There's a few facts about the Boy Scouts of America that you need you need to know, it's why I encourage you not to take part in this fundraiser.
The Boy Scouts of America protected pedophiles for decades:
As I talked about on this blog in September, the Boy Scouts covered up pedophilia within their ranks for decades, urging offenders to only quietly resign, never turning them into law enforcement, and come were even allowed to come back later. It wasn't until this October that they even decided to change their policies.
There has been no attempt to compensate the victims yet, or make amends, which has resulted in lawsuits all throughout the United States.
Discrimination against gay youth and scoutmasters:
Once the organization finds out that a Boy Scout/Eagle Scout or a scoutmaster is gay, they are often expelled by the BSA. A California teen was expelled after coming out, and the Scouts refused to give him the Eagle Scout honor that he had earned. His case brought national attention to the BSA's policies, and he was even invited to be a guest on the Ellen DeGeneres show.
The Scouts also do not allow gay scoutmasters as well, the expulsion of one scoutmaster for this reason led to a lawsuit which went all the way to the Supreme Court in 2000. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Scouts, saying that a private organization had the right to restrict it's membership if "the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.".
The Boy Scouts of America does not allow atheists or agnostics in their ranks either:
The BSA bans atheists and agnostics from membership, feeling that they are not "appropriate role models" for boys within the organization. Here's a quote from the BSA:
 |
| (meme taken from Laughing In Purgatory) |
"The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise the member declares, ‘On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law.’ The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members."
The Boy Scouts have a tradition where they recognize the religion that a Scout is a part of, in awards for various actions and good deeds. 38 different religions and branches of religions, such as various denominations of Christianity, Judaism, and even Hinduism are recognized in this system, but atheists aren't welcome.
Please, if you care about discrimination, and stopping child abuse, do not support the Boy Scouts!
I beg you, please do not buy a Christmas tree from the Boy Scouts of America this year, and do not participate in any future fundraisers of theirs. The entire attitude disgusts me, to the Boy Scouts of America, gays and atheists are evil and "not appropriate role models", but pedophiles aren't. They remind me of the hierarchy in the Catholic church. Regular readers of mine know that I despise any person who abuses children, or any group that condones or supports child abuse in any form. It's one of the major reasons why I work so hard to expose the Independent Fundamental Baptist organization.
I am joining forces today with bloggers like Andrew Hall of Laughing in Purgatory and Jack Vance (aka vjack) of Atheist Revolution is saying enough is enough, it's time for the Boy Scouts of America to protect children within their organization, apologize for the past, and end their discriminatory polices.
(Sheldon's note, the full list of all 30 blogs participating in this campaign can be found at Laughing In Purgatory)
Well, this blog seems to need a Snopes entry.
ReplyDeleteLet's correct the most important thing first. Those boy scouts out there selling Christmas trees - their local scout troop gets 100% of that money. None of it, not one dollar, goes to the national Boy Scouts of America with its discriminatory policies. None of those boys or leaders has a vote in the national organization's policy either.
So when you don't buy that tree from them, you are probably hurting many young kids and young families who agree with you, and who just want their kids to experience the outdoors.
It's a Fire-Ready-Aim approach to advocacy on your part which isn't very rational.
Now let's address the pedophilia issue. Statistically, scouting volunteers are no more likely than any other youth worker to be molesters. School teachers, sports coaches, ministers, hobby organization leaders - all have seen equal (or greater) levels of this crime. The only difference is that the Boy Scouts kept records, to try to prevent these creeps from moving around to new troops. Schools didn't keep records. Churches didn't. None of the youth sports programs do even now.
Were those records perfect? No. In an age before computers, it was hard to tell if Bill Joplin in Missouri was the same Bill Joplin now applying for a position in Alabama. Did those records stop thousands of molesters? Yes. Remember at the time, the records were also just accusations - courts and prosecutors often don't have enough evidence to pursue cases to a verdict. At the time as well, there was no protection for an organization that publicly reported a false accusation. The person could sue the Boy Scouts for slander.
Was the BSA perfect? No. With 2+ million volunteers, there were people who could have done better. Were they and are they better than most youth serving organizations? Yes.
"Let's correct the most important thing first. Those boy scouts out there selling Christmas trees - their local scout troop gets 100% of that money. None of it, not one dollar, goes to the national Boy Scouts of America with its discriminatory policies. None of those boys or leaders has a vote in the national organization's policy either."
DeleteSo none of them have a vote in the policies, they may not even agree with the policies, and yet they still remain a part of the national council? Why? It doesn't make a lot of sense, and if they don't agree with their polices, and have no voice in the process, then why don't they just leave? If they refuse to leave, in my mind, they are just as guilty.
"Now let's address the pedophilia issue. Statistically, scouting volunteers are no more likely than any other youth worker to be molesters. School teachers, sports coaches, ministers, hobby organization leaders - all have seen equal (or greater) levels of this crime. The only difference is that the Boy Scouts kept records, to try to prevent these creeps from moving around to new troops. Schools didn't keep records. Churches didn't. None of the youth sports programs do even now."
Really? No more likely? Have stats to back that up?
If other organizations don't even keep records of who they have banned due to allegations of child abuse, then they should start the process now. Also, the big question hanging in the air is why didn't the BSA turn these pedophiles into local law enforcement? Keeping a secret list, and not informing the proper authorities doesn't make them much better then the Catholic church.
"they may not even agree with the policies, and yet they still remain a part of the national council? ... If they refuse to leave, in my mind, they are just as guilty."
DeleteCome now. Do you agree with all of the policies of the United States? Torture of prisoners? Drone attacks?
And yet you have not left the country. You continue to contribute tax dollars in support of such things. Doesn't that make you "just as guilty" by your own arguments?
I think a more rational approach is to recognize that in a diverse society, we hardly ever find any organization or group with which we agree completely, 100% of the time. So we make decisions based on a balanced approach to the whole, while being understanding and respectful of other people's views. We can't quit or shun everyone every time they disagree.
With respect to pedophilia, of course there are stats to back that up. You can compute them yourself without relying on me. The full BSA records for 30+ years have been released, and the total number of volunteers for that period is publicly available. Well-researched estimates of incidence rates for pedophilia generally and by subgroups are available online from several federal agencies.
If you take the time to do additional research, you'll also discover that in the large majority of cases in the BSA files, law enforcement was aware. The problem is that "beyond reasonable doubt" is a high standard of proof, especially when most families of the time were unwilling to press charges and put their kids through that process. In many cases, there simply was not enough evidence to sustain a charge.
So you have a large group of accused people without sufficient evidence for proof. You do what you can internally to try to keep them out, but you cannot go take out a newspaper ad saying "stay away from this guy" because that of course would be libel. Remember, for most of the period covered by the released files, there were no reporting laws, and no protections against being sued by an accused perpetrator if the allegations could not be proved.
Add in to that the additional complication that most abuse of this sort does not occur on actual scout outings, just as Jerry Sandusky's abuse didn't occur at his charity. It occurs on private events authorized by the parents, almost always without the knowledge of the BSA.
These things are tragedies, to be sure, and yes I certainly believe that some local leaders could have and should have done better. Before we rush to judgment on any individual, though, a rational person would take the time to research things well.
I'm not sure that a rational person would ever rush to judgment on a whole group of people.
"Come now. Do you agree with all of the policies of the United States? Torture of prisoners? Drone attacks?
DeleteAnd yet you have not left the country. You continue to contribute tax dollars in support of such things. Doesn't that make you "just as guilty" by your own arguments?"
I'm pleasantly surprised that you stuck around, I figured it would be a hit and run post.
You're comparing apples and oranges, sir.
There's a big difference between an organization one can easily leave and an entire nation. If someone leaves the Boy Scouts, very little consequences will come upon that person, if I refuse the pay taxes, well then I could end up in prison, and keep in mind that not everyone can afford to leave this country, perhaps you could if you are indeed a professor as your name suggests.
"These things are tragedies, to be sure, and yes I certainly believe that some local leaders could have and should have done better. Before we rush to judgment on any individual, though, a rational person would take the time to research things well."
Sure, I see your point about the local leaders, but why haven't they spoken out against the BSA's actions?
Also, better yet, why has the BSA not apologized for their role in this whole disaster (if they have, tell me, and direct me to a link)? Why have they not made settlement offers to the victims? Why are they not offering help such as counseling, etc?
"There's a big difference between an organization one can easily leave and an entire nation."
DeleteOf course there is. Does that matter, I wonder? Does the guilt change if resisting is more difficult? After all, none of the boy's Christmas Tree money is going to the BSA, but a fairly substantial portion of yours is going to the CIA. I also suspect that if an indigent Mexican can afford to leave his or her country to find a better place then an employed American with enough disposable income for a blog can as well.
An alternative might be more palatable, in that perhaps it's OK to be a part of an organization or a nation if we feel that overall it does more good than harm. Perhaps we do not need to be single-issue voters like our friends on the religious right.
You raise some more pragmatic questions, however, to which I am happy to respond.
First, of course local leaders are dismayed by some of the reports from the files, and have expressed their displeasure. It's been 25 or more years since the incidents in those files, and almost everything has already changed in the intervening years. Law enforcement reports are now mandatory, background checks are in place. There is stricter leader screening and training, stronger policies, better youth education. These issues have all been addressed, and the few fools of yesteryear are long gone. It's hard to find anyone to be upset with.
For cases in litigation, things are more complicated. The BSA has insurers, and when you are sued it is your insurer who handles the legal defense and settlement negotiations, not you. That's because it is your insurer paying, not you. The BSA like any organization (including yourself, if you were sued and your homeowner's policy insurer was defending you) does not have much control over that.
Of course, in almost all of the cases with substantial evidence, the BSA has indeed settled with the victims, for terms which at times do include extensive counseling support.
In terms of apology, I refer you to this report from the Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2012/10/18/scouts/story.html) and quote the relevant sections:
“There have been instances where people misused their positions in Scouting to abuse children, and in certain cases, our response to these incidents and our efforts to protect youth were plainly insufficient, inappropriate, or wrong,” the statement said.
“Where those involved in Scouting failed to protect, or worse, inflicted harm on children, we extend our deepest apologies to victims and their families.”
Thank you for the link, I was not aware of any apologies on the behalf of the Scouts.
DeleteProfessor Tom, I'm not declaring defeat here, but I think I'm done commenting on the Scouts, I'm writing another blog post now, I hope you stick around the blog, and keep reading. If you don't mind, add me on Google +, the button to add me is at the top right of the page, Google + is where most of my blog related discussions take place.
I actually do welcome comments from anyone, as you can see, unlike most blogs, I don't even require those annoying CAPTHCA's, it's because I want it to be easier for people to comment, and express their opinion, whether they agree or disagree. I hope you stay in the discussions around here
"Let's correct the most important thing first. Those boy scouts out there selling Christmas trees - their local scout troop gets 100% of that money. None of it, not one dollar, goes to the national Boy Scouts of America with its discriminatory policies."
DeleteBy this reasoning, going into a white only restaurant during segregation was OK, as long as as the money didn't go directly to the KKK.
"None of those boys or leaders has a vote in the national organization's policy either"
Wrong, one votes with their money and their time.
This conversation is simply too absurd and vile for me to continue.
Thank you, Sheldon, for a delightful conversation. I respect your position and the openness of your blog, and will perhaps return as I have the chance.
DeleteAndy, what you are proposing is a straw man argument, and a remarkably flawed one. In the case of the white-only restaurant, the choice to be white-only was the choice of the restaurant owner, who was the direct beneficiary of your patronage. As I pointed out, that is simply not the case here.
I'd suggest that perhaps it is possible to discuss differences of opinion without wandering off into Godwin's Law territory with the KKK or the Nazis or whatever. A boy selling a Christmas tree to help pay for camp where he can learn environmental science is really not the KKK. Especially when odds are that boy and his family actually disagrees with the BSA's position on many issues.
If you want to build a diverse, open society, then I'd humbly suggest supporting diversity of opinion is a better approach. Imagine the impact of a gay couple going over and buying a Christmas tree from a scout, complementing them on their service work, and encouraging their further study of the sciences. How long would the BSA's position last if they saw members of different communities as friends and supporters, rather than people who called them bigots?
I'm not sure how we can possibly bring change if we ourselves adopt the practice of shunning groups with whom we disagree.
I thought I would end the conversation here, but this comment, I had to reply to:
Delete"I'm not sure how we can possibly bring change if we ourselves adopt the practice of shunning groups with whom we disagree."
Change has come about through boycotts before, it was a rather effective tactic in the civil rights movement.
Also, keep in mind that a boycott is not an infringement on freedom of speech, as some believe, it's people expressing their right of freedom of association. It goes both ways, one should never feel compelled to support a business or organization that one feels violates their beliefs, or goes against their way of life.
Certainly you are correct that boycotts were effective during the civil rights movement, just as bullets and atomic weapons were effective in World War II.
DeleteThe challenge is to choose the proper tactics for the situation. In the civil rights movement, the goal was to change the laws which required segregation/apartheid. In other words, the goal was to bring pressure on public entities and enlist the support of voters. Boycotts and the related mass protests they engender can be effective in that way.
Here, however, you are trying to change the hearts and minds of a private group. Getting the general public whipped up to hate/shun/economically damage the private group is not an effective method. In fact, it's a method used frequently by oppressors throughout history. I'm not convinced that's what you really want to emulate.
Gaaaahhhhh!!!! Get out the shotgun! We have a zombie thread that just won't die out!
Deletelmao
I'm testing the ban of atheists. I signed up with my local troop for more information about becoming a volunteer. Waiting to see what they say.
ReplyDeleteShould be interesting.
DeleteAre you out of your mind? You said---The Boys Scouts just changed their policies this year: "It wasn't until this October that they even decided to change their policies."
ReplyDeleteI don't know where you are getting your information from, but every volunteer and even every adult that even goes on a trip with the boys must take a course in Child Protection and how to prevent, spot potential issues, and how to report it. You must repeat the certification every 2 years, or you don't volunteer. The Catholic Church requires also that you be finger printer first if they are the chartering organization for your troop. This has been in effect since I have been involved back when my now high schooler was in grade 2.
OK, anon, yes, they did change their policies, but based on their past behavior, how likely are they to enforce them well?
DeleteAlso, have they willingly given compensation to the past victims? No. As far as I know, they haven't even apologized for their past behavior, if they have, please enlighten me.
See comments above for text of the apology, and an explanation of other issues.
Delete