The local option on gay membership in BSA

[tjhammer]

You are asked if you accept the ideals of the Oath and Law, that is a moral decision. You are told to be a member you must accept the religious obligation of scouting, that is a moral decision. Your use of drugs and alcohol as well as your ability to set a good example is considered, that is a moral decision.Bob, my point stands... I said that this ban is the ONLY special or specific policy that defines morality and takes a stand from a limited and specific point of view. In the case of homosexual members, Scouting has adopted a specific point of view driven by specific religious beliefs (and has done so contrary to its stated mission of being "absolutely non-sectarian").

 

Use of drugs is a legal issue, and on that ground BSA prohibits it. They don't even have to consider the morality of the issue. Use of alcohol may be a moral issue, but BSA leaves it completely up to local control to interpret the character of the user and their fitness for leadership.

 

Yes, of course members accept the ideals of the Oath and Law, and yes, that is a moral code. But BSA has NO SPECIFIC policy that interprets what those ideals mean and don't mean, and sets no arbitrary "line in the sand" for any of those tenants (with this one exception, of course). It's an "ideal", as you say, and one that is completely left to interpretation and fit at the local level. What the Mormon church units interpret to be moral or immoral can in fact be quite different than what your unit may believe.

 

So, can you give an example of another area where BSA Inc. has drawn a line in the moral sand based on an interpretation of morality shared by only a percentage of their members, and specifically excluded an entire class of people from membership?

[fboisseau]

littlebillie,

 

Regarding the following "fboisseau - "But according to your logic with the BSA I have to be made a member to your group." No - the 'have to be' would seem to be in your head. In mine, it's "should be" and in mine, the BSA should not be forced to change, but persuaded to do so. Basically, there are no exclusions in the Charter, and the BSA should realize it's closing the door on those kids who arguably need it most. ".

 

I disagree with how you state the position of the groups that want to change the rules. If I believe that someone or some group "SHOULD" do something then I express my opinion and the reasons behind my opinion and if they still disagree I will continue the discussion or leave it alone if I believe that we will never agree. If I feel strongly enough about the issue, I will not associate with that person or group in the future. If on the other hand I believe that someone or some group "HAS TO" do something I would use any legal options that I have to make it happen. For example I would take the party to court, lobby other groups that may fund this party (except the government, that money is all ours and we each have a say to how it is spent) to remove funding, and even take my case to the public by any means necessary to FORCE the party to change their mind.

 

I can see from your post you fall in the "SHOULD" change category and I support your right to have that opinion. On the other hand the homosexual lobbing groups falls in the "HAS TO" group because they apply the techniques that I listed above, the same ones I would apply if I believe a party "HAD TO" change what it was doing. I can accept that some people may not like the BSA policy. What I can not accept is the strong-arm tactics that are used to "FORCE" the BSA or any group to change their policy.

 

One final point, in a similar line of thought, how many people have noticed that when a conservative speaker at a college was forced off the stage, it was called Freedom of Speech and diversity by the student body. But when the same techniques where applied to liberal anti-war speakers, everyone was up in arms about how the speakers Freedom of Speech was infringed upon and how diversity was destroyed.

 

In the same line of thought, we have a group that is based on a certain moral code, people join together to destroy it and those on the left are all for it. But if I try to destroy a group that has membership rules that I disagree with because it excludes me, but is a darling of the left, I would get vilified in the worst way.

 

Littlebillie, I understand your opinion that BSA should allow homosexuals, I support your right to have that opinion, but I disagree with that opinion and the BSA disagrees with that opinion. Now I can guarantee you, that besides debate, I will not use any method I can to change your opinion. I also can be sure that besides telling you to go away that the BSA will not use any method to change your opinion. If that is true why should those who agree with you attack the BSA for their opinion.

 

When a group of people believe they are so right about a subject that they will use all methods to destroy those who disagree with them they are no longer in the right. This country was founded on the right for each person or group of persons to come up with their own opinions on any issue. I believe in this right and am willing to debate anyone I disagree with, but I will not FORCE anyone to change his or her opinion on a subject. Please, tell those who are trying to destroy the BSA, extend the same treatment to them.

 

[tjhammer]

mk9750, thank you for your honest words. I respect your difference of opinion, and the question that you pose. Allow me to extend your analogy a bit.

 

The analogy of the locker room won't fit, because the space and rules of such a small accommodation are clear and not comparable to the "space and rules" of the largest youth organization in the United States.

 

How about instead of a locker room, let's say I live in a neighborhood?

 

I've lived in this neighborhood my whole life... I've grown up in it, served my neighbors admirably, and was even elected to represent and lead my neighborhood on the town council. There are lots of types of people in this neighborhood, with lots of different beliefs (religions, prejudices, etc), but we've managed pretty well to live and grow together, making our neighborhood a wonderful place to live... the envy of all the other neighborhoods in town. We're all good moral people, and in our neighborhood we've got several religions living in relative harmony. Like any neighborhood, there's a few people who just don't get along, just don't see things eye to eye, especially on religious beliefs. But even they agree that the neighborhood is a great place to live, and there is common ground upon which they can stand.

 

Then one day, one group of neighbors (a majority, but not all the neighbors) decides they just don't like the religious beliefs of one of the churches in town, and I happen to belong to that church. This majority decided to take over the neighborhood, and run out all of the "undesirables". I get the message that I'm unwelcome, despite the fact that I follow all the rules of the neighborhood. The neighbors start to exert their will over me, and even make up new laws... laws specifically designed to isolate me and people with similar beliefs, and run us out of the neighborhood. Laws that are even contrary to all the other "rules" of the neighborhood.

 

What should I do? What's the honorable thing here? Who's acting dishonorably, me or the neighbors that are changing the rules arbitrarily? Should I leave the neighborhood and hope some day they will come to their senses? Should I stay in the neighborhood and continue to act like a model citizen within the system to repeal the new rules and convince my neighbors that I am no threat and a good person? If I run away scared, what message am I sending to the kids of the neighborhood? Am I not telling those kids that are like me to abandon their courage and hide what they believe to be right? Am I not signaling to the other neighborhood kids its OK and quite effective to be a bully and hate?

 

 

Being a gay man is not an immoral decision... I believe this to be true, and several churches and many "good and decent" members of Scouting believe the same. I support your right to believe different, and all I can do to convince you that you are wrong is show you through my own behavior.

 

I believe my honor is intact by remaining a Scout. It is the honor of BSA Inc. and those that push an arbitrary, vague, unevenly enforced and contrary policy that I must question, given the ramifications of such.

[berkshirescouter]

TJ

Your example (which is Germany in the 30's) occurs in both cases. The Sea Scouts in Berkley are being forced out by a change in the local Laws. I don't think Scouts have changed, society has changed. I read BSAs policy as that the discussion of any type of sexuality in public does not make you a good role model. Would Dr. Ruth be allowed to be a leader? Avowed is the key. I would not be surprised if there are gay leaders, those who are nudists, who drink or gamble in the BSA. If they keep their comments and behavior to themselves who cares, if everything else is ok.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

jbroganjr writes:

As for change, (correct me if I am wrong) but National has only excluded adult membership on the basis of morally straight as well as a belief in G-D. They have not expelled a youth that I have heard about. (Youth being under 18).

 

National BSA has thrown out a number of youths due to their unacceptable religious opinions:

 

Mark Welsh (at age 6) in 1989, William and Michael Randall (both in cub scouts at the time) in 1991, and Rick Sherman when he tried to join Explorers in 1997, which was chartered by the Police department (the police department was forced to drop their Explorer affiliation when the BSA required them to exclude Rick Sherman, which, of course, they couldn't lawfully do).

 

Also, Larry Otto, Executive of the Cascade Pacific Council, testified under oath (in 1999) that first-grader (by this time, forth-grader) Remington Powell could not join the cub scouts in the still-ongoing lawsuit against Portland public schools (though I don't think he actually applied for membership, as his mother knew they didn't admit atheists).

 

And just to hold off protests that kids this age can't be atheists, first, I'm a lifelong atheist, and second, if it's reasonable to accept that kids this age CAN believe in god(s), it's also reasonable to accept that there are also kids who don't.

[dsteele]

TJ and Merlyn --

 

How you consider yourself good scout leaders while not living up to the BSA's standards of membership is beyond me. TJ, you are an avowed homosexual by your own admisison. Merlyn, you are a "lifelong atheist" by your own admission.

 

If either of you were registered in the council I serve, you would both receive a letter informing you that registration in the Boy Scouts of America is a privelidge and not a right and that yours has been revoked.

 

Regardless of how you feel about the standards of membership of the Boy Scouts of America at the present time, atheists and homosexuals do not meet them.

 

My conscience has been bothering me for two weeeks on this topic -- that's when I stumbled across TJhammer's admission (the first I saw) in a different thread. I elected at the time to say nothing. As a professional not from his council I felt duty-bound to sit on the sidelines. I have since realized that my commission comes from the Boy Scouts of America and that I should at the very least point out that homosexuals and atheists, by BSA policy, are not granted registration.

 

I suppose I could read TJ's 217 (to date) posts and Merlyn's 247 (to date) and, like a forensic pathologist, track down where they are registtered and their real names, but my conscience hasn't pushed me that far.

 

Merlyn and TJ, I'm not judging your life or lifestyle. I am, however, willing and duty-bound to enforce the policies of the Boy Scouts of America as far as I am able.

 

I'm not even asking you to stop posting on Scouter.com. That's not up to me, and, frankly, I think you both post some interesting points of view that are worthy of discussion and consideration. Scouter.com is not an official publication of the Boy Scouts of America, as it is pointed out in numerous references.

 

However, as Saltheart pointed out in another thread, I can't take off my mantra as a professional scouter. I won't apologize for that, either.

 

DS

[tjhammer]

dsteele, first, let me sincerely thank you for your regular contribution to this forum and the dedication to Scouting that you've demonstrated through so many of your posts. I know that I am not alone in my appreciation of your participation, passion and experience. Youre an uncommon professional that is willing to spend even their limited "off the clock" time by contributing to a resource like this web site.

 

However, I have to acknowledge that on this issue your knowledge of the BSA policy is fundamentally flawed. I am not, by any admission, an "avowed" homosexual to Scouting.

 

The BSA does not ban homosexuals (they ban "avowed" homosexuals, without ever attempting to define what that means), and you most certainly do not have the authority to "hunt me down to kick me out" (a practice that unfortunately you are not alone in wanting to practice, despite the fact that BSA clearly wants to avoid any appearance of witch hunts).

 

The fact that you are such an active and knowledgeable Scouter, and an experienced professional representative of BSA Inc, and still have a weak understanding of the policy and your responsibility just supports my previous points about the vague, arbitrary, unevenly enforced and contrary policy.

 

The BSA policy is a ban on "avowed homosexuals". And both the spirit and letter of that policy is vague enough that I am quite comfortably NOT an "avowed homosexual" (I've explained my thinking on this in previous posts, and admit that I am playing word games just like BSA Inc. At the same time, I honestly don't know to whom I must "avow", and what information I must provide during that "avowment ceremony" in order to qualify, and for now will maintain the fact that I keep my sexuality largely irrelevant to my participation as "non-avowment"). ("Avowment Ceremony"... hmmm, would that be like the OA Brotherhood ceremony conducted by the Village People Indian instead of Allowat? :

 

BSA Inc. is very aware of the fact that their membership includes thousands of gays, they are even aware of the fact that many of these folks serve in very high level leadership roles. But because those leaders (and I fit this description) do not make their homosexuality (or sexuality of any type) material or relevant to their participation in Scouting, BSA is content to operate with a "don't ask, don't tell" approach.

 

Unfortunately, if the mature and experienced Scouters of this forum don't understand all of the nuances of the policy (and I'm not just pointing to you, DS... it's obvious by reading several posts that many people only have a limited understanding of the policy), how can we possibly expect the youth that we lead to make sense of the of the BSA's position on homosexuality... especially if we also try to legislate and enforce the policy "behind the scenes"? We really can't, and many youth are decerning their own faulty, and potentially dangerous, understanding of the situation.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

dsteele writes:

TJ and Merlyn --

 

How you consider yourself good scout leaders while not living up to the BSA's standards of membership is beyond me.

 

Easy; I'm not a scout leader. I was a cub scout a few decades ago (and yes, I was an atheist even then), but that's all. Now I'm an atheist activist working to remove all government support of the BSA.

 

I have since realized that my commission comes from the Boy Scouts of America and that I should at the very least point out that homosexuals and atheists, by BSA policy, are not granted registration.

 

And I'll continue to point out that the US government can't support a group that discriminates on the basis of religious belief.

 

I suppose I could read TJ's 217 (to date) posts and Merlyn's 247 (to date) and, like a forensic pathologist, track down where they are registtered and their real names, but my conscience hasn't pushed me that far.

 

I've actually been doing something similar, but I've been tracking down government involvement with the BSA.

 

For example, the 19th circuit court used to charter troop 19 as part of their juvenile delinquency program, and joining troop 19 was actually mandatory. They recently dropped troop 19 due to pressure from the ACLU and Illinois atheist activist Rob Sherman, because I alerted them to the situation.

 

Rob Sherman also recently scuttled a $10,000 HUD grant that the city of Alton, Illinois was about to give to the Trails West council for their Scoutreach program; HUD grants require nondiscrimination, and the Scoutreach program excludes atheists (it was changed to Learning for Life, which does not discriminate).

 

Again, I was the person who informed Rob about the grant, and I just sent him information about a similar HUD grant from Rock Island, IL, which he's now working on.

 

I was also the person who contacted the So. Cal. ACLU about a $15,000 HUD grant to the Old Baldy council, which is now being sued for defrauding the government (by falsely signing a nondiscrimination agreement to fund their discriminatory program).

 

I'm also helping the Illinois ACLU with their HUD and DoD lawsuits to stop all HUD grants and BSA charters by the military.

 

As I mentioned many threads ago to OGE, I'm also working on a public school that uses Venturing for its extracurricular programs; they must be aware that Venturing doesn't allow atheists, because the principal of the school is also chair of the local BSA district (and sorry, OGE, I still can't reveal the school as yet; the ACLU moves slowly at times...)

 

Even the scouts-l mailing list has helped, since I probably wouldn't have found out about the US embassy in Kyiv (Kiev) chartering troop 980 via the BSA's Direct Service program; of course, the US embassy, being part of the US government, can't legally do this.

 

Merlyn and TJ, I'm not judging your life or lifestyle. I am, however, willing and duty-bound to enforce the policies of the Boy Scouts of America as far as I am able.

 

Hey, knock yourself out. I'm not part of it. I'm part of the USA, and I'm all for enforcing the first amendment, which means atheists can't be treated as second-class citizens by any agency of the US government. Which means roughly 10,000 BSA units chartered by public schools, the military, police departments, US embassies, etc, have to go.

[Bob White]

It appears to me thast dsteele showed a very accurate understanding of the BSA membership policy. Tjhammer merely by publicizing your disagreement with the BSA memership policies on a public bulletin board you have violated your agreement with the BSA. By announcing your homosexuality publicly you are by definition an avowed homosexual. I think TJ you don't fully understand the membership rules. You do not have to be an avowed homosexual just to be ineligble for membership. You just have to publicly disagree with scouting's membership rules to have your membership revoked.

 

The BSA requires you to support the rules and regulations of the program or to deal with your disagreement through the proper scouting channels. To publicly disagree with the BSA opens you up for revocation of membership. You have a right to free speech and that is recognized by scouting. What you do not have is a right to membership in the BSA. That is what was upheld in the US Supreme Court, not the right of the BSA to withold membership from gays and atheists, but the right of the BSA to withhold membership from ANYONE it chooses.

 

As DS said if he wanted to he could probably figure out who you are, but will not. That again is in keeping with the philosophy of the BSA. Although many of us on this site are commissioned scouters we work primarily for the scouts in our local councils and communities. I doubt that any of are interested in chasing done another council's membership problem.

 

I am also in the Midwest if I knew you were in the Council I served and knew your identity I would take the required steps to have your membership revoked.

 

Merlyn is another story. You cannot revoke the membership of someone who is not a member. No one who has spent any time at all in Scouting would have as little knowledge of the program as Merlyn has displayed. He is simply a very unhappy person who is looking for some bit of personal fullfillment through his verbal war to eliminate the BSA. I wish him well.

 

As the operators of this board explain, this is a public forum, as such you can ask questions about Scouting policy, but if you support an opposing opinion or avow to characteristics that are not in keeping with the BSA membership policies you do indeed court permanent revocation of your BSA membership.

 

Bob White

[tjhammer]

BobWhite, I stand by what I have already said on the measure of "avowing"... you can make up your own definitions, but the truth is they are only your interpretation, and have no basis on an official, definitive declaration from BSA Inc.

 

One area in which we do agree, however, is "You just have to publicly disagree with scouting's membership rules to have your membership revoked.". I must admit, without looking back through the posts, I really recall you disagreeing when I first made this point, but nonetheless, you're right! Reading the text of the argument before the Supreme Court (the text of which was posted here previously) leaves no doubt that the BSA wants to ban not just gays, but anyone who stands before boys that are of membership age and argues that homosexuality is not inherently immoral. By your standards, BobWhite, this would mean just about everyone that has ever posted on this forum opposing the BSA's policy should have their membership revoked. It should also mean that the BSA will revoke membership of all those clergy from chartering partner churches who disagree with BSA (like some of the Methodists, etc). Of course, BSA isn't evenly enforcing their vague policy, so I doubt much of that will happen.

 

It's regrettable that you also, not knowing me at all or having never worked near me in Scouting or seen how I conduct my role in the program, would want to hunt me down and get me kicked out if you could. Thankfully, most Scouters do not share your special zeal, and the "official" policy of BSA is against such.

 

 

[Zahnada]

Bob White,

 

I definitely do not have as much knowledge as you do about BSA membership rules. But if I interpret you correctly, does this mean that I am breaking the membership rules? I believe I have stated publicly (at least on this forum) that I do not agree with BSA policy. If this is enough to evict me from scouting then I must seriously question if scouting still represents American values. But this all seems so far-fetched that I must have misunderstood your last post.

 

But even if I am up for removal from BSA, I think I'll add to the reasons for it. Granted that I don't know TJ personally, but from what I have read from him, I would love to have him in my troop. He's knowledgable and dedicated. He would be an asset to any troop and I feel the boys can learn so much from his experience. He seems like a wonderful person who really loves scouting. I would love to get to know him personally as a friend, and I would want to work with him as a scout. It may not mean much, but TJ has my support. In my opinion, he represents some of the great aspects of scouting. And I don't feel he would pose any more harm to the boys than Bob White or DSteele or myself.

[tjhammer]

For more info on the BSA's policy against Zahnada and other's who believe as he does, refer back to a old thread on the subject titled "Scouting's REAL Gay Policy".

 

And since it's been mentioned a few times for new forum participants to refer to old threads, let me highlight a few of my old threads on the subject:Scouting's REAL Gay Policy -- which starts by observing that the BSA would like to stifle all of those that oppose their view, and at the same time have a defacto "don't ask, don't tell" policy

 

3 million children -- which starts by observing that about 3 million kids are now being raised by gay and lesbian parents in the US, most of whom are becoming Scouting age.

 

What it is and why it really matters -- which started as a good overall summary of all of my thoughts on the policy and its impact.

 

Why it's relevant -- which started out to summarize why this issue deserves the attention of those that would rather ignore it.

 

Don't Ask, I'll Tell -- which starts as the thread in which, after months of debate, I acknowledged to the forum my own sexuality, albeit an anonymous acknowledgement.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[evmori]

Hey new Post Reply & New Topic buttons! Cool!

 

OGE,

I applaud tj's courage yet don't agree with his morals.

 

Merlyn,

An atheist Cub Scout? WOW! And you question our morals & values yet you lived a lie as a youth! Those who throw stones shouldn't live in glass houses.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White]

Tj

Allow me to specifically address your response.

 

"I stand by what I have already said on the measure of "avowing"... you can make up your own definitions, but the truth is they are only your interpretation,"

 

No, actually it is the dictionary definition of the word avow.

 

Main Entry: avow

Pronunciation: &-'vau

Function: transitive verb

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French avouer, from Latin advocare

Date: 14th century

1 : to declare assuredly

2 : to declare openly, bluntly, and without shame

synonym see ACKNOWLEDGE, ASSERT

- avower /-'vau(-&)r/ noun

 

So publicly posting your sexuality to have avowed to it. That puts you in conflict with membership in the BSA.

 

"By your standards, BobWhite, this would mean just about everyone that has ever posted on this forum opposing the BSA's policy should have their membership revoked."

 

Not 'should', COULD.

 

"It's regrettable that you also, not knowing me at all or having never worked near me in Scouting or seen how I conduct my role in the program, would want to hunt me down and get me kicked out if you could."

 

A bald faced fabrication. I specifically said I would not do that, and I pointed out that to hunt you down would be contrary to the philosophy of the BSA.

I said if you were in my council and I knew who you were I would honor the commission I accepted. Your performance as a scoutleader to this point is irrelevant. The fact is, by publicly denouncing the policies of the BSA and openly stating that you do not meet the membership requirements you have chosen to forfiet your membership.

 

"It should also mean that the BSA will revoke membership of all those clergy from chartering partner churches who disagree with BSA (like some of the Methodists, etc"

 

No, only the clergy who were registered members of the BSA would be in danger of having membership revoked. You keep leaving out a very key element. The BSA does not say you do not have the right to disagree! They are telling you you do not have a right to disagree AND stay a member of the BSA. You can protest all you want on any BSA topic you choose. But as a private organization the BSA can choose its membership based on association with people who have like beliefs, that is what the Supreme Court Ruling was about. The BSA's right to free association, not about their right to ban gays.

 

When referencing the the strings mentioned in your post remember that a number of the leaders posted their personal opinion and not the policies or position of the BSA. There are a number of factors that can cause revocation, homosexuality and atheism are just the two that get the greatest attention.

 

Bob White

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Merlyn, I used to live in Alton, Illinois and one of the reasons I don't live there anymore is because the town was slowly dissolving into a pit of gang violence and despair. We lived 3 houses from a Middle School and I witnessed drug deals on a weekly basis. For other readers of the forum ALton was a town whose downtown area was devastated by the 1993 Mississippi flood, (Alton is right on the river). The school system was never really strong and many times my son's teachers bought books with their own money so the students would have something.

 

I understand your committment to no government support of scouting, I guess it slipped my mind with my last quesiton to you, how I am not sure, but it did. My thought is, when the 10, 000 dollar grant to Alton's Scoutreach program was "scuttled" did you or Rob Sherman assure that this money was given to an organization that was free of sexual or theological (or Atheological) discrimination to help the youth, or was victory declared when the grant was stopped and nothing was done to help the youth?

 

Many of Alton's youth desparately seek a structured organization, many have found that in street gangs, drive by shootings were a common event.

 

Again, what happened to the money? Did it end up helping Alton's youth? I understand your first amendment right to do what you did, but do you also have a humanist duty to assure the money was used to help kids in a way that satifies your purpose?