![]() | This page 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. |
Jagz, Gadg, Habap,Rlevse, everbody.. Whatcha think? Should we FAC and see what happens? or is there still work to do?-- Alecmconroy 22:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Yesterday, we were discussing the other articles in Category:Contentious issues about the Boy Scouts of America. The category contains eight lawsuits and two bills in, all stubs. I recommend merging all those into this article- there is probably a lot of it here already. I also recommend merging United States National Scout Jamboree#Funding controversy, as there is a lot of duplication. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 10:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Not sure who put the merge tags on then. Have to check the history. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed the lead sentence, "Congress has on several occasions passed resolutions and bills in support of the Boy Scouts of America and its access to governmental resources-- actions which can be interpreted as indirect support for the BSA's stance on gays and atheists." I removed it because some in Congress may be showing support for the BSA despite their membership policies. Granted that support for BSA indirectly supports their policies but that may not have been their intention. -- Jagz 08:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
What about the comment by smurrayinchester to shorten the list of references by removing duplicates? -- Jagz 21:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
After this FAC is over, I suggest those interested make an article on the girls controversey and get it to FA. Rlevse 22:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The article is now a "featured article"!!! It started out as a section of the main BSA article. Here's what this article looked like in September 2005. [1] -- Jagz 07:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Do we want to keep the Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America/Sandbox or have it deleted? -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
This may be of interest [2]. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Berkeley Sea Scout Decision Appealed to United States Supreme Court [4] -- Jagz 22:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's the case being used to help support the appeal. [5] -- Jagz 22:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The word bisexual is not mentioned in the article. What is the BSA policy towards bisexuals? Should we add the word to the article? -- Jagz 17:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Camp Fire Boys and Girls is mentioned in the article. Hasn't this organization changed its name to Camp Fire USA? -- Jagz 19:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes. See Camp Fire USA. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
someone should note that these policies (definantly the atheist/agnostics ban, and possibly the homosexuality ban) technically make it a violation of the 1st ammendment to the US Constitution for the government to support this organization - as it is engaged in religious bigotry. 65.125.133.211 19:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the subject section of the article because it doesn't belong in this article. This article is about BSA membership controversies and not other types of controversies or criticisms. -- Jagz 21:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The biggest weakness in this article is the section "Youth organization membership policies." The statements about WOSM and its members are true and verifiable, but it breaks down into original research when it attempts to contrast the policies of the BSA with other NSOs.
For example: the "Duty to God" paragraph contrasts the BSA policies on religion with those of Scouts Canada and The Scout Association. An opposing view could easily be constructed by a comparison to Deutsche Pfadfinderschaft Sankt Georg or the Greek Orthodox Scout Association, but the issue is a lack of reliable sources that compares these policies.
The term "Mainstream Scouting" is used, but is neither defined nor sourced; its use implies that the BSA is not mainstream.
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
To make it even more confusing, the specific program of the Boy Scouts of America that is centered on 11-14 year old boys is ALSO called "Boy Scouts", and is one of the two BSA programs (the other being Cub Scouts, and it's subset, Tiger Cubs) where all of their discussed restriction apply.
75.24.138.102 ( talk) 15:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Gadget850. Thanks for poining out that "active term" distinction. On your final point, I think that the definition of "allow" is anything that isn't dis-allowed. Otherwise every book of rules or laws would need to be a million times bigger, stating all of the things that are allowed. In Scouting's case, it would need to make statements that Olympic athletes, one-legged people, caucasians, blacks, hispanics, people of German ancestry, jaywalkers, blind people, chess players, and millions of others are allowed to be members. 99.151.168.32 ( talk) 17:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI Here is my post in the "Membership Controversies" discussion section (referring to the so-named article section) of the main BSA article:
While this section (and a similarly named separate article)touches on areas where some good coverage would be very useful, both are doomed from the start by their titles which, essentially define the "subject matter" to include all anti-BSA opinions, all opinions that non-existent or mis-stated policies or practices exist, and all opinions against real or imagined BSA practices and policies, and material and references designed to argue in favor of those opinions. So we end up with non-coverage in this article, and reference to a separate article which is a complete mess, albeit with some gems of useful information in it. What needs to emerge is a section or article with a clearer scope, one covering BSA policies and practices in areas where there has been significant controversy. Specifically, homosexuality & atheism and possibly gender. And then hold this new article or section to the highest Wikipedia standards.
PS The titles also suffer from the flaw limiting it to "membership". For example, the policy that causes the most opposition is one involving leadership positions, not membership.
And so here's my proposal. A new section or new article entitled: BSA Policies and Practices in Controversial Areas
99.151.168.32 ( talk) 13:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
That this ever became an FA is amazing. That it is still an FA is even more amazing because ever since it's been highly unstable and a constant target of people bickering over its format, content, and people pushing their POV--and that includes users on both sides of the fence. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
To: Erp (and all) I could host the sandbox as referred to in your 20:00 29 December post. Will put a skeleton in and advise. Start with the discussed narrow scope. Maybe cautiously open it up to the items that you and HiLo48 discussed in a way that doesn't open the pandora's box to make it a hopeless focus-less soapbox like this article. Maybe get a consensus from high-caliber folks on both sides of the underlying issues to keep it on a high plane if/when it goes out of the soapbox into the cold cruel world. :-) Will create a skeleton and advise. North8000 ( talk) 16:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Pursuant to the comments in the section above, I've listed this for Featured Article Review, reasons in section above and FAR listing. Hopefully both sides can come together and get this to current FA standards. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Since we are doing a review we should decide whether the overall layout of the article is good. Current table of contents is:
* 1 Boy Scouts of America's values affect membership criteria o 1.1 Position on atheists and agnostics o 1.2 Position on homosexuals o 1.3 Position on gender o 1.4 Position on illegal aliens o 1.5 Reaction to nondiscrimination policies * 2 Youth organization membership policies o 2.1 Mainstream Scouting o 2.2 Other American youth organizations * 3 Litigation over the membership policies o 3.1 Governmental sponsorship of Scouting units o 3.2 Access to governmental resources o 3.3 Recent litigation + 3.3.1 Active + 3.3.2 Inactive * 4 Reaction to Boy Scouts of America's membership policies o 4.1 Loss of support o 4.2 Efforts to change the membership and leadership policies * 5 Support for the Boy Scouts of America o 5.1 Support from federal government o 5.2 Support from others * 6 Related issues o 6.1 Scouting membership in the United States o 6.2 BSA membership size o 6.3 Historical membership controversies * 7 See also * 8 References * 9 External links
I personally would drop 1.4 "illegal aliens" as it doesn't seem major. Other thoughts on the layout?-- Erp ( talk) 17:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
It depends on what one wants THIS article to be about. Unless there a new scope statement, I think that it's title dooms it. For example if I have a beef wwith BSA, then the article, per it's title, my POV is a "controversy" and the article should "cover" (provide coverage of and a show case for) my complaints, i.e. via. NPOV "coverage" of my POV material. 99.151.168.32 ( talk) 18:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
How about organizing it by issue?
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Some seem to be dissatisfied with the title and/or scope statement of the article. I'm setting this section up to discuss this. I'm not sure what the scope statement is but the intro is probably as good as any. -- Erp ( talk) 19:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The Boy Scouts of America (BSA), one of the largest private youth organizations in the United States, has policies which prohibit atheists and agnostics from membership in its Scouting program, and prohibit "avowed" homosexuals from leadership roles in its Scouting program. BSA has denied or revoked the membership of youths and adults for violating these prohibitions. These policies are considered by some to be unjust.[1][2] The BSA contends that these policies are essential in its mission to instill in young people the values of the Scout Oath and Law.[3][4]
The organization's legal right to have these policies has been upheld repeatedly by both state and federal courts. The Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed that as a private organization, the BSA can set its own membership standards. In recent years, the policy disputes have led to litigation over the terms under which the BSA can access governmental resources including public lands.[5]
Personally I think the title and intro are reasonable though some of the article itself wanders away from them. -- Erp ( talk) 19:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I should note that the notability requirements of wikipedia would cut down on minor controversies. We also want to keep the title reasonably open in case another membership controversy arises that is major. -- Erp ( talk) 19:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
To ERP: I think that the two main structural problems with the title are:
"Membership" is too restrictive. For example, that would rule out any description of homosexuality issues(except possibly historical) as current BSA policies in that area relate to leadership rather than membership.
Something should restrict the topic to (significantly) controversial BSA policies and actions, and significant actions in response to them. Without that restriction, POV's themselves become the topic and content, which is one of the biggest things that went wrong with this article in the first place. One of the 2 most common "back door" mechanisms of biased journalism is stealth POV coverage via selective NPOV coverage of POV's. Well, there's a head scratcher. :-) 99.151.168.32 ( talk) 12:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Volunteer Adult Leadership
Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. Scouting’s position with respect to homosexual conduct accords with the moral positions of many millions of Americans and with religious denominations to which a majority of Americans belong. Because of these views, Boy Scouts of America believes that a known or avowed homosexual is not an appropriate role model of the Scout Oath and Law for adolescent boys.
- Employment
With respect to positions limited to professional Scouters or, because of their close relationship to the mission of Scouting, positions limited to registered members of the Boy Scouts of America, acceptance of the Declaration of Religious Principle, the Scout Oath, and the Scout Law is required. Accordingly, in the exercise of its constitutional right to bring the values of Scouting to youth members, Boy Scouts of America will not employ atheists, agnostics, known or avowed homosexuals, or others as professional Scouters or in other capacities in which such employment would tend to interfere with its mission of reinforcing the values of the Scout Oath and the Scout Law in young people. [8]
Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. The conduct of youth members must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law, and membership in Boy Scouts of America is contingent upon the willingness to accept Scouting’s values and beliefs. Most boys join Scouting when they are 10 or 11 years old. As they continue in the program, all Scouts are expected to take leadership positions. In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position. [9]
Hello Gadget850: My own agenda / goal is simply 4 things:
Now:
So I really don't have an agenda or proposal to fix this mess of an article, I was just trying to make a few helpful structure observations for those who are trying......that the current title dooms it to be the mess that it is, unless there were a clear locked in scope statement. And my suggestion for that scope statement would be:
- Current BSA policies and actions which place restrictions on membership or holding positions in cases where such restrictions (or perceptions of them) have caused significant controversy. But again, this has now mostly been done (at least in summary form), and in three sentences.
- Significant actions taken by others in relation to current or past versions of such. With an emphasis on recentness
- Significant events in relation to such. With an emphasis on recentness.
Once that is decided upon, that would more or less set the course, and it wouldn't matter what I personally think belongs.
99.151.168.32 (
talk) 14:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Alecmconroy I agree that the best thing is a statement of current policies, and secondarily, relevantly recent past ones.
Although I think that the structural, logical and legal definition of "permitted" is that which is not prohibited, and thus that "allowed" is a correct statement, absent some prohibition, it is much better to just describe or cite the current policies.
You left out the important possibility (and actuality) your list of possibilities. Albiet low on it's "teaching" priority list, BSA wants to say that homosexuality is wrong, it wants an many members as it can get in all of its programs, (including homosexuals) It doesn't want situations which undermine it's "teaching" on homosexuality or which chisel away it's right to do so. After over 45 years in Scouts, in multiple councils, in dozens of different positions, and having read everything that is available on the subject, and tryinig to be as accurate and objective as possible, I can tell you that that is the REAL picture, to the extent that anybody can try to characterize a multi-million person decentralized organization.
Particularly after BSA won the Dale case, it has become the lighting rod in the USA culture war between those for and against the societal normalization of homosexuality. A tactic of those on the "for" side is to always deliberately "miss" the obvious distinction that 99% of organizations on the "against" side (including BSA) make between the practice and and the individual who practices it. Churches on the "against" side put it most succinctly: "hate the sin, love the sinner" (and everyone is a sinner). (Not that this atheist wants to get religious) Again, it is a common tactic to deliberately "miss" the distinction that organizations make, and many of the comments in this talk section either deliberately or innocently miss the distinction. Such is the rosetta stone for those who want to really understand BSA's position, actions and INACTIONS on this topic. 99.151.168.32 ( talk) 21:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Erp: Can't speak for the religions definition of "sin", I just quoted that phrase because it so succinctly and clearly shows somebody treating the person differently than their actions. If you are asking about the BSA definition analogous to the "sin", I don't think that they have one. Your average Scout youth never hears or reads ANYTHING from BSA on the topic. In 45+ diverse years in Scouring, I have NEVER heard or read anything about homosexuality except peer-to-peer discussions about the political warfare news.
The one case (Dale) where the more centralized part of the BSA organization took action and went to the mat, they really didn't have to deal with the fine points of the definition. The person was both a stated homosexual and also a homosexual activist, and in a adult (or near adult) employee & paid leadership position. My belief is that the defacto-definition is is they will take action in high-profile cases involving leadership positions, where inaction itself would be an action contrary to their position. And that they (the centralized part of BSA) would otherwise prefer to make homosexuality a non-issue. 99.151.168.32 ( talk) 00:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I've been searching the web for stuff on homosexuality and Scouting, particularly for Indonesia, since it was mentioned above. The only references I've found in the whole world so far are to BSA and homosexuality. It seems to be the only Scouting organisation that cares about the issue at all. (I promise to post back here if I find otherwise.)
What I found that horrified me was this, in the BSA'a FAQs ( http://www.bsalegal.org/faqs-195.asp):
Q. Don't Boy Scouts discriminate against gays and atheists?
A. Boy Scouts of America is one of the most diverse youth groups in the country, serving boys of every ethnicity, religion, and economic circumstance and having programs for older teens of both sexes. That Boy Scouts also has traditional values, like requiring youth to do their "duty to God" and be "morally straight" is nothing to be ashamed of and should not be controversial. No court case has ever held that Boy Scouts discriminates unlawfully, and it is unfortunate here that anyone would characterized Boy Scouts' constitutionally protected right to hold traditional values as "discriminatory." That is just name-calling.
I'm sorry, but if I was writing some FAQs for a website, I'd do a darned sight better than that. Can everyone else see that they didn't actually answer the question? The way I read it, it says "We don't want gays or atheists as Scouts, but we don't think it's nice to call that discrimination".
Now, I know we must be careful about POV material here, and there's no way I will state an opinion like I have above on the main page. I doubt if it's even helpful to the article, but quite frankly, when I found that I was stunned. HiLo48 ( talk) 02:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The policies on religion and girls are clear and listed on the application. The policies on homosexuals are not clear and are not listed on the application. Here are the BSA policies on homosexuals from BSALegal.org:
- Volunteer Adult Leadership
Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. Scouting’s position with respect to homosexual conduct accords with the moral positions of many millions of Americans and with religious denominations to which a majority of Americans belong. Because of these views, Boy Scouts of America believes that a known or avowed homosexual is not an appropriate role model of the Scout Oath and Law for adolescent boys. [11]
- Employment
With respect to positions limited to professional Scouters or, because of their close relationship to the mission of Scouting, positions limited to registered members of the Boy Scouts of America, acceptance of the Declaration of Religious Principle, the Scout Oath, and the Scout Law is required. Accordingly, in the exercise of its constitutional right to bring the values of Scouting to youth members, Boy Scouts of America will not employ atheists, agnostics, known or avowed homosexuals, or others as professional Scouters or in other capacities in which such employment would tend to interfere with its mission of reinforcing the values of the Scout Oath and the Scout Law in young people. [12]
Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. The conduct of youth members must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law, and membership in Boy Scouts of America is contingent upon the willingness to accept Scouting’s values and beliefs. Most boys join Scouting when they are 10 or 11 years old. As they continue in the program, all Scouts are expected to take leadership positions. In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position. [13]
I feel like I'm reaching into a knapsack of weasels when I read this. The problem is that it is not up to us to try to interpret this, but I can't find any sources that discuss these policies. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
So, in that face of all of that vagueness in several areas, the question become: what things ARE clearly known (and directly verifiable) to the point that are suitable content for a Wikipedia article?
Or maybe we should just put in unsupported negative accusations in as "fact" and then they can stay in there a long time until somebody does the huge job of proving a negative in order to remove them. 99.151.168.32 ( talk) 00:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The new content from the APA is obviously not a policy of the BSA, but a reaction, thus it is misplaced. It is an amicus curiae brief on a legal case, but lacks the context of the case. The quote is too long and needs to be better summarized. And it misuses {{ cquote}}; see the template documentation for the Manual of Style references. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I put up the article Boy Scouts of America Membership and Leadership Policies in Controversial Areas. Following are my origination notes from the discussion section of that article:
Review of related articles and their discussion sections indicated that the subject material needed to be covered, is noteworthy, and is widely sought after. Actual practice has borne out that articles or sections which define their subject as the controversies themselves inevitably will not cover the subject of this article, such being either occluded or absent, and not the subject of the articles. So, despite having many of the same words in their titles, the subjects (as defined by the titles) are absolutely different. However, this article was substantially guided by the discussion sections of that article and article section. The originator also felt that this subject would be too disproportionately large (especially given it's coverage of "hot topics") to put into the main "Boy Scouts of America" article.
This article was launched January 5th, 2010. The originator believes that it meets fundamental Wikipedia criteria, but, of course, this is just the starting point of contributions and improvements which are welcomed. The originator intends that it remain unreferenced by other articles for a short period (1-2 weeks?) during which time such improvements by many are anticipated.
Since the limited scope of the title (detailed by the scope statement in the first two sentences of the article, as originate) the first two sentences in the article) is important for both effective coverage of this topic and avoiding substantial overlap with related articles, the originator asks for consensus and support from all to keep the article within the scope of the title, to keep those first two scope sentences as originated, and intends to do their best to support this focus in order to achieve coverage of the subject.
Happy editing!
North8000 ( talk) 03:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems to be just a fork of this article. I do not see the difference from this article. Can you give us some reasons why it should not be deleted for that reason as the proposed deletion tag now on the article suggests? -- Bduke (Discussion) 04:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
And, to HiLo48, the ad hominem part of your post aside, developing a policies article to Wikipedian standards would certainly help on your latter points. And, prior to this, no policies article or policies article section even existed to try to do that in. North8000 ( talk) 12:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Also please see my comments in the article itself. North8000 ( talk) 12:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
For those interested in reviewing the discussion and / or making comments, there is a deletion discussion for the above described new article occuring at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boy Scouts of America Membership and Leadership Policies in Controversial Areas North8000 ( talk) 18:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
It got deleted. That important topic is now homeless. Let's hope it works out somehow. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 13:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are referring to when you said "Kim" (is that a book? is that the full title?) Either way, I don't think that I have read it.
75.24.138.102 ( talk) 14:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems that major notices about an article are generally put in the article. In this case this notice is only in the discussion section, which most people who read the article never see. North8000 ( talk) 11:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
An IP has just added...
The BSA even awards religious metals to over 38 faiths including Baha'i, Zoroastrianism, and Hinduism
I'm sure this is meant to be read as a positive about BSA, but as soon as I read it, I wondered about the hundreds of other religious groupings that exist, especially non-Christian ones. I'm not convinced it adds anything of value to the article. HiLo48 ( talk) 21:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I think we mean "medals" -:). The reference to Wicca states "The former (i.e. Wicca) exists but has not been approved due to less than 25 chartered Wiccan units". This reads as if it is all matter of course, just a rule that is getting in the way and it will be OK when there are 25 troops. However that is a BSA POV, because there is controversy here. The story, if I recall it right, was that there were Wicca Scouts but no Wicca Troops, so a Wicca group asked for a religious medal. They were told they had to have a Wicca chartered Troop, although it is not clear that was a rule previously. So they formed a Troop and were then told they had to have 25. Rules were made up on the fly giving the Wiccans a strong impression that the BSA did not want them. This, in part, was a cause of the formation of an alternative Scouting organization, the SpiralScouts. This needs to be described, but of course with reliable sources. As it stands, it suggests there is no controversy regarding religious medals, but this is far from the case. -- Bduke (Discussion) 22:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
HiLo48 you are mixing up three different topics:
- Sponsoring / Chartering a Unit Tha has nothing to do with religion. A chess club could sponsor/charter a unit - Religion/Belief-Set specific special medals. There's only like 35 of those, and probably thousands of religions that BSA members are members of. - "Acceptability" whatever that means. You seemed to be implying that in order to be a BSA member your religion / belief set has to come from one of the ~35 that have special medals or needed some official "acceptance" If so, where did you get that from?
BTW, I'm an atheist/ agnostic, (the ONE group that the BSA policies say is not allowed to be a BSA member) have been a BSA member for 49 years,Eagle Scout, in multiple councils, and in about 20 different unit, district and council level volunteer positions. . For me personally atheism/agnosticism it's not a belief or attitude, it's a merely a description of a situation of lack of a particular belief. I don't shout it from the rooftops in BSA or feel a need to tell people who didn't ask about it, but I don't keep it a secret. (I've never refused to sign an application or recite something due to having the word "God" in it.) And, in 49 years, it HAS NEVER NEVER EVER EVER COME UP. In all of that time nobody has ever even asked what church I'm a member of. This is of course, non-wikipedian "primary research", but I thought that telling you this might get you un-confused about what the situaiton is here, as your comments certainly indicate a massive mis-impression of the situation here. I was going to say that if your religion was worshiping your neighbor's tree, that would be fine to be in Scouts. But in reality, you wouldn't even need that because it never comes up.
On your note "Heaven help an Australian Aboriginal person with traditional beliefs turning in the USA!" You might find the article in the Navajo Hopi Observer article linked in reference #16 in this article interesting...it's about that exact situation, except not Australian. The article describes that the Dine' / Navajo (Native American) spiritual belief set is not only "acceptable" but BSA was supporting the development of a special medal for it. (BTW I had the privilege of an extended visit on that Dine' reservation......)
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 14:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC) North8000 ( talk) 14:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello HiLo48 Well, I think that this is more of an " exchange of understanding" than a Wikipedian discussion, but I can't think of a better use for a few bytes of Wikipedianb hard drive space than this. The following is a sincere effort to convey something, not a "debate" or an attempt to make points.
In a multi-million person organizaton that is decentralized in many respects, it's probable that somewhere somebody inquired about somebody's religion. But in 49 years of Scouting I'v never seen, , heard or read of that happening.
You asked a lot of good questions that I think would take pages or a book to answer. But here are a few thoughts....these are my sincere observations, not official policy statements:
A typical sponsoring institution is someone who got asked to sponsor a unit, and where the only thing they do is provide a meeting place and once a year sign put their signature on a a piece of paper somebody slides in front of them. Even though on paper it is much more, in reality that's about it for a typical situation.
BSA vaguely promotes the idea of belief in a God, and the things that it has youth in most programs recite (plus the application form) routinely mention God, and duty to God. As far as Scouting as a whole, that's about IT..that's about the extent of it's religiousness for a typical Scout who isn't particularly interested in religion (e.g. an atheist/agnostic Scout) (I'm sure that a few percent of individual units go a little further than that.) Except when someone gets "in their face" opposing these vague things, essentially pushing BSA "into a corner" on the issue by refusing to sign the application, or making a point of saying that they are not reciting the oath etc, then (and ONLY then) they will come out swinging. Court cases, removal from leadership or membership positions etc...
If there's one "big secret" in Scouting. it's that, contrary to to it's structure on paper, BSA is heavily dominated by a "fifth column" which it's professionals. Not a "big conspiracy" or secret network, just human nature combined with a "line authority" network inherent in an employee organization, combined with the fact that they are the ones that write the checks, unlock the camps etc.. Also, the top professional each council mostly picks who their bosses will be (ala the Enron board or the Scouting E-board) which usually is people (e.g. philanthropists) who don't have the backround or inclination,, sufficient meetings or small enough of a board size to actually manage them. Their main motivations are increasing income and membership numbers, bettering the financial position of BSA, minimizing risk and problems. Many of the genuine big fights and scandals in and Scouting (ghost units, phony membership numbers, always trying to get rid of Scout camps, reducing allowable activities) come from myopia of such tendencies running amok. But you would be happy to know that that "fifth column" is absolutely non-ideological. So they (and I) would love to have a million atheists and gays join as long as they don't make a point of doing high-profile head-butting with BSA on those issues. As a result, BSA is full of gays and atheists, but not gay activists, and not atheist-activists. If you want to know the REAL story, that is it.
I'm sure that Scouting's policies are influenced by Churches. And probably by the LDS Church more than others because it makes BSA a part of it's programs. So, unlike other churches, that's big membership numbers that can easily go away with the change of one policy.
I know that this is only a few little pieces of unwikipedian information (mostly very informative overgeneralizations) in response to some good big questions of yours, but I hope that it was at least a little bit helpful
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 23:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
You write of "US anti-discrimination laws" being a problem to some conservative people, perhaps because they at times lean towards being positive discrimination laws. While this is no doubt true, it is also true that BSA has gone to the trouble of creating formal policies that are explicitly negatively discriminatory against gay people. BSA is not just an innocent victim of broader societal battles here. It is a player. It has taken explicit action to make gay people unwelcome. It has also allowed the words "morally straight" to be deliberately misused by some where straight is used as the opposite of gay. BSA policies are not neutral on this matter. HiLo48 ( talk) 22:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I am now clearer about the difference between the BSA term "chartered" and the Scouts Australia and The Scout Association term "sponsored". The terms mean the same. Sponsoring authorities, like chartering authorities, take very different levels of involvement from high to essentially none. The real difference is that the BSA insists all Troops, Packs etc. are chartered. In Australia and UK, there is a choice between "Sponsored" and "Open", with "open" being the larger and growing group. The associations technically own scout huts and Group equipment in most cases of Open Groups. Open Groups take a broader view of involvement with the local community. The other difference is that the main proportion of sponsoring authorities in UK and Australia are Churches, and I would guess that 99% plus of the rest are Schools, particularly boarding schools. So the practice of chartered and sponsored units are very similar. It is just that the majority of Groups in Australia and UK are open. -- Bduke (Discussion) 21:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
Jagz, Gadg, Habap,Rlevse, everbody.. Whatcha think? Should we FAC and see what happens? or is there still work to do?-- Alecmconroy 22:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Yesterday, we were discussing the other articles in Category:Contentious issues about the Boy Scouts of America. The category contains eight lawsuits and two bills in, all stubs. I recommend merging all those into this article- there is probably a lot of it here already. I also recommend merging United States National Scout Jamboree#Funding controversy, as there is a lot of duplication. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 10:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Not sure who put the merge tags on then. Have to check the history. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed the lead sentence, "Congress has on several occasions passed resolutions and bills in support of the Boy Scouts of America and its access to governmental resources-- actions which can be interpreted as indirect support for the BSA's stance on gays and atheists." I removed it because some in Congress may be showing support for the BSA despite their membership policies. Granted that support for BSA indirectly supports their policies but that may not have been their intention. -- Jagz 08:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
What about the comment by smurrayinchester to shorten the list of references by removing duplicates? -- Jagz 21:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
After this FAC is over, I suggest those interested make an article on the girls controversey and get it to FA. Rlevse 22:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The article is now a "featured article"!!! It started out as a section of the main BSA article. Here's what this article looked like in September 2005. [1] -- Jagz 07:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Do we want to keep the Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America/Sandbox or have it deleted? -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
This may be of interest [2]. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Berkeley Sea Scout Decision Appealed to United States Supreme Court [4] -- Jagz 22:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's the case being used to help support the appeal. [5] -- Jagz 22:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The word bisexual is not mentioned in the article. What is the BSA policy towards bisexuals? Should we add the word to the article? -- Jagz 17:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Camp Fire Boys and Girls is mentioned in the article. Hasn't this organization changed its name to Camp Fire USA? -- Jagz 19:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes. See Camp Fire USA. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
someone should note that these policies (definantly the atheist/agnostics ban, and possibly the homosexuality ban) technically make it a violation of the 1st ammendment to the US Constitution for the government to support this organization - as it is engaged in religious bigotry. 65.125.133.211 19:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the subject section of the article because it doesn't belong in this article. This article is about BSA membership controversies and not other types of controversies or criticisms. -- Jagz 21:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The biggest weakness in this article is the section "Youth organization membership policies." The statements about WOSM and its members are true and verifiable, but it breaks down into original research when it attempts to contrast the policies of the BSA with other NSOs.
For example: the "Duty to God" paragraph contrasts the BSA policies on religion with those of Scouts Canada and The Scout Association. An opposing view could easily be constructed by a comparison to Deutsche Pfadfinderschaft Sankt Georg or the Greek Orthodox Scout Association, but the issue is a lack of reliable sources that compares these policies.
The term "Mainstream Scouting" is used, but is neither defined nor sourced; its use implies that the BSA is not mainstream.
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
To make it even more confusing, the specific program of the Boy Scouts of America that is centered on 11-14 year old boys is ALSO called "Boy Scouts", and is one of the two BSA programs (the other being Cub Scouts, and it's subset, Tiger Cubs) where all of their discussed restriction apply.
75.24.138.102 ( talk) 15:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Gadget850. Thanks for poining out that "active term" distinction. On your final point, I think that the definition of "allow" is anything that isn't dis-allowed. Otherwise every book of rules or laws would need to be a million times bigger, stating all of the things that are allowed. In Scouting's case, it would need to make statements that Olympic athletes, one-legged people, caucasians, blacks, hispanics, people of German ancestry, jaywalkers, blind people, chess players, and millions of others are allowed to be members. 99.151.168.32 ( talk) 17:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI Here is my post in the "Membership Controversies" discussion section (referring to the so-named article section) of the main BSA article:
While this section (and a similarly named separate article)touches on areas where some good coverage would be very useful, both are doomed from the start by their titles which, essentially define the "subject matter" to include all anti-BSA opinions, all opinions that non-existent or mis-stated policies or practices exist, and all opinions against real or imagined BSA practices and policies, and material and references designed to argue in favor of those opinions. So we end up with non-coverage in this article, and reference to a separate article which is a complete mess, albeit with some gems of useful information in it. What needs to emerge is a section or article with a clearer scope, one covering BSA policies and practices in areas where there has been significant controversy. Specifically, homosexuality & atheism and possibly gender. And then hold this new article or section to the highest Wikipedia standards.
PS The titles also suffer from the flaw limiting it to "membership". For example, the policy that causes the most opposition is one involving leadership positions, not membership.
And so here's my proposal. A new section or new article entitled: BSA Policies and Practices in Controversial Areas
99.151.168.32 ( talk) 13:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
That this ever became an FA is amazing. That it is still an FA is even more amazing because ever since it's been highly unstable and a constant target of people bickering over its format, content, and people pushing their POV--and that includes users on both sides of the fence. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
To: Erp (and all) I could host the sandbox as referred to in your 20:00 29 December post. Will put a skeleton in and advise. Start with the discussed narrow scope. Maybe cautiously open it up to the items that you and HiLo48 discussed in a way that doesn't open the pandora's box to make it a hopeless focus-less soapbox like this article. Maybe get a consensus from high-caliber folks on both sides of the underlying issues to keep it on a high plane if/when it goes out of the soapbox into the cold cruel world. :-) Will create a skeleton and advise. North8000 ( talk) 16:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Pursuant to the comments in the section above, I've listed this for Featured Article Review, reasons in section above and FAR listing. Hopefully both sides can come together and get this to current FA standards. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Since we are doing a review we should decide whether the overall layout of the article is good. Current table of contents is:
* 1 Boy Scouts of America's values affect membership criteria o 1.1 Position on atheists and agnostics o 1.2 Position on homosexuals o 1.3 Position on gender o 1.4 Position on illegal aliens o 1.5 Reaction to nondiscrimination policies * 2 Youth organization membership policies o 2.1 Mainstream Scouting o 2.2 Other American youth organizations * 3 Litigation over the membership policies o 3.1 Governmental sponsorship of Scouting units o 3.2 Access to governmental resources o 3.3 Recent litigation + 3.3.1 Active + 3.3.2 Inactive * 4 Reaction to Boy Scouts of America's membership policies o 4.1 Loss of support o 4.2 Efforts to change the membership and leadership policies * 5 Support for the Boy Scouts of America o 5.1 Support from federal government o 5.2 Support from others * 6 Related issues o 6.1 Scouting membership in the United States o 6.2 BSA membership size o 6.3 Historical membership controversies * 7 See also * 8 References * 9 External links
I personally would drop 1.4 "illegal aliens" as it doesn't seem major. Other thoughts on the layout?-- Erp ( talk) 17:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
It depends on what one wants THIS article to be about. Unless there a new scope statement, I think that it's title dooms it. For example if I have a beef wwith BSA, then the article, per it's title, my POV is a "controversy" and the article should "cover" (provide coverage of and a show case for) my complaints, i.e. via. NPOV "coverage" of my POV material. 99.151.168.32 ( talk) 18:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
How about organizing it by issue?
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Some seem to be dissatisfied with the title and/or scope statement of the article. I'm setting this section up to discuss this. I'm not sure what the scope statement is but the intro is probably as good as any. -- Erp ( talk) 19:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The Boy Scouts of America (BSA), one of the largest private youth organizations in the United States, has policies which prohibit atheists and agnostics from membership in its Scouting program, and prohibit "avowed" homosexuals from leadership roles in its Scouting program. BSA has denied or revoked the membership of youths and adults for violating these prohibitions. These policies are considered by some to be unjust.[1][2] The BSA contends that these policies are essential in its mission to instill in young people the values of the Scout Oath and Law.[3][4]
The organization's legal right to have these policies has been upheld repeatedly by both state and federal courts. The Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed that as a private organization, the BSA can set its own membership standards. In recent years, the policy disputes have led to litigation over the terms under which the BSA can access governmental resources including public lands.[5]
Personally I think the title and intro are reasonable though some of the article itself wanders away from them. -- Erp ( talk) 19:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I should note that the notability requirements of wikipedia would cut down on minor controversies. We also want to keep the title reasonably open in case another membership controversy arises that is major. -- Erp ( talk) 19:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
To ERP: I think that the two main structural problems with the title are:
"Membership" is too restrictive. For example, that would rule out any description of homosexuality issues(except possibly historical) as current BSA policies in that area relate to leadership rather than membership.
Something should restrict the topic to (significantly) controversial BSA policies and actions, and significant actions in response to them. Without that restriction, POV's themselves become the topic and content, which is one of the biggest things that went wrong with this article in the first place. One of the 2 most common "back door" mechanisms of biased journalism is stealth POV coverage via selective NPOV coverage of POV's. Well, there's a head scratcher. :-) 99.151.168.32 ( talk) 12:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Volunteer Adult Leadership
Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. Scouting’s position with respect to homosexual conduct accords with the moral positions of many millions of Americans and with religious denominations to which a majority of Americans belong. Because of these views, Boy Scouts of America believes that a known or avowed homosexual is not an appropriate role model of the Scout Oath and Law for adolescent boys.
- Employment
With respect to positions limited to professional Scouters or, because of their close relationship to the mission of Scouting, positions limited to registered members of the Boy Scouts of America, acceptance of the Declaration of Religious Principle, the Scout Oath, and the Scout Law is required. Accordingly, in the exercise of its constitutional right to bring the values of Scouting to youth members, Boy Scouts of America will not employ atheists, agnostics, known or avowed homosexuals, or others as professional Scouters or in other capacities in which such employment would tend to interfere with its mission of reinforcing the values of the Scout Oath and the Scout Law in young people. [8]
Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. The conduct of youth members must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law, and membership in Boy Scouts of America is contingent upon the willingness to accept Scouting’s values and beliefs. Most boys join Scouting when they are 10 or 11 years old. As they continue in the program, all Scouts are expected to take leadership positions. In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position. [9]
Hello Gadget850: My own agenda / goal is simply 4 things:
Now:
So I really don't have an agenda or proposal to fix this mess of an article, I was just trying to make a few helpful structure observations for those who are trying......that the current title dooms it to be the mess that it is, unless there were a clear locked in scope statement. And my suggestion for that scope statement would be:
- Current BSA policies and actions which place restrictions on membership or holding positions in cases where such restrictions (or perceptions of them) have caused significant controversy. But again, this has now mostly been done (at least in summary form), and in three sentences.
- Significant actions taken by others in relation to current or past versions of such. With an emphasis on recentness
- Significant events in relation to such. With an emphasis on recentness.
Once that is decided upon, that would more or less set the course, and it wouldn't matter what I personally think belongs.
99.151.168.32 (
talk) 14:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Alecmconroy I agree that the best thing is a statement of current policies, and secondarily, relevantly recent past ones.
Although I think that the structural, logical and legal definition of "permitted" is that which is not prohibited, and thus that "allowed" is a correct statement, absent some prohibition, it is much better to just describe or cite the current policies.
You left out the important possibility (and actuality) your list of possibilities. Albiet low on it's "teaching" priority list, BSA wants to say that homosexuality is wrong, it wants an many members as it can get in all of its programs, (including homosexuals) It doesn't want situations which undermine it's "teaching" on homosexuality or which chisel away it's right to do so. After over 45 years in Scouts, in multiple councils, in dozens of different positions, and having read everything that is available on the subject, and tryinig to be as accurate and objective as possible, I can tell you that that is the REAL picture, to the extent that anybody can try to characterize a multi-million person decentralized organization.
Particularly after BSA won the Dale case, it has become the lighting rod in the USA culture war between those for and against the societal normalization of homosexuality. A tactic of those on the "for" side is to always deliberately "miss" the obvious distinction that 99% of organizations on the "against" side (including BSA) make between the practice and and the individual who practices it. Churches on the "against" side put it most succinctly: "hate the sin, love the sinner" (and everyone is a sinner). (Not that this atheist wants to get religious) Again, it is a common tactic to deliberately "miss" the distinction that organizations make, and many of the comments in this talk section either deliberately or innocently miss the distinction. Such is the rosetta stone for those who want to really understand BSA's position, actions and INACTIONS on this topic. 99.151.168.32 ( talk) 21:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Erp: Can't speak for the religions definition of "sin", I just quoted that phrase because it so succinctly and clearly shows somebody treating the person differently than their actions. If you are asking about the BSA definition analogous to the "sin", I don't think that they have one. Your average Scout youth never hears or reads ANYTHING from BSA on the topic. In 45+ diverse years in Scouring, I have NEVER heard or read anything about homosexuality except peer-to-peer discussions about the political warfare news.
The one case (Dale) where the more centralized part of the BSA organization took action and went to the mat, they really didn't have to deal with the fine points of the definition. The person was both a stated homosexual and also a homosexual activist, and in a adult (or near adult) employee & paid leadership position. My belief is that the defacto-definition is is they will take action in high-profile cases involving leadership positions, where inaction itself would be an action contrary to their position. And that they (the centralized part of BSA) would otherwise prefer to make homosexuality a non-issue. 99.151.168.32 ( talk) 00:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I've been searching the web for stuff on homosexuality and Scouting, particularly for Indonesia, since it was mentioned above. The only references I've found in the whole world so far are to BSA and homosexuality. It seems to be the only Scouting organisation that cares about the issue at all. (I promise to post back here if I find otherwise.)
What I found that horrified me was this, in the BSA'a FAQs ( http://www.bsalegal.org/faqs-195.asp):
Q. Don't Boy Scouts discriminate against gays and atheists?
A. Boy Scouts of America is one of the most diverse youth groups in the country, serving boys of every ethnicity, religion, and economic circumstance and having programs for older teens of both sexes. That Boy Scouts also has traditional values, like requiring youth to do their "duty to God" and be "morally straight" is nothing to be ashamed of and should not be controversial. No court case has ever held that Boy Scouts discriminates unlawfully, and it is unfortunate here that anyone would characterized Boy Scouts' constitutionally protected right to hold traditional values as "discriminatory." That is just name-calling.
I'm sorry, but if I was writing some FAQs for a website, I'd do a darned sight better than that. Can everyone else see that they didn't actually answer the question? The way I read it, it says "We don't want gays or atheists as Scouts, but we don't think it's nice to call that discrimination".
Now, I know we must be careful about POV material here, and there's no way I will state an opinion like I have above on the main page. I doubt if it's even helpful to the article, but quite frankly, when I found that I was stunned. HiLo48 ( talk) 02:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The policies on religion and girls are clear and listed on the application. The policies on homosexuals are not clear and are not listed on the application. Here are the BSA policies on homosexuals from BSALegal.org:
- Volunteer Adult Leadership
Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. Scouting’s position with respect to homosexual conduct accords with the moral positions of many millions of Americans and with religious denominations to which a majority of Americans belong. Because of these views, Boy Scouts of America believes that a known or avowed homosexual is not an appropriate role model of the Scout Oath and Law for adolescent boys. [11]
- Employment
With respect to positions limited to professional Scouters or, because of their close relationship to the mission of Scouting, positions limited to registered members of the Boy Scouts of America, acceptance of the Declaration of Religious Principle, the Scout Oath, and the Scout Law is required. Accordingly, in the exercise of its constitutional right to bring the values of Scouting to youth members, Boy Scouts of America will not employ atheists, agnostics, known or avowed homosexuals, or others as professional Scouters or in other capacities in which such employment would tend to interfere with its mission of reinforcing the values of the Scout Oath and the Scout Law in young people. [12]
Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. The conduct of youth members must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law, and membership in Boy Scouts of America is contingent upon the willingness to accept Scouting’s values and beliefs. Most boys join Scouting when they are 10 or 11 years old. As they continue in the program, all Scouts are expected to take leadership positions. In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position. [13]
I feel like I'm reaching into a knapsack of weasels when I read this. The problem is that it is not up to us to try to interpret this, but I can't find any sources that discuss these policies. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
So, in that face of all of that vagueness in several areas, the question become: what things ARE clearly known (and directly verifiable) to the point that are suitable content for a Wikipedia article?
Or maybe we should just put in unsupported negative accusations in as "fact" and then they can stay in there a long time until somebody does the huge job of proving a negative in order to remove them. 99.151.168.32 ( talk) 00:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The new content from the APA is obviously not a policy of the BSA, but a reaction, thus it is misplaced. It is an amicus curiae brief on a legal case, but lacks the context of the case. The quote is too long and needs to be better summarized. And it misuses {{ cquote}}; see the template documentation for the Manual of Style references. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I put up the article Boy Scouts of America Membership and Leadership Policies in Controversial Areas. Following are my origination notes from the discussion section of that article:
Review of related articles and their discussion sections indicated that the subject material needed to be covered, is noteworthy, and is widely sought after. Actual practice has borne out that articles or sections which define their subject as the controversies themselves inevitably will not cover the subject of this article, such being either occluded or absent, and not the subject of the articles. So, despite having many of the same words in their titles, the subjects (as defined by the titles) are absolutely different. However, this article was substantially guided by the discussion sections of that article and article section. The originator also felt that this subject would be too disproportionately large (especially given it's coverage of "hot topics") to put into the main "Boy Scouts of America" article.
This article was launched January 5th, 2010. The originator believes that it meets fundamental Wikipedia criteria, but, of course, this is just the starting point of contributions and improvements which are welcomed. The originator intends that it remain unreferenced by other articles for a short period (1-2 weeks?) during which time such improvements by many are anticipated.
Since the limited scope of the title (detailed by the scope statement in the first two sentences of the article, as originate) the first two sentences in the article) is important for both effective coverage of this topic and avoiding substantial overlap with related articles, the originator asks for consensus and support from all to keep the article within the scope of the title, to keep those first two scope sentences as originated, and intends to do their best to support this focus in order to achieve coverage of the subject.
Happy editing!
North8000 ( talk) 03:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems to be just a fork of this article. I do not see the difference from this article. Can you give us some reasons why it should not be deleted for that reason as the proposed deletion tag now on the article suggests? -- Bduke (Discussion) 04:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
And, to HiLo48, the ad hominem part of your post aside, developing a policies article to Wikipedian standards would certainly help on your latter points. And, prior to this, no policies article or policies article section even existed to try to do that in. North8000 ( talk) 12:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Also please see my comments in the article itself. North8000 ( talk) 12:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
For those interested in reviewing the discussion and / or making comments, there is a deletion discussion for the above described new article occuring at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boy Scouts of America Membership and Leadership Policies in Controversial Areas North8000 ( talk) 18:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
It got deleted. That important topic is now homeless. Let's hope it works out somehow. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 13:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are referring to when you said "Kim" (is that a book? is that the full title?) Either way, I don't think that I have read it.
75.24.138.102 ( talk) 14:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems that major notices about an article are generally put in the article. In this case this notice is only in the discussion section, which most people who read the article never see. North8000 ( talk) 11:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
An IP has just added...
The BSA even awards religious metals to over 38 faiths including Baha'i, Zoroastrianism, and Hinduism
I'm sure this is meant to be read as a positive about BSA, but as soon as I read it, I wondered about the hundreds of other religious groupings that exist, especially non-Christian ones. I'm not convinced it adds anything of value to the article. HiLo48 ( talk) 21:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I think we mean "medals" -:). The reference to Wicca states "The former (i.e. Wicca) exists but has not been approved due to less than 25 chartered Wiccan units". This reads as if it is all matter of course, just a rule that is getting in the way and it will be OK when there are 25 troops. However that is a BSA POV, because there is controversy here. The story, if I recall it right, was that there were Wicca Scouts but no Wicca Troops, so a Wicca group asked for a religious medal. They were told they had to have a Wicca chartered Troop, although it is not clear that was a rule previously. So they formed a Troop and were then told they had to have 25. Rules were made up on the fly giving the Wiccans a strong impression that the BSA did not want them. This, in part, was a cause of the formation of an alternative Scouting organization, the SpiralScouts. This needs to be described, but of course with reliable sources. As it stands, it suggests there is no controversy regarding religious medals, but this is far from the case. -- Bduke (Discussion) 22:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
HiLo48 you are mixing up three different topics:
- Sponsoring / Chartering a Unit Tha has nothing to do with religion. A chess club could sponsor/charter a unit - Religion/Belief-Set specific special medals. There's only like 35 of those, and probably thousands of religions that BSA members are members of. - "Acceptability" whatever that means. You seemed to be implying that in order to be a BSA member your religion / belief set has to come from one of the ~35 that have special medals or needed some official "acceptance" If so, where did you get that from?
BTW, I'm an atheist/ agnostic, (the ONE group that the BSA policies say is not allowed to be a BSA member) have been a BSA member for 49 years,Eagle Scout, in multiple councils, and in about 20 different unit, district and council level volunteer positions. . For me personally atheism/agnosticism it's not a belief or attitude, it's a merely a description of a situation of lack of a particular belief. I don't shout it from the rooftops in BSA or feel a need to tell people who didn't ask about it, but I don't keep it a secret. (I've never refused to sign an application or recite something due to having the word "God" in it.) And, in 49 years, it HAS NEVER NEVER EVER EVER COME UP. In all of that time nobody has ever even asked what church I'm a member of. This is of course, non-wikipedian "primary research", but I thought that telling you this might get you un-confused about what the situaiton is here, as your comments certainly indicate a massive mis-impression of the situation here. I was going to say that if your religion was worshiping your neighbor's tree, that would be fine to be in Scouts. But in reality, you wouldn't even need that because it never comes up.
On your note "Heaven help an Australian Aboriginal person with traditional beliefs turning in the USA!" You might find the article in the Navajo Hopi Observer article linked in reference #16 in this article interesting...it's about that exact situation, except not Australian. The article describes that the Dine' / Navajo (Native American) spiritual belief set is not only "acceptable" but BSA was supporting the development of a special medal for it. (BTW I had the privilege of an extended visit on that Dine' reservation......)
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 14:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC) North8000 ( talk) 14:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello HiLo48 Well, I think that this is more of an " exchange of understanding" than a Wikipedian discussion, but I can't think of a better use for a few bytes of Wikipedianb hard drive space than this. The following is a sincere effort to convey something, not a "debate" or an attempt to make points.
In a multi-million person organizaton that is decentralized in many respects, it's probable that somewhere somebody inquired about somebody's religion. But in 49 years of Scouting I'v never seen, , heard or read of that happening.
You asked a lot of good questions that I think would take pages or a book to answer. But here are a few thoughts....these are my sincere observations, not official policy statements:
A typical sponsoring institution is someone who got asked to sponsor a unit, and where the only thing they do is provide a meeting place and once a year sign put their signature on a a piece of paper somebody slides in front of them. Even though on paper it is much more, in reality that's about it for a typical situation.
BSA vaguely promotes the idea of belief in a God, and the things that it has youth in most programs recite (plus the application form) routinely mention God, and duty to God. As far as Scouting as a whole, that's about IT..that's about the extent of it's religiousness for a typical Scout who isn't particularly interested in religion (e.g. an atheist/agnostic Scout) (I'm sure that a few percent of individual units go a little further than that.) Except when someone gets "in their face" opposing these vague things, essentially pushing BSA "into a corner" on the issue by refusing to sign the application, or making a point of saying that they are not reciting the oath etc, then (and ONLY then) they will come out swinging. Court cases, removal from leadership or membership positions etc...
If there's one "big secret" in Scouting. it's that, contrary to to it's structure on paper, BSA is heavily dominated by a "fifth column" which it's professionals. Not a "big conspiracy" or secret network, just human nature combined with a "line authority" network inherent in an employee organization, combined with the fact that they are the ones that write the checks, unlock the camps etc.. Also, the top professional each council mostly picks who their bosses will be (ala the Enron board or the Scouting E-board) which usually is people (e.g. philanthropists) who don't have the backround or inclination,, sufficient meetings or small enough of a board size to actually manage them. Their main motivations are increasing income and membership numbers, bettering the financial position of BSA, minimizing risk and problems. Many of the genuine big fights and scandals in and Scouting (ghost units, phony membership numbers, always trying to get rid of Scout camps, reducing allowable activities) come from myopia of such tendencies running amok. But you would be happy to know that that "fifth column" is absolutely non-ideological. So they (and I) would love to have a million atheists and gays join as long as they don't make a point of doing high-profile head-butting with BSA on those issues. As a result, BSA is full of gays and atheists, but not gay activists, and not atheist-activists. If you want to know the REAL story, that is it.
I'm sure that Scouting's policies are influenced by Churches. And probably by the LDS Church more than others because it makes BSA a part of it's programs. So, unlike other churches, that's big membership numbers that can easily go away with the change of one policy.
I know that this is only a few little pieces of unwikipedian information (mostly very informative overgeneralizations) in response to some good big questions of yours, but I hope that it was at least a little bit helpful
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 23:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
You write of "US anti-discrimination laws" being a problem to some conservative people, perhaps because they at times lean towards being positive discrimination laws. While this is no doubt true, it is also true that BSA has gone to the trouble of creating formal policies that are explicitly negatively discriminatory against gay people. BSA is not just an innocent victim of broader societal battles here. It is a player. It has taken explicit action to make gay people unwelcome. It has also allowed the words "morally straight" to be deliberately misused by some where straight is used as the opposite of gay. BSA policies are not neutral on this matter. HiLo48 ( talk) 22:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I am now clearer about the difference between the BSA term "chartered" and the Scouts Australia and The Scout Association term "sponsored". The terms mean the same. Sponsoring authorities, like chartering authorities, take very different levels of involvement from high to essentially none. The real difference is that the BSA insists all Troops, Packs etc. are chartered. In Australia and UK, there is a choice between "Sponsored" and "Open", with "open" being the larger and growing group. The associations technically own scout huts and Group equipment in most cases of Open Groups. Open Groups take a broader view of involvement with the local community. The other difference is that the main proportion of sponsoring authorities in UK and Australia are Churches, and I would guess that 99% plus of the rest are Schools, particularly boarding schools. So the practice of chartered and sponsored units are very similar. It is just that the majority of Groups in Australia and UK are open. -- Bduke (Discussion) 21:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)