Boy Scout membership at all time high (ESPECIALLY in San Francisco)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jack 99

New member
Sometimes I'm almost encouraged:
http://washtimes.com/national/default-200094222338.htm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Boy Scouts grows to a
record enrollment

By Joyce Howard Price
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


Activists for homosexuals have battled publicly with the
Boy Scouts of America for nearly two decades over the
Scouts' ban on homosexual leaders, and membership in the
Scouts has climbed as the conflict has intensified.
"During the last three years,
we've grown by 7 percent," said
Gregg Shields, spokesman for the
Boy Scouts, which finished last
year with 6.2 million members —
5 million youths and 1.2 million
adults.
"The net result is that we're
approaching record-high
membership. . . . We're doing very
well, thank you," Mr. Shields said
in a recent telephone interview
from his office in Dallas.
He noted that the last time the
Boy Scouts had nearly 5 million
youth members was back in the
early 1970s, when rolls reached
about 4.6 million.
The Boy Scouts' membership has grown during a
three-year period when there has been much public focus on
its policy barring homosexuals, as a result of major
developments in a lawsuit. The suit was brought by James
Dale, a former New Jersey troop leader, who was kicked
out of the Scouts in 1990 after his homosexuality was
discovered.
The case ended in June, when the Supreme Court ruled
that the Boy Scouts — a private organization — has the legal
right to bar homosexual leaders.
Membership growth in the Boy Scouts has been
particularly strong in the heavily homosexual San Francisco
area.
"Our membership went up 13.7 percent last year and 14
percent the year before that, for a 28 percent rise in just two
years," said Steve Barnes, executive director of the San
Francisco Bay Area Council of the Boy Scouts, which
includes more than 46,300 juveniles.
"We're the fastest-growing metro council in America," Mr.
Barnes added.
There's been strong growth in Scouting in San Francisco
and elsewhere, despite the fact that the Lambda Legal
Defense Fund and other homosexual rights advocacy groups
have urged young people and their parents to turn to other
youth groups that "do not discriminate" on the basis of sexual
orientation.
The groups have stepped up these calls since the June 28
Supreme Court ruling in the Dale case. They have identified
the Boys and Girls Clubs, the National 4-H Council, the
Campfire Boys and Girls, and the Girl Scouts as acceptable
alternatives. Boys, however, cannot join the Girl Scouts, just
as girls cannot join the Cubs and Boy Scouts. Both girls and
boys can join the Explorers.
Asked why he believes the anti-Boy Scout message is not
registering with families in San Francisco, where homosexuals
wield significant political influence, Mr. Barnes said, "It's
because parents recognize the Scouting program has value
for their children."
Gregg Shields, spokesman for the Boy Scouts of
America, agrees. "We're not a recreation program. Our
mission is to help people's character grow and to make
ethical decisions. The Boy Scouts does not expect everyone
to agree with our values and beliefs . . . but we feel strongly
parents want" their children exposed to the "kinds of things
the Boy Scouts are teaching."
As for why homosexuals are not welcome in the Boy
Scouts, Mr. Shields said the Boy Scout oath calls for
members to be "morally straight." He pointed out that adults
who serve as Boy Scout leaders are also members of the
group and must take the oath.
"An avowed homosexual is not a role model for the Boy
Scout oath. So we do not extend membership to
homosexuals," he said.
Homosexual critics of the Boy Scouts have had some
success in getting several dozen private corporations,
foundations, charities, public school systems or municipal
governments either to end their support for the Boy Scouts or
to consider ending it, in light of the group's policy against
gays.
"Over the past two decades, some people have disagreed
with the Boy Scouts [on this issue] and stopped their funding.
Levi Strauss & Company stopped back in 1992. But there
have always been other groups to replace those that
withdrew their support," said Mr. Shields.
Lambda Legal Defense Fund keeps a list on its Web site
—www.lambdalegal.org — of groups and government
entities it says have either ended financial support or property
arrangements they had with the Boy Scouts or are
considering doing so. The list includes eight United Way
chapters that have already defunded the Boy Scouts — three
in California (San Francisco, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz)
and others in New Haven, Conn., Portland, Maine; Somerset
County, N.J.; Santa Fe, N.M.; and southeastern New
England.
Lambda also identifies four religious organizations — the
United Methodists, the Episcopalians, Reform Jews and
Unitarians — it says have passed resolutions condemning the
Boy Scouts' policy.
The pro-homosexual legal group also cites various public
school systems, such as San Francisco and Oakland, and
municipal governments, such as Chicago, that have
discontinued former arrangements they had with the Boy
Scouts. Chicago ended its sponsorship of 28 different
Explorers groups after being named in a lawsuit brought by
the American Civil Liberties Union in 1996.
Boy Scout officials suggest some of Lambda's information
is now irrelevant. Mr. Barnes of the San Francisco Bay Area
Council said San Francisco and Oakland public schools
denied Scout troops use of their facilities eight years ago.
"We lost 15,000 members at that time. But we've made that
back and more" and found alternate facilities, he said.
Some of Lambda's information is incorrect. For instance,
its Web site says the San Francisco-based Wells Fargo &
Co., the nation's seventh largest bank, pulled its donations to
the Boy Scouts.
But Larry Haeg, a spokesman for Wells Fargo, said the
bank made that decision way back in 1992. He said that
policy remained in effect until 1998, when Wells Fargo
merged with another bank, the Norwest Corp. of
Minneapolis. "Norwest saw a need to decentralize
decision-making, and it was agreed to let local bank
presidents decide if they want to donate to the Boy Scouts,"
said Mr. Haeg. He was unable to say how many do or do not
make such contributions today.
"And we have made no funding decisions regarding the
Boy Scouts as a result of the Supreme Court decision," he
added.
Lambda has also listed Chase Manhattan Bank among the
institutions that have withdrawn their financial support from
the Boy Scouts. However, Chase spokesman Jim Finn
announced Thursday that the bank will continue its support.
Withdrawing it, the bank said, "would be harmful to
thousands of children." Mr. Finn said Chase Manhattan
contributes $200,000 to the Boy Scouts annually.
 
Politcal correctness?
If that means NOT caving into Majority Religious Correctness, then I'm in.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>"An avowed homosexual is not a role model for the Boy
Scout oath. So we do not extend membership to
homosexuals," he said.[/quote]
I guess my son won't be joining, then. A role model for him should be anyone who can go through life without purposely harming another person (physically or otherwise). If a homosexual man can do that better than some "straight" judgemental a$$hole who thinks it's his place to decide who is saved and who(besides hinself :rolleyes: )is not (last I checked, there was only one entity who was elected for that job), then I'm going for the gay guy.

Life's too short to worry about what other people do in the privacy of their own homes.
Or does the Boy Scouts only teach the parts of the Constitution that suits them?
 
Cindy, you have every right to not enroll your son in Scouts, and I doubt anyone here would argue otherwise.

The Boy Scouts have always had a strong moral code in their tradition ... it is part and parcel of being a Scout. They don't endorse or support hatred, but they don't accept homosexuality as moral either. IMHO, that is their choice as well.

To be frank, I don't see a necessary one-to-one connection between the Constitution and what individuals consider to be moral behavior.

Many women would certainly meet your required role model, as would people who enjoy sex with animals, many alcoholics and drug addicts, etc. For many people, there is more to morality than simply the lack of purposeful physical or other harm to other individuals.

But again, it should be your choice to decide what role models are right for your kids, and it should be the choice of Scouts' parents to decide the same.


For one moment, consider the alternative. If the SCOTUS had ruled otherwise, where would it end? Would the Sierra Club be forced to accept lumberjacks and toxic waste companies as members? Perhaps shooting clubs would be forced to enroll anti-self defense gun bigots as members?

Homosexuality gets too bad a rap, and most of the gay folks I've known have been more than OK ... they've often been exceptional individuals. By the same token, some (many gay men in fact) have been very promiscuous, and their lifestyles sure don't fit with the moral lessons taught in Scouting.

When you boil it all down, the message I now get from some gays is that if you and I don't accept them and their lifestyle, then they'll declare war. They won't be happy until every segment of society not only recognizes their existence, but also accepts their lifestyle as moral, normal and right.

And, IMHO, their continuance down this path will create immense hatred within many people who heretofore couldn't have cared less about their choices in the bedroom. What a waste of time and emotion, and all for naught.

Regards from AZ
 
BTW, no , I don't approve of the "celebrate diversity, let's make the US flag rainbow colors for our cause." :rolleyes:
No more than I approve of the idea that accepting gays into our society and clubs is merely bowing to the PC crowd.

Comparing gays in the Boy Scouts to lumberjacks in the Sierra Club?
Uh, I think the S.C. was specifically founded to keep lumberjacks from "destroying" the forests...I wasn't in the Boy Scouts, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't founded specifically to keep gays out...I think that is a more recent development/tangent of the Boy Scouts' "morals." :confused:



[This message has been edited by CindyH (edited September 06, 2000).]
 
Detractors of the Boy Scouts seem to miss one very crucial issue: these kids are not joining gangs and getting into trouble. Rather, they are channeled into activities which teaches them social responsibility, citizenship, and most importantly, self esteem, identity, pride. The last three "needs" have been identified by criminologist (or sociologists) as needs filled by GANGS. So, the Scouts receive a lot the benefits without any of the detriment most youths who join gangs have. What a bargain and isn't it more important that the Scouts fulfill this mission in helping in the upbringing of our youth than the issue of discrimination against homosexuals? I suppose the short sighted political correct detractors of the scouts would rather have these kids selling drugs and killing each other.

Scouts forever!

(written by a biased Shooting badge counselor).
 
The idea that another person has less of a right to be a part of a group because of their sexual orientation is the height of moral depravity. It fits along with the Anti's stand on gun owners if you ask me.

No they are not joining gangs, although many do get into trouble I am sure. Basically they are teaching children that others are not as good as them and should not be allowed to be around them. Creating a group who thinks they are a higher class.
So here we have a hypothetical but very possible scene from a meeting between leader and scout.

-------
Leader: No Billy, Todd can't be a part of the group anymore.

Scout: Why not Todd is my friend.

Leader: because he is different than us and we don't like his kind.

Scout: How is he different? He looks like me, and talks like me and you.

Leader: Uhh.. He.. Uhh.. He fells different inside and we don't agree with that here.

Scout: Has he done anything to hurt anyone, or done anything bad?

Leader: No. of course not.

Scout: Then why should it matter if he feels different?

Leader: Uhh.. uhh.. I... He is just different. That makes him bad.
-----

The BSOA has become corrupt in their own way. Hopefully they will burn in the fires of their own doing and something better will arise from the ashes. Something that won't tell people they are bad for loving someone.

ALL Americans are equal. Black, white, red, green the color doesn’t mean ****. Heterosexual, Homosexual, or bisexual, it doesn’t mean **** either. What the BSOA has done is called Bigotry and it is immoral. So in doing this they have broken their own code. And I for one have no sympathy for them. I do however feel sorry for the children who are being taught to hate.
I was once in the scouts and I took great pleasure in burning my uniform the other day. I am just glad I was out before they did something like this. Are blacks next?

--
Editted for a badly worded comment that may have insulted 4V50 Gary and others. If you read it sory man didn't realize how it looked to after I posted :)
--

[This message has been edited by Kevinw (edited September 06, 2000).]
 
1.Gangs are only in L.A., San Jose, and Oakland. They have been on the decline ever since the early nineties and most "gang" labels are a misrepresentation, i.e. any crime commited by a young black or latino man with a shaved head is labeled "gang" related by the media and police. 2. The 5% of American children who live in the above mentioned cities and truly are at risk are generally so because they have been neglected by parents, not the Boy Scouts.
3. Just because a kid listens to rap, has bad taste in clothes, and thinks he/she is "down" doesn't make them a gangmember, just posers.

Anyways, as you can tell I don't like having that label thrown around so capriciously, its not ment as an affront.

Who would of guessed the RKBA is backed by narrow minded redneck homophobes :rolleyes:? Maybe thats why so many "sheeple" don't get with the program, cuz too many gun rights advocates are lumping the issue with archaic religous/moral beliefs. If thats your opinion, great, good for you. But please don't expect me to buy this "Its those darned PC gun grabbers again..." crap, as if RKBA was homologous(no pun) to your moral dilemma.

Again, what does this have to do with anything(RKBA) ?

[This message has been edited by MTAA (edited September 06, 2000).]
 
Cindy - of course the Boy Scouts were not founded to exclude gays. But, the moral code of the Scouts is a critical part of the organization. Your same logic would require that the Catholic church admit those of the Jewish faith (the only reason we don't get this argument legally is the First Amendment). Would you argue that the Scouts could only enforce those moral standards that don't offend anyone?

KevinW - it's a shame you have such a reservoir of hate built up for the Scouts. You state 'The idea that another person has less of a right to be a part of a group because of their sexual orientation is the height of moral depravity. It fits along with the Anti's stand on gun owners if you ask me.' Do you really believe this? Would a pedophile be an acceptable counselor for the Cub Scouts. How about someone who practices beastiality leading a 4-H club? Sure, these are different than gays, but you're taking the position that sexual orientation should be as unimportant as color. Sexual orientation has moral overtones for many people and many religions.

MTAA - gangs are only in L.A. ...? The Phoenix police and many other LEO's would beg to differ. The fact remains that the Boy Scouts are one of the most successful youth organizations we've ever had in this country, and now liberals want to destroy them. [I suspect part of the hatred for the Scouts is also predicated upon their support of classic morality and values in general, not just the homosexual issue.] This is a sure formula to create more hatred.


This is a tiresome debate, and is probably only on TFL because so many of us were Scouts - not to mention the historical support Scouting has given to the RKBA. And, many of us see this current hatred towards the Scouts as being symtomatic of the hypocritical 'tolerance' advocated by so many liberals.

We've reached a point that anything other than a total embrace of homosexuality is called 'homophobia' ... rather like the situation years ago where any disagreement with Israeli policy tended to brand someone as an anti-Semite.


For me, this is quite simple. We have a private group that advances a moral code as a critical part of their message. That moral code does not accept homosexuality. And, some members and allies of the homosexual lobby / movement have declared war on the Boy Scouts. They want to go to war to force families to accept a morality they disagree with? Well, so be it ... but I don't think they realize how much people appreciate and value the Scouts. And, when they've fanned the flames of hatred, they can look at the result with smug satisfaction to see all of the 'homophobes' they've created. Not too bright, IMHO.

Or, an alternative course would be to express disappointment in this policy, continue educating people about how many people in our society are homosexuals, the many contributions they've made to society over the years, and the contributions they make every day. Not to mention that many of us work side by side with gays, and never know it anyway.

But, ironically enough, intolerance seems to be the order of the day, in spite of these protestations against the Boy Scouts.

Regards from AZ



[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited September 06, 2000).]
 
Detractors of what private groups do or not do are missing the point. If the Boy Scouts don't want to admit those who would detract from their goals, then so be it. Homosexuals can start their own young men's group.

Should the VFW be forced to accept draft dodgers? Should Jewish groups be forced to accept Aryan Nazi's?

Okay, the argument then is that homosexuals were born with this crippling malady. Should girls groups accept boys and boys' groups accept girls? Should we tear out the walls between the locker rooms and toilets?
 
I don't think it is the business of the government who belongs to what.

If an individual doesn't like an organization's policies, then they have the right to not belong. If an organization does not like an individual, they have the right to deny membership.

Sam..."Less government, more individual responsibility."...JBS
 
I try so hard to stay out but..BSA does not exclude diabetics or blonds or hemophiliacs. These characteristics are not CHOSEN. Here is a revelation - homosexual scouts have existed in the organization from its' onset. Only when it became political fodder did it come to a froth. And sadly, a few good men who never harmed a boy in any way had to leave. See, the politics of sexuality disregard the individual. Scouting promotes the individual and this political machine despises them for it. Homosexuality is a choice. Show me any sound scientific, non political, source that disputes this fact.
Everything about scouting is a choice and a commitment.
What pisses off people like myself is that I am not only required to ACCEPT a behavior I find distasteful (my choice), but I am also supposed to LIKE you for it. Well I do accept your right to behave as you choose and I do not want to infringe upon your activity. I will not however be bullied into ACCEPTING you into an EXCLUSIVE group that I frequent.
Get over it.
 
Do away with sweetheart deals you say?
FINE! Let's do away with contributions
for AIDS research! That is the tit for tat mentality on this string. Can't their be one organization in this country that does not have to pander to political activists? Why are we forced to swallow
a lifestyle that some of us simply don't subscribe to? If we don't accept something then we are homophobes etc.?
Leave the boy scouts alone to run their organization as they see fit. I think that is part of being in a democracy.
If you want your son to be in the gay scouts of america then create a chapter.
 
Taking away funding for campouts is equal to taking away funding for a fatal disease that affects people from all walks of life, including innocent babies and children?

OOO-KAY.
 
Cindy, I'm sure we can find plenty of government money going to gay causes. Do they really want to throw these stones? Apparently, they do.

Fine. Have at it. War on the Boy Scouts? Then, shall we have War on Homosexual Groups?

Fine way to run a society, isn't it. Really warms the heart to see people 'tolerate' each other, doesn't it.

This is idiotic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top