Cloudstrider

Apparently they want free rent and the right to discriminate against queer-o-sexuals.

Read about it here

Sound off! Should they quite moaning and either pay the rent or find a less expensive location? What makes them think they have a case?

Should the BSA just change this stupid policy?

Writing this up at work so it's gonna be a bit messy. Mixed and multiple feelings here...

Lemme run through them real quick:

Before I get started, I just want to say that I would like to smack Mr. Smith upside the head for this particular sentence.



Um. Yeah. Dude. Badly phrased. Badly, badly phrased. I know what he means, but damn that sounds bad.

Moving on.

Firstly, it IS bullcrap that the city shows favoritism to religious groups and then picks on the Scouts for doing the same thing. Church/State aside, if it's wrong for one group to say people can't join, you shouldn't let another one off.

Secondly, the city owns the land but the Scouts built the building and pay to maintain it. It's the way Scouts works, a troop (or in this case a council) often has a sponsor that actually owns the property but the Scouts use it. And given the history and money, the city needs to stop being dicks. I think someone on City council went "Ooh, we can make money at the expense of a program that helps children!" and ran with the idea. (It's happening in my hometown too. The Lion's Club is trying to run us out of the place we've been for fifty years, and someone there is stealing our stuff too. The Fire Department is our sponsor, but they sold the building we're in, so now my local troop is at the mercy of two organizations instead of one. Who would've thought?)

Third, it ISN'T the Cradle of Liberty Council's decision. It's National Council's decision. And National isn't going to change it for anything.

Which brings me to my last point:

The policy against homosexuals (AND atheists) is not a good idea and needs to be rescinded. Scouting is dying - quickly - and needs all the youths and volunteers it can get. National had to have known it was going to take flak for it's decision, but it apparently didn't care.

As an atheist scoutleader, I have to keep my lack of religion under wraps, or I'm out like yesterday's garbage - despite being a Scout since '92 ('86 or so if you count Cub Scouts) and a Scoutleader since '99. I've been the assistant scoutmaster for six separate scoutmasters - and in one case I barely held the troop together after one particularly bad scoutmaster chased all but three of the boys off. I've never tried to "atheitize" a kid away from religion, and helped run the troop for nine years, but National would still pitch me out on my ass if they had the choice. And without me (or any of the remaining volunteers) the troop would be toast for not meeting minimum staff requirements. National wouldn't care if the troop failed as long as it kept the "guy with the uncomfortable viewpoint" away.

Same for gays: despite all the really messed up fears of short sighted goober parents - I doubt any of the gays who want to be in the organization are there to "check out" the kids or think they can cause a boy to "switch sides." (In the one instance that I heard of when this all started hitting the fan years back, the guy was an Eagle Scout, and wanted to be a scoutleader because he thought he owed it to the program to be a volunteer.) Gayness isn't infectious, you can't catch it or something. And there's no evidence that a gay man is more liable to harm children than straight men. (Aren't most pedos actually nominally hetero, but with a disgusting extra thing for kids?) Gay leaders won't "gay-up" the kids: it'll keep the program running.

Individual troops are already starting to collapse due to lack of leaders and youths. National needs to pull it's head out of it's collective ass and see this before entire councils start failing.

But hey, if they'd rather let the whole of American Scouting collapse - whatever. Just more kids with nothing to do and no one to look out for them. Par for the course.