Pregnant Leader

[Rooster7]

TJ,

 

But let's not revise history. This "policy" came into existence only after pressure from specific chartered orgs called the BSA's hand on it (specifically the LDS and Catholic Churches at the National Relationships Committee meetings).

 

As to the role of the LDS and the Catholic Churches, I don't doubt that they voiced their concerns (or even made threats) prior to the BSA policy being adopted. But let's not revise history so narrowly. What happened prior to the BSA being approached by the LDS and the Catholic Churches? Are you trying to tell me that Gay advocacy groups were silent until these religious charters voiced their opinions? There was no history of homosexuals demanding entry into troops or councils prior to the national policy being implemented? Even if this were true (which I don't concede), there is nothing wrong with the BSA policy - it's their right to set membership standards - even if the LDS and Catholic Churches helped prompt the action. Regardless, whether the BSA was responding to the pressure of the Gay advocacy groups or the religious charters, the point is the same. A national policy was born from external pressure. If the BSA feels that same pressure regarding an issue such as unwed mothers and fathers, perhaps they will act similarly. My guess is, they will. If they don't, that's also within their right. I can see different rationales for either scenario.

[acco40]

Welcome back TJ and Rooster. I'm seem to remember both of you signing off a few months ago.

 

It is all fine and dandy for any organization to say that they stand up for "morals" and "ethics." The problem is, not everyone is in agreement on what constitutes morality and also that for most, morality has a priority scale so to speak. Also, it is human nature to not want to be looked down upon by others. Unfortunately, some use high profile organizations such as the BSA as a litmus test or "target of opportunity" to advance their cause without the boys best interest at heart.

 

Take for example borrowing money. I can find biblical references to the sins of borrowing money (help me out here Rooster). Or was that Ben Franklin (neither a lender nor borrower be)? Anyway, some religions view charging interest (or paying interest) for money as sinful. Most do not. What is morally straight?

 

Take gambling. Society, or more specifically the state, now endorses gambling via lotteries, casinos, sports betting, and on and on. A few decades ago it was seen in a much worse light than it is today. Heck, we celebrate lottery winners now. What is morally straight?

 

Take drinking & smoking or even obesity for that matter. Should we not desecrate the "temple" (our bodies)? What is morally straight?

 

Take out of wedlock births (or more correctly, conceptions). Society now seems to say if you have the resources (i.e. Hollywood actress) go for it. No more "homes for unwed mothers." Technology is changing the views of many on abortion. What is morally straight.

 

Take my wife. Please. (Sorry, my self deprecating manner came through).

 

I know the BSA policies. I know that the BSA has constituents, money issues, history, expectations, etc. I am not naive. Why did the BSA (national) feel that they needed to have a policy statement homosexuality instead of leaving it up to the individual COs?

 

Personally, I don't like policies that are based on things other than peoples actions. Look at the BSA policy. What is an avowed homosexual? Can a celibate be considered an avowed homosexual (IMO, yes). Heck, I knew I was a heterosexual long before I lost my virginity! Do I respect the BSAs policy, yes. Do I want my son to grow up believing that homosexuality is inherently wrong? No. I support the BSA with my time, money, and my own sons. Just like the acceptance of women leaders, I know the BSA will change. The question is, will it be for the better?

 

[Bob White]

TJ

Your last post rebutting mine is a perfect example of what I was saying.

 

You have a very loud opinion of me with no actual knowledge to back it up. As you are aware I go to great lengths to give the the related BSA reference with the things I share, except for the rare times I share a personal opinion. I have never presented my self as the spokesperson of scouting but more as a reference library.

 

You have no idea what training or service recognitions I have, or of my background because I have never mentioned them. What I have done has little relationship to understanding the program. I know a number of excellent scouting leaders who with very little experience provide an excellent program simply by following the handbook.

 

Please, don't tell me that you know all about the workings of scouting because you sat in on one meeting. I sat in on a session of Congress, that hardly makes me a political analyst.

 

Your harsh words prove that you have great emotion on the topic, your content shows little knowledge or understanding. My personal opinion is that you are so personally opposed to the answer that you keep trying to corrupt the question.

 

Bob White

 

 

[tjhammer]

BobWhite, I'll leave my credibility up to those reading my posts to decide. I've demonstrated my "credentials" a few times in the past.

 

You're right, though, I have a personal interest in this debate. You should also correctly assume that my knowledge on the topic and BSA's evolution is deeper and broader because of my personal interest.

 

But if you review all of my posts, you can see that I'm not so concerned about the policy's effect on me (I'm gay and very active in Scouting yet have not personally suffered much; the role of "victim" is not one I have ever accepted, and to complain as such personally would be too selfish of me).

 

I'm much more motivated by the damning effects of the policy on those close to me, those anonymous to us all, and to my organization.

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[Eamonn]

Hey Guys, this is getting deep.

I really have no idea, how the rule about Gay Leaders came to be.

I do know, that it is there.

And like so many other rules, I have the choice to follow them or not play the game.

There is no way that we could cover every situation that might come along with rules.

If I were the IHO (Which I'm not.) I think that I would have to look deep into my heart and try and see what is best for the Scouts.

Only knowing what I do from what has been said so far, I feel sure that I would not allow this person to be a leader.

However, in my position as the District Chair. I think that the Chartered Organization, will make that call. After that call has been made, we go with it.

If some day I am asked to serve on the national committee,then I will sit back and listen to the debate, then and only then will my input be worth anything. As for now I will just do what I'm doing, and try to give it my best.

 

[nldscout]

Makes ya wonder how we get from an 18yr old PG female ASM to Godless fritcakes like gays.

[packsaddle]

You know, the original post mentioned that she's 8 months pregnant. While everyone has taken a right turn over the rainbow, time is slipping by. Shouldn't we concern ourselves with that "Be Prepared" thing for the boys? They could get a really great unexpected lesson soon. In my experience teaching human reproduction, the basic facts are a great incentive to fight the urge. My students, especially the ones that pass out, are very quiet leaving those lessons. But boys at age 11 don't have any thoughts about these things, do they, NOT! My point is that the object lesson can cut both ways. Ok, everyone can return now to those exciting days of yesteryear, fighting the gay menace.

[Twocubdad]

I don't have a specific reference, but I recall from earlier threads that the first reference to BSA's policy against gay membership dates to the early '70s. I recall there is a memo from that time period which BSA usually points to when trying to show the the ban is a long-standing policy.

 

This is purely my opinion, but I would say that the policy originated in an era when most organizations had policies against gay members rather than in response to pressure from the gay lobby and certainly not in response to the Dale case.

[matuawarrior]

Sorry Ladies and Gentlemen, I've been busy the last couple of days opening a new business at the military base.

 

I would like to thank those who have posted. As some know, I am the IH for my Chartered Organization and Scoutmaster for the unit. I'm basically the Chairman of the Board. Since this foundation is still considered a new non-profit corporation, I have to insure that I thread lightly especially in ethical decisions as presented on my original post.

 

Yes, alot of hardwork was done to creat this organization. Will the foundation lose support from our donors? I honestly do not know? Will the decision we have made concerning making this young lady a leader hurt us in the long term? I do not know.

 

We, the committee, CC, COR, and myself, did not just make our decision over night. As many of you have posted, those thoughts you posted here have also crossed our minds and we have intensly debated over it. This was by no means an Easy decision.

 

My personal feelings on premarital sex is that it is not okay.

 

For weeks we went with "what if's", but a decision had to be made. We looked at all the factors that happened to this young lady when she left the unit last year. We looked at what she had accomplished during her time with the crew, the Church, and the community.

 

I had to go back to the By-Laws of the foundation to find out where I stand as the IH. In the Foundation's By-Laws, It is stated that the "Primary Youth Organization for the Foundation is the Boy Scouts of America". In another section under adult Leadership, it states, "criteria for Leadership will be based on current regulations, policies, and or guidelines of the Boy Scouts of America National Office". One last section stipulates the foundations stance on registered adult leadership. This section states that, "Any approved adult volunteering active participation for any of the foundation's BSA units must be a registered leader of the BSA due to liability".

 

 

I then went to the Church's view of this young lady. For the record, I am a church leader with a local Assemblies of God Church. If you know the AG Church, thier pretty strict on these issues. The unwed soon-to-be mother is also a member of the same church as are 90% of the members of the Troop, Crew, and Pack. I've talked to my Head Pastor and two other Associate Pastors. Their advice is that "We should not allow her to be a leader due to the example it will cause with the younger members". I then brought up the stipulation with the foundation's requirement for leadership. Their advice is "register her as a leader But minimize her duties . . . the younger members should not think that it is okay to be in that condition and be an active leader . . . We(the Local Church Leadership) need to monitor her commitment to God's Word".

 

All the committe members, CC, and COR agreed with the Local Church's Recommendations. We will register her as a leader but minimized her duties to helping the committee secretary update the scouts personnel and medical records -- No more, No less. This young lady is not even allowed to lead any prayer publicly with the unit.

 

As for the young lady's view on this, She admits that she should have waited until after the marriage. She made an unwise decision and regrets it. She is willing to deal with the consequences from the Local Church, the unit, and the Charter Organization. She realized she was more happy with the fellowship of the scouts than out on her own.

 

 

I know this isn't the answer to many out there. I really don't know how this will turn out. Only time will tell how all this plays out, I can assuredly say this situation is not over with my units or charter organization.

 

KWC7, I thank you for your post. That passage in the Bible, Luke 15:11-32 along with 1 Corinthians 13:1-8 was what I based my decision on.

 

Matua

[dsteele]

I'm not an expert on the Bible, but I feel you have reached a good or should I say Good decision.

 

 

I'll take some heat for it, and probably deserve the heat, but I feel you and your foundation have reached a fair and just decision about this young lady and her leadership role.

 

Scouting will move forward.

 

DS

[Bob White]

Matua,

It does not sound as if the young lady will be presenting her actions as a positive choice for others to follow. I also appreciate you and the other key members taking the leadership selection process seriously. I think you have folowed the expectations and policies of the BSA. I wish the young lady well she has some difficult times ahead of her.

 

Bob White

[evmori]

Matua,

Not really sure how either of those passages fit this situation. I think 1 COrinthians 10:23,24 is more appropriate.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Rooster7]

Matua,

 

Considering the young lady's attitude toward all concerned parties, I think the choice was wise. I greatly appreciate the fact that she realized her wrongful behavior and understands that it had consequences, not only for her, but for those close to her. In my mind, this is a huge step in the right direction. If I were in your position, this factor would have swayed me towards allowing her to have a limited role in leadership, just as you and your church leaders deemed appropriate. It's rare, at least in my experience, to see a charter organization take the time and effort to make such a thoughtful decision. Your troop should be thankful.

 

There is one thing I dont understand. You said your church was not going to allow her a leadership position until you pointed out this bylaw of the foundation (I presume the church):

 

It is stated that the "Primary Youth Organization for the Foundation is the Boy Scouts of America". In another section under adult Leadership, it states, "criteria for Leadership will be based on current regulations, policies, and or guidelines of the Boy Scouts of America National Office". One last section stipulates the foundations stance on registered adult leadership. This section states that, "Any approved adult volunteering active participation for any of the foundation's BSA units must be a registered leader of the BSA due to liability".

 

From the above, do I understand the following correctly?

 

1) Your church has a policy outlining their relationship with the BSA and how they should select leadership.

 

2) One requirement, per your charter, is all adults who wish to help (i.e. active participation) must be a registered leader.

 

3) Your church wanted the young lady to be involved (in the background), but not as a leader BUT upon reviewing their own policy, decided they had to registered her as one.

 

Did I get that right? If so, I have no comment. I just found it rather interesting.

 

Bottom Line I agree with Bob White and others. I really appreciate the seriousness in which you and your organization approached the issue. I think its rare.

 

[SR540Beaver]

Ed,

 

I'm surprised that you can't see how the story of the Prodigal Son would apply to this situation. I have taught lessons, led bible studies and even preached on the subject a number of times over the years and think it is very appropriate for this situation. I would suggest that you meditate on the passage and it should become clearer to you.

 

I'm unclear on how the passage you cited applies. How would someone becoming pregnant outside of marriage considered those actions as being beneficial to themselves?

[mk9750]

I believe that the majority of mainland Americans view premarital sex as immoral. I believe that the same group views homosexuality as immoral. Based on that, both circumstances should cause the person who finds him or herself in one of them should determine that they are not eligible for membership, and not even apply, should they be in the USA proper.

 

My question is whether the same opinion on the morality of premarital sex exists in Guam. If it does, then the young lady should not even be applying for membership, and if she does, it shouldb e denied. If however, Guam has a differnet standard, even though it is a BSA program, I think that should be considered.

 

TJ and others, before you use my position to advance yours (local control), I think there could be a tremendous difference in cultures in mainland USA and Guam. I do not believe the same level of disparity exists within our geographic boarders. While certainly, San Fransisco may have a culture that accepts homosexuality, I think the the "American culture", the morality of the nation, would reject homosexuality as immoral. It would be wrong of the BSA, I think, to enforce their standard on another country's cultural beliefs. It is, however, very proper that the BSA enforces their standard stateside.

 

Mantua, I too applaud your very serious consideration of this issue. I hope and pray for the best results for all involved.

 

Mark