twin_wasp

I am the former SM of a troop sponsored by a volunteer fire company. The troop closed a few years ago, with no apparent connection to scout membership policies. Most of the families moved to another troop, which had just been chartered by a church, which to my knowledge, has no policy on gays as leaders. I am no lawyer, but I do know a bit about law. A fire company or a public school must operate under whatever state, federal or local law applies regarding discrimination. It does not matter if they are a BSA charter oeganization or not. A religious school or a church is protected by the first amendment, which apparently also covers BSA National. So in my opinion, if BSA adopts a local option religious CO's that retain a no gays policy will be in no additional jeapardy, and secular CO's that are bound by non discrimination laws will be relieved of a degree of risk. I also think that BSA enjoys a huge reservoir of good will even among its criitics, and people are sometimes reluctant to attempt legal action. Anyway, I see the local option as a win-win. It need only be as simple as "Scout leaders must be acceptable to the CO".

Money Tamer, thanks for the intriguing post. You identified an interesting point about the philosophy of innate character, which seems to be a common doctrine in a lot of popular literature and movies, that people are good or evil at their core, and that life and its challenges are dramatic forums for stripping away the hypocracy to show a person's true character. The idea is also popular and useful among our political extremists, who vilify their opponents, rather than just disagree with them. I think we are drawn to this drama because of the human proclivity of presenting false images of ourselves, our awareness that others do this all the time, and our insatiable desire to find out the "real truth". In the end, the innate character doctrine only gets you so far, and reduces persons to angels or devils. An alternative philosophy (with less drama) is that character and morality are taught and formed by the family, community and faith, and reinforced by the choices we freely make in life. This is at the core of the scouting program, which acts as part of the community to form young men who make of strong character, who make moral choices. BSA's "Duty to God" is where scouting recognizes the individual's need for moral values. (As well as the need of the Scout patrol and troop, and the larger community for individuals with moral values) It should not be used as a screen to eliminate atheists and agnostics because they do not acknowledge a God or Gods, but it rightly is used to eliminate members who cannot recognize a connection between scouting and morality. I have a few good friends who are agnostics, they do not seem to lack for morality, which an enigma to those of us who are believers. In my opinion, BSA should become inclusive of agnostics and atheists, but should not let them off the hook about this "Duty to God" thing. BSA is about raising up young men with values and character. Actions have consequences. Beliefs can have consequences too. Atheist need values as much as believers, and almost by definition face a more difficult task of defining them without a ready made set from their faith community. In my opinion, BSA should keep its "Duty to God" requirement, but allow individuals to define that duty as they will, and only exclude those who cannot be supportive of those who define duty to God in religious terms. The crunch comes at the Eagle level, and in my opinion, an Eagle candidate, believer or not should be able to explain what his values are and where he got them from to a panel of adults. I have seen candidates pass he easy way by sinply repeating that they follow the teachings of their church. I could see a non believer passing the requirement by developing a comprehensive set of values and explaining them. Anyway, in my experience, there already is a gerneral tolerance for members who have no formal faith, at least among the secular COs.

Thanks, Bob White, I think we are both thinking along the same lines. TW

Bob White: Point well taken about the term "Class A" - but I meant to differentiate the difference between the uniform you wear to a court of honor - sashes, pin on religious awards, service pins etc and the one you wear to dinner at camp followed by the campfire - rank, temporary camporee patch, and none of the pin on stuff. BSA does not to my knowledge have a specific term - but my troop often used the term "class A" to mean your full uniform. I think this could be interpreted as a gap between "BSA policy" and reality, but I BSA policy is not intended to cover every aspect of scouting. BSA policy requires some things, bans other things, and offers a lot of sanctioned and recommended activities. The rest of the program is up to the troops, and the scouters to come up with - which is where the fun begins. BSA is the "outdoor game", and a boy led game at that. A dress code of some sort is not a bad idea, if it comes from the boys themselves. Part of Courteous and Clean involves developing judgement about what to wear when, and boys are developing this judgement when they work out a plan that identifies when to wear your out of uniform work clothes - things like the conservation project at the swamp, when to wear the troop T shirt. While BSA rules may not "officially" recognize troop T shirts, it is a wide practice and parallels the Ts that BSA actually issues for camp staff. About jackhammers and similar tools of mayhem - as a Scouter, I would feel obligated to check out the safety issues. Labor law limits minors from using certain machinery, but it does not apply to persons not on the job. It boils down to experienced supervision - common sense, knowing the rules, and having your liability insurance paid up. Bottom line - I leave jackhammers to folks more experienced than me with power tools. Finally, in response to Jark's last post, I guess I understand that the troop and you have differences of opinion, however, I do not see either of your criticisms as deal breakers, ie issues that raise to the point of either you leaving the troop or the troop throwing you out. "A man's got to know his limitations" (Clint Eastwood, I forget which movie).

Little Billie, I would and have pointed out consequences, if any, occur for being improperly dressed. I have had this conversation over and over with scouts and with my own kids. In general, boys around here are OK about being uniformed at a scouting event, but the middle school boys (over 12) would rather die than be seen in public in uniform. I know this runs counter to the party line, but that is a fact of life. Dress codes in reality have four levels, out of uniform, in uniform, "Class A" (meaning with sashes and pins and all awards) and Class B - a troop shirt. I believe it is proper for the PLC to establish rules for precisely when and where each level is required. Of course, they should insure that BSA rules are also followed - such as uniforms for retreat and meetings. If the boys tried to introduce a ban on earrings or rock band shirts (actually the last thing they would do) or modify the uniform in a subtantive way, we would have to research whether they had the authority, which can turn into a good lesson in the way Americans govern themselves. I have been thinking about what my reaction would be to parents who consistently pointed out all the shortcomings of my troop. I think there is a time and a place for it, and it belongs in committee meetings, not in the scout meeting. My gut reaction to a parent who came in out of the blue quoting the more obscure points of scout policy to me and why I was doing things wrong would be "who died and made you commissioner". That would be my gut reaction, and I mean no disrespect to the folk who started this thread - they may even have constructive criticism, and they might even be right in which case I would be obligated to stsnd corrected. However, they are best served by joining up as scouters, getting training, and shouldering some of the responsibility. I am now a semi retired scouter, (for now) but we forget how demanding scoutering is. Scouting season runs year round, not like a sport that has a limited season. Scouting puts extraordinary responsibilty on the scoutmaster, who must not only master his troop, but also the complexities of relations with the sponsor, the committee and the professional organization. TW

So often, you hear "illegals" denounced as lawbreakers, criminals. Can't we design a process that awards not the technicalities of how you came to be here, but whether you are contributing to our society? I have heard of high school seniors who score at the top of their class who are unable to apply for college because they are illegals. These kids are exactly the folks our nation needs. My great grandparents were famine refugees. They shipped out from Ireland to Canada around 1850 and then crossed over to upstate New York over what was probably an unregulated border. They did not have passports or papers. They had no legal right to be here. (To be fair, I believe at that time we did not have many laws regulating immigration) Where would I be if they had been denied entry?

Back to the subject. One wiser and younger scouter told me that the scouter's bottom line that the boys run the troop - and often they will make mistakes, but you have an obligation to intervene if health or safety is in jeopardy, or if the troop is deviating from the program, (such as no skydiving) The dress code thing seems to be in the allowable mistakes category, - no one gets hurt by it, you may or may not be deviating from scout rules and the boys should be encouraged to find out what BSA rules are and what the consequences are of non-compliance. For example, without uniforms, cap staff will probably not allow you to do the retreat ceremony. So my advice, as a parent, talk to the scoutmaster, but do not make his life miserable over the dress code thing. The jackhammer seems to be a straight forward case of safety. You have to intervene as a scouter, as a parent you have to intervene if your own kid is involved. I would find another troop, AND ask to meet with the committee to clear the air. Explain your position, let them explain theirs. Maybe both sides are misinterpreting the situation. Then go to the other troop. But at least let "friendly cureous and kind" rule your departure.

First, for ww40, I was a camp program director back in the 70s, when women were routinely excluded from professional scouting jobs. I believe it was 1975; BSA sent a confidential latter out to their council personnel people. My camp director read me the letter, but did not give me a copy. As I recall, the letter said that they had reviewed the law, and the way the legal precedents were going, and concluded that they would not stand in the way of hiring women. They neither wanted to go to court nor felt they could win if they did. I believe the letter said that if a female applies, consider her qualifications exactly as you would any other applicant. There was no public announcement, no fanfare, no big discussion or debate, at least that I knew of. Many camps already had female employees in traditionally female job, such as cook and nurse. In addition, it was well known that at least one large council (In New Jersey or New York City) already had a history of employing women at camp, especially as waterfront director. What a differencs a few years makes. National BSA got out front on a social trend when it was based in New Brunswick, possibly in part because they could see what was happening on the ground in a nearby council. On another issue, let me state my experience with holding dissident opinions as a member of a voluntary organization. My council knows my opinions. I am careful to bring thsm up in appropriate all adult settings, never with the boys. BSA has never made an effort that I know of to silence or supress or expel persons who merely disagree with their gay policy, so long as the opinions are aired among the adults, not among the youth. BSA policy pretty much places discussions of sexuality outside of the BSA program. So as long as you operate within program guidelines, BSA seems to have conducted the "argument" among members in a fairly civil manner. I am aware that others may have different experiences. It as also important to note that BSA has never told units to report gays, and has never issued any policy directives to troops on this subject. I am sure if they did, they are aware that there would be significant defections from the ranks.

TJ, it took me a while to get around to responding. I see no reason you should quit scouts. So long as you do not discuss it with the boys, you are within BSA program guidelines. BSA has never asked all gays to quit ( there would be quite an exodus) and BSA has never put out one single directive to the committees, sponsors or troops to get rid of gays. If we quit all the organizations disagree with, I would be without a job, a political party, a church and a union, not to mention BSA. I will conclude with a few paragraphs from a letter I sent to the local newspaper after the Dale decision. "The BSA National Committee believes that no homosexual can live up to the principles of Scouting, no matter how he lives his life. It is only a short step from there to a conviction that no homosexual can be a moral person, and that no homosexual can find salvation before God. In fairness, BSA does not allow boys in scouting to persecute, haze or show disrespect to other youth they think are gay. However, young boys are very acute observers of adult behavior, and they imitate what we do much more readily than they follow what we say. As a scout leader, how can I possibly be a credible example of tolerance when I support intolerance among adult volunteers? The national committee seems terrified of the example that a gay volunteer sets, yet seems unconcerned about the example of homophobia and intolerance they are setting themselves. No matter what, some young men will realize that they are gay as they grow to adulthood. The way a homosexual lives his life and contributes to society will depend on the values he has learned, the role models he has had, and the friends he has made as a youth. It is horrifying that BSA would order us to cast this young man out from our midst like an Old Testament leper. Among the gays I know personally, none would be a bad influence on my children as a BSA volunteer." Yours in scouting twin_wasp

Interesting responses. I believe that the law does not apply to the membership rules of voluntary groups, thus BSA would not be required to change its membership rules. The Supreme Court Dale decision establishes the right of voluntary groups to have their own membership rules anyway. The new law explicitly applies to employment, which was not really covered by the Dale decision. To be covered by the religious exemption, BSA would have to be a religion, or an institution established by one. The way I read the law, you could argue it either way. BSA sometimes claims to be a religious institution, and other times says it is non denominational. Perhaps this was covered in one of the "bill memos" that circulated in the legislature. These are documents that clarify the intent of a law, and have some weight in applying the law. Is there an insider among our members who may know whether the NY state legislature intended to give an exclusion to BSA?

Just a few more points, The class 1 and two forms are utterly useless, in my opinion. The class 3 medical form is a confusing mess, and my doctor considers it quaint and obsolete. To me it appears to be three forms taped together, perhaps there were once three commitees? I too have encountered rejection of the portion that authorizes treatment when a boy needed a bone set at an ER. Don't be confused by the plethora of laws and rules about confidentiality. They generally do not concern laypersons, but are designed to limit (or at least appear to correct) abuses of our medical records by insurance companies, employers and the government. I firmly believe that someone in the troop, the scoutmaster or medical professional perhaps, should review the medical records before big trips like summer camp. You are unlikely to ever have a problem about knowing what is in them, but you can definitely be held accountable if you do not know. Copies of the class 3 forms should always be close at hand on outings. You do not need to give out details, but a list of things to be aware of - who needs medication, who has allergies, etc should be shared with other leaders. I understand that the forms do not cover all diseases, but the doctor who completes the form has an obligation to make sure he notes anything of importance to outdoor activites. I also understand that while it understandably will make any person nervous to know that the troop has an HIV positive member, the greater risk, by far is assuming that anyone is "safe" in a first aid situation involving blood or other fluids. We need to make sure our first aid kits have plenty of disposable gloves, and scouters and boys need to get out the gloves in anytime there is blood present, as a matter of course. It needs to be drummed into their heads the same way we teach them not to let the raw chicken contaminate their cutting boards and give everybody salmonella. Look at it this way, the first time you have to apply direct pressure to an injured person, he or she may be a stranger, and in any case you are very unlikely to know their HIV status. You can, however arrange to have gloves in your first aid kit or improvise with a plastic bag - which essentially makse it a moot point. I cringe when first aid courses gloss over universal precautions, when folks assume that because we are nice folks from good families there is no risk. I do not think that we can ever rely on a medical form as the final word. The forms do provide info about pre existing conditions, at the time they were filled out. They cannot list undiagnosed or emerging conditions. Do not forget that the non glamorous low tech side of modern medicine is the dogged adherence to procedures, such as handwashing and the universal precautions concerning blood. Finally, although there are probably more facts to consider in theis case, I believe this boy should be allowed in scouts. I hope his mom reaches some understanding with the troop about how to handle sensitive information.

My impression from many years of experience with medical records, is that much of the law applies to medical institutions, insurance companies and medical professionals. A scoutmaster, or a coach is none of these things. The scoutmaster has a responsibility to review the medical forms of the boys in his troop. The SM also has a responsibility to insure that the other adult leaders also know af any health problems. Concurrently, the SM has a responsibility to remind other leaders that, law or not, medical information is basically confidential. (A scout is trustworthy) By extension, and knowing the BSA program, it also makes sense that junior leaders also know about certain health problems that might require intervention, or where assistance from another scout might help. For example, we have had guys who were allergic to bee stings. We have a guy who is liable to collapse unconscious from time to time. In these cases, it helps if everybody who can handle it is in the know. It is conceivable that a parent might not want some health information revealed. However, BSA reasonably requires a medical form, and that form is only useful if folks read it. Every troop has a responsibility to practice universal health precaustions about blood and other bodily fluids. Most people think of HIV as a risk, and it is, but Hepatitis B poses an even greater risk. For the latest info at the CDC go to: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/hip/Blood/blood.htm http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/hip/Blood/Exp_to_Blood.pdf twin_wasp

Golly.

This is the first time I have posted a topic, so here goes. The New York State Senate just passed the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act (SONDA) a law forbidding discrimination in employment, housing, education and public services on the basis of sexual orientation. The bill memo that accompanied the law can be found at: http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=1971 Sexual orientation is defined in the law as heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or asexuality, whether actual or perceived. However, nothing contained herein shall be construed to protect conduct otherwise proscribed by law." The law leaves in place an exception for religious organizations, as follows: "11. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to bar any religious or denominational institution or organization, or any organization operated for charitable or educational purposes, which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization, from limiting employment or sales or rental of housing accommodations or admission to or giving reference to persons of the same religion or denomination or from taking such action as is calculated by such organization to promote the religious principles for which it is established or maintained." So my question is, does the religious exemption apply to BSA? Now before folks go too far denouncing liberalism, this bill had bipartisan support, and was supported by Republican Governor Pataki and Republican Senate majority leader Bruno. Twin_Wasp

Just a few points, I have never heard the LDS church described as Gnostic, but it seems to make sense. However, what do the members think of that characterization? As I understand it, gnosticism is a category or religion, as is monotheism or polytheism, rather than a particular faith. Gnosticism (as a category) is a religion that has mysteries and teachings that are revealed only as a member is initiated into higher levels of the faith. Not all converts are expected to attain the highest levels of the faith, in fact, full participation in the faith is limited to those who have attained full revelation through prayer, meditation, ritual etc. Christian Gnosticism was once a major form of early Christianity. It is described by the church as a heresy, I think a kinder explanation is that folks who followed mystic religions that were common in the ancient world heard about Christ,liked what they heard, and worked Christ into their existing religions, rather than joining more conventional Christian communities. Or perhaps they heard the message third hand. By contrast, in general, modern or mainstream or orthodox (with a small "o") Christianity believes that the fullness of the faith is available to every Christian, regardless of education or intelligence or how much you study, pray or meditate. This concensus holds from fundementalism to Catholicism, It is an interesting rhetorical exercise to claim atheists are gnostics, but it really does not hold water. All gnostics, so far as I understand, believe that there is a deeper understanding (gnosis) of the truth that can be attained through their faith. Atheists do not hold that there is a deeper truth. In fact atheists may not be so different from believers if they believe in a moral code but do not believe there is even one god. My experience with atheist friends bears this out. twin_wasp