Boy Scout New Policy

[BigRedBuster]

Someone....

 

You really need to stop trying so hard on this. He has explained that it isn't his personal belief. However, he can see why it may be other people's belief.

 

Example, I'm assuming you don't believe black people are inferior to white people. BUT, I'm assuming you understand why someone in the KKK would think that with their belief system. That doesn't mean you agree with it.

[knapplc]

Someone....

 

You really need to stop trying so hard on this.

 

Agreed. Time to let it go.

[StPaulHusker]

Ok. Let's look at your first bolded statement.

 

Do "you believe they might not wan t a gay leader because someone so filled with gay hate will have their child make a false claim that gay leader did something wrong?" I don't believe to know anything about why they will not allow a gay leader. Like BRB stated. I can see where this area of discussion might have come into play for their decision.

 

 

You have posted: "the Scouts do have a responsibility to their organization to try and limit liability when it can." What limitation of liability are you refering to? The ones I listed earlier

 

You have posted: "The Scouts shouldn't increase their exposure to liabilities if they don't want to." What increased exposure to liabilities are you refering to? The ones listed earlier

 

How does the concept of a GAY LEADER factor into either of the 2 above statements posted by you? If you aren't smart enough to see it by now, there is no help for you.

 

As far as you second point: There are no 1 adult camping trips. There is significant training that adult leaders receive that address child safety, including how to have a private conversation with a scout while still being where other adults can see what is happening at all time. All violation are to be reported. You are right. There are no said camping trips of this nature. And people are supposed to report things they see. Sometimes they don't because they are not smart or suspicious enough to recognize it. Or they are afraid of rattling cages. There is a lawsuit going on about this exact thing in Minnesota. Google it. You will see how inept some people are.

 

It saddens me to hear the our military doesn't follow their own rules. We have seen the problems this can cause with recent headlines. The Catholic church is learning the hard way that these rules must be enforced. I do not care about your emotions. Rules will always be broken. This is a fact of life. If you haven't understood this by now, you are going to be in for a long life of disappointment.

 

Is enforcement perfect? No. See the BSA's own scandals and the recent release of 1200 names due to an Oregon case. You're right. It's not perfect. And I have.

[Someone]

 

You have posted: "the Scouts do have a responsibility to their organization to try and limit liability when it can." What limitation of liability are you refering to? The ones I listed earlier

 

You have posted: "The Scouts shouldn't increase their exposure to liabilities if they don't want to." What increased exposure to liabilities are you refering to? The ones listed earlier

 

... If you aren't smart enough to see it by now, there is no help for you.

 

... You are right. There are no said camping trips of this nature. And people are supposed to report things they see. Sometimes they don't because they are not smart or suspicious enough to recognize it. Or they are afraid of rattling cages. There is a lawsuit going on about this exact thing in Minnesota. Google it. You will see how inept some people are.

 

... I do not care about your emotions. Rules will always be broken. This is a fact of life. If you haven't understood this by now, you are going to be in for a long life of disappointment.

 

...You're right. It's not perfect.

Is this what you are refering to when you posted: "The ones listed earlier"?

 

"I think I see what they are trying to avoid. They don't believe that the leader would start teaching and guiding kids to be gay. It is probably from a liability stand point. Kids have been known to say things to get adults into trouble. This is their way of avoiding it. All it would take is a disgruntled parent of this vote to send their child on an overnight with the new gay leader and when they returned, the kid has a story of what happened"

[StPaulHusker]

Why is it difficult for you to understand that a person can have their own opinions about something and still understand and respect the views and opinions of others?

[Someone]

I do understand that, St. P.

 

What I don't understand, and what I have asked you to clarify, has only yielded the following from you: "If you aren't smart enough to see it by now, there is no help for you."

[BigRedBuster]

I do understand that, St. P.

 

What I don't understand, and what I have asked you to clarify, has only yielded the following from you: "If you aren't smart enough to see it by now, there is no help for you."

 

 

LOL....that's pretty funny.

[Someone]

BRB: I get what you are saying about the KKK. However, St P seems to be suggesting that perhaps BSA believes a Gay Leader either:

 

a.) Is a greater risk of sexual assault on a child [Which they are on record as saying is NOT the case.]

b.) Is a greater risk of being the target of bogus claims of sexual assault.

 

If he believes that b is true, then I have tell you -- that would be the most spineless, jellyfish, chickensh#t justification for excluding gay scout leaders (often parents of the kids in scouts).

[StPaulHusker]

AGAIN. I don't believe anything. I am saying that I understand the thought process if that is how they came to allowing one over the other.I neither agree nor disagree with their stance. My child will continue with Scouts regardless of the preference of the Leader.

[Someone]

I hope BSA never chooses to CYA & exclude just because of a perceived threat of bogus and frankly illegal faulse accusations.

 

When anyone does this, they putting the interest of criminals over what is best for children. Such a 'thought process' as St Paul calls it always wrong. BSA and the Catholic church have been guilty of doing this in the past. I CANNOT "I understand [that] thought process if that is how they came to allowing one over the other".

[StPaulHusker]

I hope BSA never chooses to CYA & exclude just because of a perceived threat of bogus and frankly illegal faulse accusations.

 

When anyone does this, they putting the interest of criminals over what is best for children. Such a 'thought process' as St Paul calls it always wrong. BSA and the Catholic church have been guilty of doing this in the past. I CANNOT "I understand [that] thought process if that is how they came to allowing one over the other".

You must not work anywhere that has any policies that try to limit the threat of litigation.

 

If it's not a thought process, what would you call it? And it's not always wrong. IF this is how they came to their conclusion in this instance, I would agree with you but companies, groups, etc have to do what they think is best. You can't make somebody do something against their will. You can choose not to support it, which I recommended to you earlier in this post. Ragging on and on and on in Huskerboard won't change anything no matter how hard you try.

 

So now the BSA is a criminal organization since they are putting their interests first? How are they NOT "doing what's best" for the kids with this policy?

 

You can't understand anything but your own rhetoric because you choose not to. If a person has a differing opinion than yours in this forum, you try to beat them into submission to see only your way. When in reality all you do is piss them off.

[VectorVictor]

BRB: I get what you are saying about the KKK. However, St P seems to be suggesting that perhaps BSA believes a Gay Leader either:

 

a.) Is a greater risk of sexual assault on a child [Which they are on record as saying is NOT the case.]

b.) Is a greater risk of being the target of bogus claims of sexual assault.

 

If he believes that b is true, then I have tell you -- that would be the most spineless, jellyfish, chickensh#t justification for excluding gay scout leaders (often parents of the kids in scouts).

 

I guess if B were even remotely true, wouldn't allowing women as Den Mothers for Cub Scouts be somewhat hypocritical then?

[Someone]

I hope BSA never chooses to CYA & exclude just because of a perceived threat of bogus and frankly illegal faulse accusations.

 

When anyone does this, they putting the interest of criminals over what is best for children. Such a 'thought process' as St Paul calls it always wrong. BSA and the Catholic church have been guilty of doing this in the past. I CANNOT "I understand [that] thought process if that is how they came to allowing one over the other".

You must not work anywhere that has any policies that try to limit the threat of litigation.

 

If it's not a thought process, what would you call it? And it's not always wrong. IF this is how they came to their conclusion in this instance, I would agree with you but companies, groups, etc have to do what they think is best. You can't make somebody do something against their will. You can choose not to support it, which I recommended to you earlier in this post. Ragging on and on and on in Huskerboard won't change anything no matter how hard you try.

 

So now the BSA is a criminal organization since they are putting their interests first? How are they NOT "doing what's best" for the kids with this policy?

 

You can't understand anything but your own rhetoric because you choose not to. If a person has a differing opinion than yours in this forum, you try to beat them into submission to see only your way. When in reality all you do is piss them off.

1. I am not trying to change BSA policy by ragging on and on about them on a Husker forum. Just having a pubic discussion.

2. I never said the BSA is a criminal organization (although they have some pending civil litigation re: how they handled past reports of sexual abuse by their leaders. Putting their own interests above children is not a crime but is in clear conflict with their objectives.

3. How are they NOT "doing what's best" for the kids with this policy? Two way:

a: A young leader who earns the rank Eagle Scout and has years of service working with younger scouts who happens to admit that he is gay is going to literally get drummed out of the organization when he turns 18 because he is no longer fit to work with scout youth. Such a concept is so flawed and so absurd that our pack is working on the details of what the ceremony will be called and what it will include. The boys came up with the idea. Will it be a divestiture ceremony or Life Unrank Ceremony or my favorite: Court of Dishonor. The very concept is absurd.

b: BSA has trouble recruiting leaders at the youngest scout levels, often because the newest scouts are from households that haven't been part of scouting. There have been specific examples where a Den leader who ise the parent of one of the young cubs that just happens to have 2 moms has been dismissed because she is gay. This harms the youth who now are without a den leader. It sends a message to the youth that it is appropriate to jusdge others based on who they are, not what they do.

[StPaulHusker]

BRB: I get what you are saying about the KKK. However, St P seems to be suggesting that perhaps BSA believes a Gay Leader either:

 

a.) Is a greater risk of sexual assault on a child [Which they are on record as saying is NOT the case.]

b.) Is a greater risk of being the target of bogus claims of sexual assault.

 

If he believes that b is true, then I have tell you -- that would be the most spineless, jellyfish, chickensh#t justification for excluding gay scout leaders (often parents of the kids in scouts).

 

I guess if B were even remotely true, wouldn't allowing women as Den Mothers for Cub Scouts be somewhat hypocritical then?

How?

[Someone]

BRB: I get what you are saying about the KKK. However, St P seems to be suggesting that perhaps BSA believes a Gay Leader either:

 

a.) Is a greater risk of sexual assault on a child [Which they are on record as saying is NOT the case.]

b.) Is a greater risk of being the target of bogus claims of sexual assault.

 

If he believes that b is true, then I have tell you -- that would be the most spineless, jellyfish, chickensh#t justification for excluding gay scout leaders (often parents of the kids in scouts).

I guess if B were even remotely true, wouldn't allowing women as Den Mothers for Cub Scouts be somewhat hypocritical then?

Yes it would. Any people that might be disliked by the typical male christian boy scout parent could be the victim of a false accusation. If I am Jewish, some parent might what me out as a leader. Is it best to exclude all Jews to avoid the potential false accusation?