Obama Missing Historic Boy Scout Jamboree for Fundraisers, 'View' Taping

I was in the scouts (and Hindu) and never was asked about my religion (everyone knew I was hindu anyway) or my sexual orientation. That said, the scout motto does make references to God and religion that some people may take offense to (that and our meetings were at a church).

But overall I never really cared and really enjoyed the experience since I would have never gone camping, kayaking, or any of the other things I did as a scout. I'm the son of an immigrant family that has no experience with any of the stuff you learn in scouting. The fact that I got to learn things like archery (which I actually became somewhat decent at),white water rafting, making a campfire and setting up a camp was phenomenal. Hell I even did some target practice with some rifles (coming from a family that has never owned guns, it was definitely interesting and actually enjoyable) I'll never own a gun but it certainly gave some perspective on why people own them.

We never had any gay people in our troop but then again we had a very very small troop (less than 20 people) so the odds were low to begin with. But I'm fairly certain no one in our troop would give a damn anyway.

There is so much a person like me can learn from scouts. I hate their position on gays and lesbians but I think guys like Deckard and Rashmon have summed up what I think about this quite nicely.

 

If the scouts were "whites only" would you have made this post?

 

Not to belabor the issue, as I've repeatedly agreed on purely adult-driven philosophical grounds, but you sound eerily similar to a religious person espousing pure moral absolutism.

 

How do you know you there weren't any gays in your troop?

Turns out that my best friend (who was also the patrol leader's son) is gay. I didn't know that until I rediscovered him (30+ years later) on Facebook earlier this year.

 

My post..batman...was that the scouts -- in my experience -- are not 'christian only.' And that gay/straight was not an issue back in my day (though those were much less tolerant times all around). The scouts i knew seemed a lot more interested in camping, canoeing, making fires and smoking weed then sexual orientation or passing judgement on others.

Though I disagree strongly with their official policy on gays, I'm accepting Deck, and Rashmon, and those who've actually been involved with the organization observations that gay/straight simply isn't an issue. If a kid were excluded because he was gay, or because his parents were gay I'd be outraged. But I don't think that happens except in isolated incidents. I suspect discrimination against gays is as much or more prevalent in the army, certainly in religious organization, and likely in many sports groups and specific communities. Not right. And needs to be changed. But this mock outrage strikes me as odd from people who have no involvement with, and are unlikely to have involvement with the group.

Batman...if a president repeatedly, and consistently said he was against interracial marriage, would you dismiss it as simply something that was politically expedient to say?

 

Ok I should say openly gay. Obviously someone could be gay but I figure having closeted gays isnt really the focus here. The argument is that BSA wont let openly gay people into their organization.

 

That read somewhat condescendingly. It's just a discussion.

True, but I think it's just that since it wasn't a consideration or problem when I was in scouts, or among scouts I knew, that people who thought it was a problem might be interested to know and understand that I didn't experience what so many are so upset about.

As I pointed out, when I was in scouts, sexuality was not part of it. My whole troop might have been gay for all I knew (probably a few were). I knew an openly gay scoutmaster and scout (wouldn't bore you with the trivialized "and they were two of my best friends"... but they were), and never once thought it amazing that they were "allowed". It just wasn't a factor in my experience, and therefore I suppose I don't understand the amount of outrage unless others' experiences were different than mine, or unless things have drastically changed, which is possible. Principle... I understand.

I agree that if that's the agenda they are pushing, they should be more inclusive and tolerant, but my point was that when I was a part of it, there was no obvious projected agenda, regardless what the official stance on the issue might have been. It's not that I think people should be alright with the BSA having this stance and mantra, but more that I think for the most part most people involved are not of that mindset, that there's a lot of good that can be obtained through scouting, and that in my experience it's less oppressive in practice than how people, such as yourself, are portraying. It's been a while, and maybe things have changed. Maybe it was a misconception and it occurred to and bothered everyone but me and those I knew. I can't say.

I suppose in principle I'm with what you're saying, but in practice I think it might be overblown outside of sheer principle, which, I do understand. I reserve the right to be wrong, and am as I said speaking of my own experience. I'm sure I again didn't explain myself well enough to be beyond another "explanation" but I did my best.

 

No, I wouldn't. Excellent point. And more evidence (this time with me, instead of the parents of boy scouts or girl scouts, as "Exhibit A") that we have a long way to go as a society with regard to bigotry toward gays, and our continued acceptance of it as a society (me with Obama; others with the scouts).

To the people that keep saying sexuality wasn't an issue when they were in the scouts, the reason for that is that it wasn't really raised at all then. The bigotry toward gays then was so pronounced, that no one would even consider the idea of a gay scoutmaster. So, in some ways, the fact that the issue is even controversial now is a sign of progress. But we still have a long way to go.

 

For you, yes. Just like a conversation about equal rights for black would have been "just a discussion" for a white person in the 50s or 60s. Not so for a black person.

If I sounded condescending, I apologize. It was because I was sort of appalled by the phrase "I don't get all the scout bashing."

I don't believe the parents of scouts are doing anything wrong and maybe BetterThanI and I differ here (I'm not sure).

But the organization itself definitely deserves to be bashed. It deserves to have its head bashed against a wall until it it wakes up to the intolerant, hateful, bigoted positions it has taken and continues to take and reverses them.

If you don't "get" that, maybe I did mean to be condescending after all.

 

I don't know, man, it seems like you are only reading the parts you want to be upset about. I stand by my posts in their contexts.

I think saying it's just a discussion could be met with less aggression. My implication obviously wasn't that "it's no more important than any other discussion", rather it was that since we're just discussing it, you shouldn't have to be mad if people are being honest and not insulting or deliberately inflammatory. I think this was obvious.

Again, I was speaking of my experience, not the headlines of what 'positions' they've taken lately. I admit I'm unaware of the official stance or recent and not so recent human rights offenses, and was merely offering my experience and honesty in what I did and did not know or understand. It's not at all like my statement was saying "What's wrong with discriminating against certain people?" but surprisingly you seem to have taken it somewhat that way. I would have thought I made at least that clear and obvious with statements like

among many others that I thought illustrated this, but maybe not.

 

As I do mine.

And I've read all of the posts, not just the parts I'm upset about. I've also posted that I understand the positive things that BSA/GSA have to offer and I enjoyed them myself as a kid. I've also said I'm not sure if I would hold my kids out of the scouts based on politics and that I might well behave exactly as Deckard and Rashmon have.

In fact, I could almost reverse your statement above and turn it back on you: it seems like you only want to talk about the happy things about the scouts. Why bother? We all know those things. We don't need a D&D thread to discuss the merits of scouting anymore than we need one to debate whether or not ice cream tastes good.

The only thing I took issue with in your post was the idea that you didn't understand the bashing of an organization which has explicitly banned gays and atheists from participating in any way in BSA/GSA.

I was trying to explain (since you said you didn't understand) why they were being bashed and why they deserve to be.

 

FWIW I don't know why I'm spending so much time defending the scouts -- must be a slow day. They've always struck me as a little creepy with their militaristic pledges, salutes, hierarchies, badges and rituals. . (in my day we might even have called them gay ).

One thing I've learned as a parent is that it's much harder to honestly pass judgment on groups (especially a volunteer based group) based on perceptions of what they are about. A friend of mine -- a very strong minded feminist lawyer is now actively involved in a cheerleading organization because her daughter became involved. Crazy. And surreal to hear her defend girls getting gussied up to cheer on the sidelines....but when you get involved, you often see the good, which may offset your perceptions of the bad.

Please don't think I'm dismissing the very serious intolerant position the organization has officially taken against gays. Possibly I'm pragmatic that an organization that caters to adolescent boys will be more reluctant to accept gay leadership then, say, the military or other groups that are strictly for adults. Especially at an 'official' level. Or am foolishly taking solace that at the local level most of the groups do not abide by this. The organization will change...in time...if it wants to stay relevant (kids today don't accept the intolerance their parents do) and having people like Deck and Rashmon (and their kids) actively involved speeds that process much more then angry rants from the likes of me, betterthani, or batman. And there's no harm in upping the pressure for them to change sooner rather then later.

Bobrek, and batman bring up the very valid point that those of us who think it simply wasn't an issue 'back when' probably didn't recognize it as an issue, because it wasn't an issue to us. As with bobrek's experience, a facebook perusal of my old highschool friends revealed quite a few who are gay, though I had no idea at the time. Several of them were the kids who it seemed simply didn't fit it, for a variety of reasons. Possibly the biggest one was the one they were not allowed to admit -- even to themselves. We HAVE come a long way, baby.

But I think, what I really wanted to stress in this thread, is that even an appearance by the president does not redeem the View. The show is simply offensive and an affront to all that is morally good in this world.

Have a good weekend, all! I'm off for a few days of sand, surf, and peddling!

 

Nice post, bnb. And I agree we've come a long way. But if you think I've posted an "angry rant" in this thread, well, I guess you haven't seen me post an actual angry rant. I think I've been pretty tame here, at least for me.

 

you've been keeping the D&D civil bats!

and your angry rants are often right on the mark.

cheers.

 

I've kept out of this thread because I could care less whether Obama appears at the Boy Scout Jamboree or not. I have to agree though on the View.

Really what type of man would voluntarily spend an hour with Whoopi, Baba WaWa, Elizabeth Hasselback and whoever the other women are on there.

 

Should it bother us that you knew three of them (and should it bother me that I knew that you knew 3 of them)?

 

Frankly it bothers myself that I know 3 of them..

 

I understood, just not the extent. I was posting my experience to the contrary in multiple ways, after the pseudo off topic bashing began, regardless what the organization explicitly says they stand for.... then was told I needed to have it explained again. Seemed kind of positive in some ways to me, but I guess that's lost and we're only supposed to argue.

I think we agree in principle in many ways on this, I was just trying to bring my experience, thoughts and questions to the table. Cool, said my piece, i'm out.

The thread was about Obama, once upon a time... not that tangents are illegal.

 

If it is an OddSon thread, it is always about Obama. Kind of...

Tangents are required to discuss anything of relevance.

 

It wasn't about Obama; it was about OddsOn. Sometimes derailing is good.

Peace.