Talk:Boy Scouts of America/Controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

controversy

"Since the Scout Oath includes the phrase "to do my Duty to God and Country," many people are confused why atheists would want to join the Boy Scouts."

Reading that sounds HIGHLY POV, highly judgemental. Any way to add it so that it does not have that tone? I don't personally think it needs to be in there- no quotes to back it up are in the entry, and a person can form their own ideas with the information presented. Lyellin 04:45, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)

Clearly POV. You were right to remove it. The person who added that bit might consider that atheists would want to change the oath - not so confusing after all. -- stewacide 04:54, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Having been an atheist at the time of getting my Eagle (since become Quaker), I KNOW there are reasons to be a Boy Scout that does not tie to Duty to God. Just glad someone agrees on the correctness of removing. Still new and nervous. Lyellin 04:59, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)
Don't be nervous, that was a good call, and the talk page is definatly the place to put it. Gentgeen 06:48, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I would like to note a number of things that, though I did not immediately find anything incorrect, I saw that the way several instances were worded, a non-scouter could misunderstand several elements about scouting. In addition, in the controversy section dealing with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and its involvement and support of the Scouting Movement, I found the wording to be particularly unclear. As both a member of this church and a very active BSA member (hence my wiki name), and one who recently went on a varsity crew trip to Canada, may I offer an alternative for these sections? Will post them beneath this note as I have the time. I apologise for any programming mishaps that may occur when I type them into the discussion page. New to Wikipedia =) -- Eaglescoutguy
  • 1. To replace paragraph 7 of the Controversy section. Reason? I do not think it adequately explains my church's views on Boy Scouting. My church is also referenced only in the controversy section. Two bits of incorrect information were also given, that the LDS church funds the Scouting organization there (it does not fund the organization, but it does sponsor individual scouting troops composed and lead by its members, thus being inherently non-homosexual in nature. A slim difference, but notably important in resolving a seeming inconsistency.), and also that the LDS church funds the Girl Scouts of the USA. To the best of my awareness, my church no longer funds nor sponsors Girl Scouting groups. A few individual members that I know do support the Girl Scouts, but not the church as a whole, due to its tolerance of homosexual leadership. This may lead to the confusion here.
(Text offered to replace paragraph 7 of the Controversy section, the one dealing with my church's involvement in scouting)
"One of the major contributors to the BSA, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, may have had some influence in the BSA's policy with regards to homosexuality. This church has throughout the BSA's existence supported the organization both financially and by providing many members of the BSA. However, this church threatened to remove its support of the BSA if this policy is removed. Some people have found this strange, noting that the LDS church currently sponsors scouting troops in Canada, while the Scouts Canada organization permits homosexuals to join . While this seems inconsistent to some, church members note that the only troops sponsored in Canada are composed and based off of the church members in the area, thus being inherently non-homosexual in nature. This church is against homosexuality in Boy Scouting because of its beliefs against homosexuality, noting a desire to ensure that their children's troops are not led by people who's beliefs directly contradict their own."
  • I am addin a version very similer to your own in place of the other paragraph. My main reason for wanting to be proactive on this is because i believe that you are right in saying that the LDS church does not support the GSUSA, as the article currently implys. The status of the Canadian scouts hardly seems relevent to me on this page but i will go ahead and leave intact. Cavebear42 17:26, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What does In both cases, the troops sponsored are composed of the church members in the area, thus being inherently non-homosexual in nature. mean? Is it supposed to claim that there are no gay Mormons? Is there a source for that? I've met two gay Mormon adults active in the Boy Scouts. Tuf-Kat 00:29, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, on reviewing the section, I think you are right in saying that the status of the Canadian Scouts is irrelevant Cavebear42, now that the controversy regarding said scouts has been cleared up (hopefully). TUF-KAT, I think I need to clarify. First, the term Mormon, when used to refer to someone's religion, most often refers to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but also refers in many times to other churches as well, with far different beliefs than mine. That sentence of mine is supposed to claim that there are no actively gay members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, a subtle difference. As I'm 15 years old, I don't know how to word the paragraph to clearly say this, if it needs to be given in the article at all. Support: http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-60-1,00.html. (LDS Church official website page) Part of this page essentially means that if a member with gay inclinations pursues those inclinations (becoming actively gay), means will be taken against him. If he doesn't act on these inclinations, he can go forward like all the rest. Oh, by the way, should we remove the Scouts Canada section of that paragraph? Should I clear my first discussion post/edit? --- Eaglescoutguy
No opinion on Canadian scouts, but I disagree with your claim. The two people I know are indeed actively gay and also members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The other churchgoers are not aware of their active homosexuality. The link provided doesn't claim that there are no active gay members, only that gays who act on their urges are "subject to the discipline of the church" and can not "go forward" as other members do -- there are gays whom the church doesn't know about, and even if they do, it isn't clear that "discipline" means kicking them out. Tuf-Kat 19:35, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • True followers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints belive that marriage is a sacred covenant ordained by God, between a man and a woman. There are homosexual members that church leaders don't know about. If a member is found to practice homosexuality and does not stop and repent, they are disfellowshipped or excommunicated.
  • "Mormon" was originally a derogatory term used by those who ridiculed the church. It was somewhere along the lines of calling a black man "nigger". These days it's not that offensive, but it is not a very appropriate way to address the church, though some members refer to themselves that way. There are also 'branch off' churches that go by that name, so using it can cause confusing.
I'd also like to say that another reason the BSA doesn't allow homosexuals is the same reason you don't boys and girls in tents together. I'm not sure if that's offial, but I'm sure it's there.

Online sources: Offial statement about the law of chastity | Article about church discipline by Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve -Jobarts 06:07, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I am new here, so I might not be doing this right. I think that the paragraph on the LDS Church should be modified to reflect to specify that most AMERICAN young men are enrolled in the BSA as a matter of routine. I guess you assume that because we're talking about the Boy Scouts of AMERICA, but the article isn't clear, since more than 50% of Church members live outside the US, the statement is technically incorrect. Anyway, I'm not going to make the change because I don't want to break anything, and somebody will probably disagree and tell me I should leave well enough alone.
  • I am a Satanist, yet love boy scouts. I was in it from 92-97. And I am currently trying to get re-established as an adult leader for a troop and get a new sea scout organization in my area (my council, the Greater Western Reserve, only has one sea scout crew in the whole area, and it is quite small). I hope to one day change that contriversy about "duty to god", since I know alot of ppl that are not christians in my time in scouting. --Admiral Roo June 28, 2005 11:46 (UTC)


Balance and proportion on the gay/atheist issue

The Controversy section is important, needs to be there, and is pretty good. But I honestly do not think that the controversy over gay and atheist membership is such an important defining characteristic of the BSA that it deserves to be mentioned in the introductory paragraph. I suppose one could say that the BSA has long maintained that Scouts should be "reverent," i.e. adhere to traditional American fuzzy deism; and has "clean," i.e. adhere to traditional sexual morality. But I don't think this has been a major preoccupation of most scoutmasters in most troops at most times. Dpbsmith 12:37, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in the intro. I just found the edit before mine to be excessive. --Jiang 20:29, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It also wasn't factually accurate, as the Learning-for-Life and Exploring Divisions of the BSA don't have any religious or sexual orientation requirements. Those divisions (for 14-21 year old boys and girls) allows the units to make such decisions for their own membership. Gentgeen 21:12, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I've never heard of A Scout is clean having anything to do with sexual morality. I'd always read it as not covered in dirt. --Habap 14:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Neither have I, but sadly, I think the BSA is paying for this issue right now. From what I heard, the Government cannot fund the 2009 Jamboree. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Usually, Scouts assume that the Oath's morally straight has something to do with this, but since the Oath was written before straight was used to mean not homosexual, that also is not the case. --Habap 18:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
'Clean' means much more than 'not covered in dirt'. (This came up in one of my Boards of Review, I think.) It includes, among other things that I've forgotten, cleanliness of thought and speech, for instance, avoiding swearwords. I think it could also be legitimately (but not unequivocally) construed to oppose homosexuality. --Smack (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we ought to divide the controversy section into three parts - historical controversies, the atheism issue, and the homosexuality issue. crazyeddie 21:56, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps; perhaps not. Some important points (i.e. BSA vs. Dale) apply to membership disputes in general, rather than to any specific controversy. However, the section is certainly long enough that some of the details relating to particular issues could be split off into subections. --Smack (talk) 23:21, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BSA doesn't try to keep out atheists. Some atheists want the Duty to God part of the oath taken out, but I think that if a being is non-existent, you couldn't have any duty to it, so no matter what you do you won't fail in that duty. I don't think I know any atheists personally, so if any of you see this, I'd like to know what you think. I'm not sure how to best represent that point of view in the article. Thoughts? -Jobarts 06:50, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

The BSA does try to keep out atheists. See http://www.scoutingforall.org/aaic/2002021201.shtml. Nereocystis 18:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not an atheist, but if I were, I would have serious issues with swearing duty to something I don't believe exists. If you were asked to take upon yourself a duty to the Great Randazzo, would you refuse? --Smack (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I became an agnostic while in scouts, but stayed closeted. A bit uncomfortable. Swearing an oath to a being I didn't believe in did feel pretty dishonest and not in keeping with the overall tradition of scouting. Not sure what happens if an openly atheistic or agnostic boy or prospective leader tries to join up. crazyeddie 06:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Why is the controversy section claiming that the Boy Scouts only restricts homosexual leaders, not members? 4.154.100.135 07:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Why has the controversies section been moved to a different article entirely? Isn't this a violation of the no-POV-fork guideline or something? Also, I think we need more information on how exactly the chain of command works on the national level - i.e., what can individual troops and councils do to influence decisions made at the national level? crazyeddie 06:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The current controversy section says this: "In order to comply with anti-discrimination laws, some localities have withdrawn Boy Scout access to public schools and facilities." I'm with Scouting For All, and I see this "factoid" all over, but never a list of what localities have actually done this. The Broward school system attempted this a few years ago, got sued by the BSA, and lost. If no other localities can be named, this sentence should be removed. What many schools and communities HAVE done is remove SPECIAL ACCESS, such as free use of facilities that other groups must pay for, and in-school recruiting. 66.77.224.249 03:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


Boy Scout director charged with having child porn

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7326932/

Time to start forming a new section.

Not really. First of all, though by all indications the allegations are likely true, he hasn't been convicted. Second, an incident involving a single Scouter, no matter how high-placed, is not significant on the scale of the BSA, which includes tens of thousands of adult leaders. --Smack (talk) 00:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
if he in indicted, it might make him a candidate for his own article and this info could exist in it. Cavebear42 17:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
He pled guilty to a charge of possession and distribution of child pornography on 30 March 2005. I doubt that owning child porn and being a Scouter would in itself be worthy of an article. - Nunh-huh 06:13, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Nunh-huh on this one. Being a Scout leader and having child porn does not relate to each other at all. IMHO, I do not think the leader who got busted even deserves an article, since this is pretty much all he was known for. Plus, in a few months from now, his name will cross very few minds. Zscout370 (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Nunh-huh and ZScout. Johntex 17:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


Violence in the Scouts

I added a paragraph about some stuff that happened back in the 1980s were there was, for lack of a better term, a "wave" of incidents where scouts were getting beat up on campout trips by older scouts. I was actually at Goshen when the beating occurred, it was in 1987 at I think Olmstead Camp. I'd be interested in hearing of efforts the BSA has made in the past twenty years to prevent such occurences since I know now they take it pretty seriously (or at least should). -Husnock 21:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When I was in the scouts, the leaders took everything seriously. The training they take, along with the booklet about sexual harasment that every scout compeltes, in my view, has curbed many of these events from taking place. Now, I just think scouting's main concern is to keep their morals and funding intact. Sadly, my dad also thinks scouting has become like a day care, almost. Some call the BSA "Baby Sitters of America." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Z. Even at the camp staff level as youth, we were strictly instructed on youth protection protocols just in case another scout disclosed to us that there was something afoul. And Scouting has become a day care. My father's almost given up on the Chairman of the Eagle Board of Review position that he took a few years ago because Scoutmasters and other adults won't do their part in developing young men to Eagle potential, they just refer it all to him and let him play the bad guy. Anyways, that's not the point. The BSA has done a pretty good job of stamping physical incidents out, but IMHO, at the cost of a lot more. KC9CQJ 08:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's a mistake to say that "Scouting has become" something. It's a highly decentralized organization. Every troop is different. I can say that my troop has gone a little way down the road to spinelessness, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a day care. And it certainly has no lack of adult leaders who motivate Scouts to excel. --Smack (talk) 05:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The first troop I was in, 36, was largely "bad boys", and frowned upon by the council. While I was never beatn up, I was made fun of, I was locked in the girl's gym locker for a night at school (our middle school was the charter for the troop), and I did not get far in rank since no one would help me. The school eventually decided, about a year after I joined a much better troop, 11, to drop the troop, and no one else wanted to charter 36. The leader was kicked out, and the troop disbanded. I am glad I did not stay long in their. --Admiral Roo June 28, 2005 11:53 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, it appears that the 70's and 80's were rough in many ways. My first troop in 1974 was a bunch of hooligans- my week as a Tenderfoot at Camp Shenandoah was particularly bad. Luckily, I moved into a really great troop, and have stuck at Scouting through the years. In 1985 or so, I recall that as a Scoutmaster, I had to break up a "secret society" that had formed in my troop. Since then, the Youth Protection Program has come into effect, and has made a profound impact on the program. The program does do a much better job of protecting both youth and leaders. It's pretty boring (and I have taught it many times) but effective; the new online certifications are really quite good. BSA now offers the online certs to any person or group.

UUA + Tolerance

The UUA has specified that they prefer "acceptance" to "tolerance." They believe that "tolerance" conveys a negative message, as in "oh, i can tolerate them." Therefore I changed this.Veritos 21:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


Discrimination against "Infidels" and Bisexual/Gay people:

See Talk:Girl Scouts of the USA#Discrimination against "Infidels" and Bisexual/Gay people:. --Mistress Selina Kyle 19:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


Faith based

Faith (a scout is reverent) is only a part of scouting, thus to note in the lead-in that it is "faith based" is rather misleading. See the creeds section for a full list of "what scouting is about". Scouting does not recognize any particular denomination or brand of faith as "official", thus it does not typify a faith based organizaion. I know that as a member of the BSA, I do have a POV here, but I do not see that non-scouts see the BSA as a orginization that is primarily religious in nature. --Gadget850 23:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

True. In my experience, one could get very far without any faith at all. I had to indicate a religious preference on my application form, but that was practically the last I heard about it until I went for Eagle. However, troops vary widely; in Texas they may do things differently. --Smack (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)