>in pedestrian, pedal, pedantic... ;-)
Then what would you call someone who likes children's feet?
In Liberation,
Roy
--
Roy Radow r...@panix.com ...rutgers!cmcl2!panix!roy
North American Man/Boy Love Association -For a packet containing a sample
Bulletin, publications list and membership information send $1.00 postage
to: NAMBLA Info, Dept.RR, PO Box 174, Midtown Station, NYC NY 10018.
Rick Busdiecker
In article <1993Aug16...@skcla.monsanto.com> bit...@skcla.monsanto.com writes:
>In article <RFB.93Au...@cfdev1426.lehman.com>, r...@lehman.com (Rick Busdiecker) writes:
>
...
>Most heterosexual men volunteer for scouting to help their son. Maybe
>you can enlighten me on a motivation for gay men to become volunteers?
>As a committee chair I have the job of reviewing all volunteer's motivation
>and must take action if I found any volunteer that had questionable
>motivation.
Please try to avoid misleading attributions. For any who missed it,
Greg's post included my name directly above text written by Steve
Bittner. None of my text appeared in Greg's post, just my name.
--
Rick Busdiecker <r...@lehman.com> and <r...@cmu.edu>
Lehman Brothers
3 World Financial Center ``I never did give anybody hell. I just told
New York, NY 10285-0900 the truth and they thought it was hell.
(212) 640-9419 - Harry S. Truman
Rick Busdiecker
To Rick Busdiecker:
I thought your original definition:
> >A pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to children.
is pretty reasonable. Now you want to retract it so that your
argument can stand? I think some rationalization is going on here.
I dare you to read what you wrote:
>I have two comments in response to this. The first is that my
>definition was one of the off-the-top-of-my-head variety and I think
>that at this level of detail there are probably several well accepted
>definitions. The second is that attempting to arrive at a universally
>accepted definition of `pedophile' doesn't really move the discussion
>forward.
I thought that you were the one who wanted to keep the converstation
reasonable :-) Please note that, despite your claim, I did not
retract my definition, I merely stated that it was off of the top of
my head, that there are probably several reasonable definitions, and
that getting hung up on the definition doesn't move the conversation
forward.
In response to your question:
> - Even if it could be shown that (I'm intentionally taking things to
> an extreme here) being openly gay precluded the possibility of
> raping a boy, that is, that all man-boy rape involved men who were
> either heterosexual or `closeted' gay men, would you still be
> inclined to discriminate against openly gay men?
These men cannot be heterosexual by definition because they are
engaging in same sex acts. They can only be homosexual or bisexual.
Maybe by your definition. Of course, by your definition, if a man
rapes my sister, then she would suddenly become heterosexual. If the
act was not driven by the actors sexual desires then it doesn't speak
to their sexual desires.
The premises of this question are not acceptable.
(Note: I used to fall for loaded questions. Not anymore.
For example:"Have you beaten your wife today?"
is an example of a loaded question. Answering the question
with an unqualiified affirmative or negative is a tacit
admission of being a wife-beater(if you have a wife).
Nice trick though ;)
No trick intended. As you have already admitted to descrimination
against openly gay men and argued somewhat extensively in favor of it,
there would be no point in my trying to `trick' you into admitting.
My question was an attempt to get at the basis of your position.
> - Do you truly believe that this issue is one of the safety of the
> boys in the program, or could it actually be more of an expression
> either of a desire to impose a particular moral view or of
> fear/hatred/whatever of people who you and/or others see as
> `different'.
>
Yes, I believe it is one of safety of the boys in the program.
It is a question of taking reasonable precautions.
(See article 6958 in particular the kid in the candy store analogy).
Different servers have different article numbers. Mine's not up to
6958 yet. What's the Message-Id?
The second part of your question is really a trap. I really hate
these loaded questions. The way you set it up, any answer must
be one of imposing moral views,fear and hatred on people
who are different.
Again, no trick. I asked you straight out if you thought it was
possible that some people (note that the wording explicitly allows for
an answer that excludes your own motivations) were actually expressing
a desire to impose a particular view or expressing a variety of
xenophobia.
I know it is "politically incorrect" to impose standards of
behavior on people and anybody who does runs the risk of being
labelled that favorite liberal word "bigot". Anyway I believe
that the BSA has a right to impose standards of behavior of its
members.
I also believe that. I think we differ on the standards that are
appropriate. Unjustified prejudicial descrimination *is* bigotry
regardless of ones political leanings. Where we differ is as to
whether or not this particular bit of prejudicial descrimination is
justified. I believe that it is not and that I have yet to see a
reasonable argument to the contrary.
--
Rick Busdiecker <r...@lehman.com> and <r...@cmu.edu>
Lehman Brothers
Rick Busdiecker
As much as I hate to add fuel to this fire, I feel the need to respond:
>Quote from Rick Busdiecker <r...@lehman.com>
>Since starting a family, I've helped with some of my daughter's
>activities, some of which involved having a lot of young girls around.
>I assure you that my motivations had nothing to do with my sexuality.
>I think that the idea of having sex with a child is disgusting. To
>the best of my knowledge, that view is shared by virtually everyone
>that I know, gay and straight alike.
What about when the "child" is 16 or 17? (or in the case of Exploring
18,19, or 20)? I have 16 and 17 year old girls in my Explorer Post,
who aren't children! And please don't tell me a Gay male won't "hit on"
older boys. It happend to me at work when I was in High School. So, I
for one will continue to think there is cause for concern.
Umm, excuse me, but let's take a bit of a balanced look at the
particular example that you selected. Should your Explorer Post
simply not have any leaders, or is the risk of leaders making passes
only a concern when it involves members of the same sex?
On last comment and I'll be quiet. Since I'm new to this newsgroup,
is this the only topic, or y'all also discuss Scouting topics (as opposed
to Policy Topics)?
Scouting policy is a Scouting topic.
--
Rick Busdiecker <r...@lehman.com> and <r...@cmu.edu>
Lehman Brothers
Lynn=McKee%...@bangate.compaq.com
>>In article <7456219...@131.168.114.12> Lynn=McKee%NASE%NA=H...@bangate.compaq.com writes:
>> What about when the "child" is 16 or 17? (or in the case of Exploring
>> 18,19, or 20)? I have 16 and 17 year old girls in my Explorer Post,
>> who aren't children! And please don't tell me a Gay male won't "hit on"
>> older boys. It happend to me at work when I was in High School. So, I
>> for one will continue to think there is cause for concern.
>
>Quote from Rick Busdiecker <r...@lehman.com>
>Umm, excuse me, but let's take a bit of a balanced look at the
>particular example that you selected. Should your Explorer Post
>simply not have any leaders, or is the risk of leaders making passes
>only a concern when it involves members of the same sex?
>
Your excused. :-) Of course my only concern if about Homosexual
encounters. If a leader and consenting young adult of the opposite sex ....
I think the topic I was addressing was about pedophiles (however you want to
spell it). I probably should have been more clear.
Tim Fogarty
r...@lehman.com (Rick Busdiecker) writes:
|>qu...@sisters.cs.uoregon.edu (Kevin Quah) writes:
[men having sex with boys]
|> These men cannot be heterosexual by definition because they are
|> engaging in same sex acts. They can only be homosexual or bisexual.
|>
|>Maybe by your definition. Of course, by your definition, if a man
|>rapes my sister, then she would suddenly become heterosexual. If the
|>act was not driven by the actors sexual desires then it doesn't speak
|>to their sexual desires.
Please note that a pedophile (or paedophile) is a person who's sexual
orientation is towards prepubecent children. A fixated paedophile is
neither heterosexual or homosexual.
Now an adult male who had sex with a post-pubecent male would be either
homosexual or bisexual. Often such men are married.
Whether having sex with a post-pubecent minor is illegal or not depends
on where the sex takes place. In some western countries, the age of consent
is 14. Usually there are additional laws making it illegal to have sex with
a minor in your charge, such as between teacher and student, coach and athlete,
clergy and (?), doctor and patient.
If a man looking to molest pre- or post- pubecent children wanted
to get into a youth organization, the last thing he would do is
declare himself to be gay.
--
Tim Fogarty (FOG...@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV)
Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1 and SRL-2
SRL-1: STS-59, launch date March 31, 1994
SRL-2: STS-68, launch date October 27, 1994
Tim Fogarty
In article <7457099...@131.168.114.12>,
Lynn=McKee%NASE%NA=H...@bangate.compaq.com writes:
Is the smiley in the right place ?
Lynn McKee says that its wrong for a scout leader to have sex with a
consenting young adult scout (age 16-18) of the same sex, but that its OK
for a scout leader to have sex with a consenting young adult scout (16-18)
of the opposite sex.
Is such a person qualified to be a scout leader ?
Sex with a minor in your charge, of consenting age or not, is wrong.
--
Tim Fogarty (FOG...@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV)
Eagle Scout, 1977
no longer allowed to be associated with scouting
due to BSA's policies regarding homosexuality
wal...@wkuvx1.bitnet
>>BET...@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu (Beth Allerton) writes:
>>>>
>>> In a N.FL Region
North Florida doesn't have a REGION...they are part of the Southern
Region, Beth....you are *I am sure* referring to the North Florida
COUNCIL. Different title...smaller area....*smile*
Pow Wow class on den administration, the
>>> discussion wandered to troops. MANY of the leaders and the "teacher" had
>>> the policy not to allow boys with a single female parent into their troop.
>>> I was told that single moms can't give time/energy to the troop committee.
And what does THAT matter?? Most "dual" families can't give time/energy to the
Troop Committee!!! So what's the "teacher's" plan for getting families
to work with the Troop...I know already. I'm not flaming you, because
you are just the messenger...but he's WRONG according to the BSA...and me.
>>> At the same time they did not want a "woman" teaching the boys - they need
>>> to be lead by men.
I think that they need to have a large anvil to drop on their
collective heads!! The days, Beth, of "males leading and females
cooking bread and cookies" are OVER FOREVER. If (using one of my most
famous statements, which helped to convince the BSA of this stupid
policy) "I can be recruited by a female, trained by a female, have to
listen to a female tell me what my Troop can and cannot do, be coached
by a female, go to a camporee where a female is in charge, and
finally, turn in paperwork to a female, SURELY a female can serve in
my role as Scoutmaster!!"
(the positions, if you are trying to count them out, are District
Committee, Boy Scout Roundtable Staff, Troop Committee Chair,
Woodbadge Coach-Counsellor, Camporee Commissioner, and District
Executive...all which were valid positions that females could hold
before the BSA opened the door widest to allow for female Scoutmasters
and Assistants)
>>Not allowing boys from single parent homes into Scouting is problably the most
>>short sighted policy have heard of yet.
> The original poster had to be kidding... right???
I am sure she's not. There are still lots of those out there that
still feel this way....and many of them were in the *exact situation*
that I just described here before...
> My troop, at one point, was made up nearly *exclusively* of boys from either
> single-parent or divorced-parent homes, and this was long before the policy
> opened up the SM and ASM position to women. Many of our single mothers have
> been extremely effective members of our troop committee (single dads, too, in
> the few cases where we've had motherless scouts.)
> This was being taught on a REGIONAL level??? By whom? I certainly hope that
> this individual's comments were brought to someone's attention. No matter what
> training you're doing in the BSA, you should be sticking to whats in the
> printed policy so that someone can reference it later. You may not always
> agree with the printed policy, but then again, most human beings are quite
> good at forming their own opinions now, aren't they?
Settummanque!
Mike L. Walton
Margaret Frances Disbury
>>In article <RFB.93Au...@cfdev1426.lehman.com>, r...@lehman.com (Rick Busdiecker) writes:
>> Rick Busdiecker writes:
>>>A pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to children.
>
>I know this is going to seem incredibly petty, but for anyone who knows a
>smattering of latin, this really grates.
[explanation deleted]
>
>Greg
>--
>Greg Harewood
>NMR Physics, UKC.
YO ! Go to it !
Etymology is GREAT ! Get some now !
Fran
--
___________________________________________________________________
Fran Disbury JANET: m...@uk.ac.aber Internet: m...@aber.ac.uk
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Frances Disbury
>
>Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary
> pedophile: "one affected with pedophilia"
> pedophilia: "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred
> sexual object"
>
> "paed- or paedo- --- see PED-"
>
>Americans continue to ruin the English language. No wonder I have
>such problems with it. Dorland's Medical Dictionary agree's with
>Webster. I don't have an "English" based dictionary. Could you
>look it up in a real English dictionary? I would be interested in
>knowing if this is just another example of the colonys going bad.
>
Yup. Bull's eye. And UK spells these things with the original
diphthongs.
>
>Steve Bittner
>bit...@skcla.monsanto.com
Fran [I know the 10th Guide law & I've been terribly good recently.
So now I'm having a nice little freak-out :-) ]
Bob Snyder
>back...because of his surgery (in 1985); why Bush didn't attend in
>1989 (because of pressing matters dealing with the economy..).
If that wasn't George Herbert Walker Bush at the 1989 Jamboree, it was a
damn good impersonator. :-) Seriously, as my memory serves, he originally
cancelled out, but showed up at the last minute.
>The days of having the President to attend a open-air event which
>would require much military and Secret Service support is just about
>over...for security reasons, those of you that remember, every person
>had to be checked by police officers before Nancy Reagan, representing
>her husband, came out of the helicopter to address the assembled
>arena.
Well the Jamboree is held on a Reserve base, making it a bit easier to pull
up the Military as needed. Of course, I believe I recall the people
selling the Uniforms at the trading post say they sold half of them a day
or two before Bush arrived to "Secret Service types."
Bob
1989 Trading Post A staff
Bob McGwier
Tim says:
>Sex with a minor in your charge, of consenting age or not, is wrong.
AMEN, and in the state of New Jersey as in most places a FELONY with
mandatory sentences without parole for a LONG time. In New Jersey,
it is a FELONY not to report it if you have evidence it is occuring.
BMc
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert W. McGwier | n4...@ccr-p.ida.org
Center for Communications Research | Interests: amateur radio, astronomy,golf
Princeton, N.J. 08520 | Asst Scoutmaster Troop 5700, Hightstown
Greg
>Greg's post included my name directly above text written by Steve
>Bittner. None of my text appeared in Greg's post, just my name.
Sorry.
Rick Busdiecker
Your excused. :-) Of course my only concern if about Homosexual
encounters. If a leader and consenting young adult of the opposite sex ....
So, are you saying that, basically, you don't have any particular
basis for it, you're prejudiced against gays `just because'?
Out of curiousity, by your own standards, what distinguishes justified
discrimination from bigotry?
Greg Highfield
>
> Excuse me, correct me if I'm wrong. But aren't pedophiles (specifically
> male Scout leaders that sexually abuse Scouts under their charge) actually
> gay men who prefer younger men (ie.boys). I know that some of these people
> may actually be married, but that does not necessarily make them
> heterosexual at heart. These people have crossed over the line and
> abused their authority and trust. But my point is they(male sexually abusive
> scout leaders) must necessarily be gay at heart.
Even if all pedophiles were gay (which I don't believe is a true statement),
that doesn't make all gays pedophiles, or even a majority of gays, or even
lot of gays. Equating homosexuality with pedophilia is the same as saying
that because I'm white, I must be a member of the Klan. Do you want your
son exposed to Klan influenses? If not maybe you better get rid of all
white leaders. Sounds a bit silly doesn't it?
> The BSA's policy excluding gays is discriminatory. But it is legitimate
> discrimination. We discriminate among people all the time. Employers
> discriminate among potential job applicants based on qualifications,
> attitude etc. Better qualifications and attitude does not necessarily equal
> better job performance (ie. there may be exceptions). But just because there
> are exceptions do not make such practices invalid. Employers increase the
> probability of choosing a better employee by discriminating in this way.
> There are no absolutes when it comes to screening practices - only
> probabilities.
Descrimination is never legitimate. Employers set standards to be met that
relate to the job to be done. Quotas are a form of descrimination, but that
is forced on employers by the courts/government, not by choice.
> Do not try to debunk this analogy with one replacing "qualifications" with
> "race". It will break down because there is absolutely no correlation between
> race and job performance( Of course, I have absolutely no scientific evidence
> to back up this claim - but it is the "politically correct" thing to say and
> if there are any studies or opinions to the contrary then they must be
> BIGOTTED and RACIST.....hmmm... don't take this too seriously folks - it
> is beside the main point).
You're right, you're babbling.
> The BSA has a problem with sex abuse among its members. By excluding gays,
> it decreases the probability of such abuses. Therefore, it is a reasonable
> and legitimate discriminatory practice. It will not totally eliminate the
> problem (there ain't no silver bullet), but it will minimize it. While
> there is no way to tell empirically that a person is gay, those that are
> openly gay can be actually be identified (I think I am stating the obvious
> - dah!).
Wrong. BSA does not exclude gays, because they have no way of telling who
they are. There is no litmus test to tell BSA who is gay and who is not.
The BSA will remove gays when they do find out they are present in the
program. By your logic the way to prevent child abuse is to get rid of ALL
leaders. That way there will be no one to abuse the boys.
The best way to prevent abuse is to follow BSA rules and never allow one-on-one
situations between leaders and boys. Always have at least one other leader
present. Or are so homophobic that you think your whole troop has been
taken over by gays.
ASM, Troop 291, Circle Ten Council
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Highfield Internet: gr...@lobby.ti.com
Greg Highfield
>To Tom Cronin:
> I cannot quite agree with the statistics that you say you remembered.
>You may have mixed up child abuse (both girls and boys) with your
>figures for those involving men and boys. I take your point that sexual
>abuse probably involves a need to exert power mainly because the sexual
>predator will probably need to exert such power to keep the victim
>quiet. But I still think such abuse has to start with some kind of
>physical attraction for the victim.
>
>But here are some points
>to consider:
>
>1) Society wisely separates the opposite sexes in places such as
> public restrooms, changing rooms and dormitories. Ask yourself
> why. You may say that you will be able restrain yourself around
> someone you are attracted to in such places, but if you consider
> whether the entire population can be so restrained in such
> situations - you can be sure that "incidents" will happen.
If you replace "sexes" with "races" in the above, it sounds like
we're back in the 1940s. And is just about as valid (NOT). I hear that
in Europe, uni-sex bathrooms are not uncommon (if not the norm in some
areas). Society there doesn't fall apart. So yes, "the entire population
can be so restrained" as you say.
>2) The underlying principle is to take REASONABLE precautions to
> keep people away from avoidable temptation. For example: it
> would not be prudent to put a thousand dollars on the dashboard
> of your car and park it in an unsafe place. Of course it would
> be unreasonable and downright criminal for anyone to break into
> your car to steal the money. But the point is that you should take
> reasonable precautions and not unduly tempt people.
Excluding an entire segment of society based on unfounded homophobic
hysteria is not "REASONABLE precautions" any more than excluding women
because they might seduce our Boy Scouts that are confused by thier
raging adolescent hormones.
>3) In the same way, the BSA can and should take precautions to prevent
> people who may have an "unhealthy" interest in each other from
> being together in close proximity. Allowing openly gay scouts or
> leaders into the organization would cause a great deal of discomfort
> and could lead to possible sexual incidents. This same question
> has to be dealt with by the military as soldiers,airmen and sailors
> often have to share bunks beds and changing rooms. Allowing
> openly gay people into such a situation means reasonable precautions
> have not been taken (little kid loose in a candy store analogy).
> Yes many good kids will not steal candy, but you can be sure many will.
> Precaution: Don't let little kids loose in a candy store.
So I take it you advocate prohibiting women from holding Pack and Troop
postitions in scouting because they may have an "unhealthy" interest in
the boys. Just think of all those filthy old women in a "candy store"
full of succulent young boys. We know how heterosexual females are attracted
to males, quick, get the ropes and string those biddies up before they do some
harm.
>4) At the same time, I support the don't ask don't tell policy.
> A person's sexuality is a private matter eg. you don't go on a
> witch hunt to find out who is a little kid so you can decide
> who can be let loose in the candy store. This would be an example
> of an unreasonable precaution. I know it is a little
> easier to identify little kids in real life but please bear
> with my poor analogy. Let's pretend we can't identify them
> until they reveal themselves.
> But once someone is open about his sexual orientation, then
> authorities in an organisation should use such information to ensure
> that individuals are not placed in situations of undue temptation
> or conflict of interest. This is also a political precaution
> because if should any incident occur and if it is known that the
> BSA knew about the gay sexual orientation of the male scout leaders,
> you can be sure that the parents and the media would be shouting
> bloody murder and cover-up. After all, an adolescent boy is
> sexually a male(dah!). Remember that adolescence is just an artificial
> phase of growing up created for modern society. In many societies
> of the past, 13 years is the age of adulthood for males.
What a crock. You don't support a don't ask don't tell policy. You said
in an earlier post how unfortunate it was there wasn't "silver bullet" that
could detect who was gay and who was straight. You, Joe McCarthy, and
George Wallace would have been best buddies on your little witch hunts.
As I said in an earlier post, the best precaution to prevent child abuse
is BSA's policy of two deep leadership. Always have multiple leaders
present any time you are doing something with the boys. Unless of course
Mr. Quah thinks ALL the leaders are closet gays.
ASM, Troop 291, Circle Ten Council, BSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Highfield Internet: gr...@lobby.ti.com
Texas Instruments
C. D. Tavares
> >Please note what I said is the motivating force... the BSA is not so much
> >bothered by Joe and Josie doing it as it is bothered by BEING SUED cos Joe
> >and Josie did it behind a tree at scout camp...
> >The BSA doesn't care where the hell they do it so long as they ain't liable....
>
> So why does the BSA permit rifle shooting?
Because rifles can be stored in locked cabinets when Scouts are not
under direct supervision, unlike...
--
c...@rocket.sw.stratus.com --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR c...@vos.stratus.com write today for my special Investors' Packet...
wal...@wkuvx1.bitnet
> In article <1993Aug14....@wkuvx1.bitnet> wal...@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>>back...because of his surgery (in 1985); why Bush didn't attend in
>>1989 (because of pressing matters dealing with the economy..).
>
> If that wasn't George Herbert Walker Bush at the 1989 Jamboree, it was a
> damn good impersonator. :-) Seriously, as my memory serves, he originally
> cancelled out, but showed up at the last minute.
I stand corrected. Thanks, Bob for reminding me. But my point was
that getting the President to commit to attending the Jamboree
nowadays is really really hard.
>>The days of having the President to attend a open-air event which
>>would require much military and Secret Service support is just about
>>over...for security reasons, those of you that remember, every person
>>had to be checked by police officers before Nancy Reagan, representing
>>her husband, came out of the helicopter to address the assembled
>>arena.
>
> Well the Jamboree is held on a Reserve base, making it a bit easier to pull
> up the Military as needed. Of course, I believe I recall the people
> selling the Uniforms at the trading post say they sold half of them a day
> or two before Bush arrived to "Secret Service types."
As a military officer, I can tell you first-hand how hard it really is
to get military people reassigned for a "extra duty detail" like this.
First off, Fort A.P. Hill is NOT a reserve base. It is a active-duty
base, under the direction and control of Fort Lee, Virginia (the
actual title is a "sub-base" or "sub-installation". According to
_Army_Times, there are 224 active-duty personnel and another 113
civilian bodies on the post during regular times. The mission of Fort
A.P. Hill has always been since the start up of supporting Reserve
forces from the Army and Marine Corps that come there to conduct
annual training exercises.
The Army's committment to the Boy Scouts has lessen and lessen each
time we've had a Jamboree....in 1973, there was the equilant of a full
Division placed between the two sites; in 1977 and 81, there was the
equal of a military brigade there doing "temporary duty" (TDY) there
at the Jamboree sites, and in 1985, that was reduced to two
Battalions. This year, according to my Army buddies, only the equal
of ONE battalion (about 600 personnel), was present supporting the
Jamboree. That's NOT enough to provide support to a visiting
President (and the Secret Service folks).
(for those of you not familiar with military numbers, a division is
upwards of 11,000 soldiers; a brigade, about 4500; a battalion about
600 as I've mentioned earlier. The numbers vary slightly according to
mission and location, but those are the rough estimates).
We have a terrible time getting Reservists to support active-duty
missions, let alone "humanitarian and public-service" missions like
the Jamboree. There's not enough money in the military's nor the
Army's to support it, and that's the main reason why the support has
dropped. (In 1985, the Army sent a Signal Battalion there to conduct
it's external evaluation and support the Jamboree at the same
time...this time, the BSA had to contract MCI and C & P telephone to
do the same things.)
Settummanque!
Mike L. Walton
a reserve mobilization officer AND Scouter....
Paul S. Wolf
I usually don't feel I am able to contradict Mike Walton on Scout issues,
but, in a recent post, he said:
> why Bush didn't attend in
>1989 (because of pressing matters dealing with the economy..).
President Bush DID attend the 1989 Jambo. A special Arena show
was held one of the days in between the scheduled shows, with all areas
closed and the subsequent LONG hikes for many scouts. It was a DAYTIME
show and was NOT appreciated by some attendees.
It would be nice if SOMEONE actually contacted the White House to
find out why President Clinton didn't attend (the official reason).
Paul Wolf
Jim Corder
Robert Johnson <joh...@uts.amdahl.com> wrote:
>ka...@col.hp.com (Dan Kary) writes:
>
>>sco...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (David A. Scocca) writes:
>In Santa Cruz County, United Way just last week finally decided to pull
>their funding out of BSA.
Hello:
If this is true, I will no longer give money to the United Way. I
will ask my employeer to NOT remove money from my pay. I will try to get
others to do the same.
I don't think the United Way should except U.S. money! Remember,
"In God We Trust"!!!
Just my $.02,
James D. Corder
Eagle
wal...@wkuvx1.bitnet
> I usually don't feel I am able to contradict Mike Walton on Scout issues,
> but, in a recent post, he said:
>
>> why Bush didn't attend in
>>1989 (because of pressing matters dealing with the economy..).
>
>
> President Bush DID attend the 1989 Jambo. A special Arena show
> was held one of the days in between the scheduled shows, with all areas
> closed and the subsequent LONG hikes for many scouts. It was a DAYTIME
> show and was NOT appreciated by some attendees.
Paul....you and oneother person caught that..I was writing too fast
before I hit 'm' and the our mailer went down for a
while...sorry...but
yes, you and Mark are absolutely correct...but it was the logistics
that I was mainly commenting about..
> It would be nice if SOMEONE actually contacted the White House to
> find out why President Clinton didn't attend (the official reason).
>
Still working on that one....
Settummanque!@HEY!, Even Scouters make mistakes...hehehehe
Mike L. Walton
David A. Scocca
Jim Corder <j...@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>In article <a0.p03l...@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>,
>Robert Johnson <joh...@uts.amdahl.com> wrote:
>>ka...@col.hp.com (Dan Kary) writes:
>>>sco...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu (David A. Scocca) writes:
>>In Santa Cruz County, United Way just last week finally decided to pull
>>their funding out of BSA.
>
didn't post anything about the Santa Cruz United Way. But more power to
them anyway!
> I don't think the United Way should except U.S. money! Remember,
>"In God We Trust"!!!
The United Way doesn't "except" U.S. money. It's take your money no
matter where it's from.
Bob Novak
Central Ohio Council. It is our annual POWWOW - advanced training for
cub scout leaders. We usually have over 700 attendees, 50 courses,
lunch, and a midway. Ihave been told of NUMEROUS ways to use a
spreadsheet - none of which seem adequate. I want to be able to take
the data from a database and run it through a scheduling program that
can handle 8 class periods and some set criteria (e.g. if you take
lunch in the 4th period, you get midway in the 7th). I have access to
IBM PC, IBM mainframes, unix boxes, macintoshes - you name it. I just
need the program (yes, i might be able to write it myself BUT do you
have the time with scouting, work etc - you do? well we could use ...)
All kidding aside, if you have any info that might help please let me
know via email and I can summarize for the group.
address is:
thanks
--
Bob Novak
INET: bob....@cas.org