So What Would You Do?

[SemperParatus]

NEWS FLASH! (hypothetical)

 

At its annual meeting, the national BSA leadership has decided to withdraw its membership ban on homosexuals and atheists, effective immediately. As part of this decision, the BSA will allow units to opt to be chartered directly by the BSA, bypassing the Chartered Organization structure. In addition, references to God will be deleted from all scouting declarations (scout promise) and BSA literature. The twelfth point of the scout law has been changed from 'reverent' to 'thoughtful'.

 

***

 

With this hypothetical, my questions is...What would you do? Would you continue in scouting? Would you quit? Would you 'wait and see'?

 

***

 

For me, I would continue in scouting. The scouting experience is so vast and wonderful, these two issues pale in comparison to the tremendous benefits that scouting provides to me as a volunteer leader and the scouts with whom I am associated. As a devout Christian, I do not 'do scouting' for the religious experience. I do it to give back to the community, share my experience to help youths grow into solid citizens, and have fun. I find God everywhere and in everyone and I don't need the BSA to dictate that aspect of my life. While I believe there are legitimate issues with respect to homosexuals, I trust that the youth protection guidelines and educational initiatives, as well as plain old common sense, will ensure that appropriate safeguards are employed.

[acco40]

I'd ask what to do with my purple knots.

[Scoutndad]

I would also continue on with scouting...

 

The purple knots, along with other badges and emblems are earned. Nothing would change in that regard.

 

However, I do believe that allowing both groups access to the scouts should not fundamentally change the purpose behind the requirements. I think that you should be able to understand faith, without making faith a requirement. Doing this might open the doors (and eyes) to those scouts that have no understanding of a higher power and will challenge them to decide and enter discussions with scouts on why believing in God (or a deity) is a good thing to have.

 

All else consistent, how would this be detrimental to our young men that are encountering cultural and socioeconomic changes on a daily basis?

[OldGreyEagle]

Do the Chartered Organizations accept responsibility for the actions of their approved leaders and contractually agree to pay any damages of law suits brought against the BSA because of sexual abuse?

[Prairie_Scouter]

What an excellent question, Semper!

 

I, for one, would continue on in Scouting, and encourage my sons to do so as well. I think the vast majority would continue as well. As you say, and as I've said on several occasions, the overall program, especially at the local level, is excellent. The gay issue gets a lot of ink (or electrons, or whatever) because it is a social hotpoint. From Scoutings point of view, you'd think that the Guide to Safe Scouting should cover what we need to know to provide a safe program.

 

The members who would leave are probably those who see Scouting as a reflection and extension of their religious beliefs. When Scouting says that they are non-sectarian in their views, I always thought that they meant that they would not promote the religious agenda of any particular group. That's clearly not true in the case of gay membership, and those are the members who would probably move on.

[Prairie_Scouter]

OldGrey,

In the America of today, people are going to sue no matter what you do. The BSA National insurance covers you to a point, but the CO can still get sued if someone thinks that they have deeper pockets. Hasn't BSA National pushed responsibility for the background checks on the CO's anyway? Seems like the leader apps indicate that. And they could still provide whatever background checks they do even if they changed their policy on gay membership.

 

 

[Scoutndad]

Well, what started out as a good question, quickly digressed into OGE's "liability" issue...

 

OGE - When the Catholic church has many allegations and CONVICTIONS of molestation and child abuse, how can you even bring up that ANY organization is exonerated from the liability of sexual abuse.

And more importantly, how does your question relate to this thread? Are you homophobic, an atheist or a combination? (this is dramatized to make the point and should not be answered) but to stereotype religion or sexual orientation as a lead in to your question, certainly sounds startling to me and need to question the biasness of the moderator...

[NJCubScouter]

I know this probably will not be a huge shock to anyone, but I would continue in Scouting.

 

Semper, can we assume that a CO would still be permitted to exercise control over who its leaders are, as they do now? In other words, just as a CO can decide now not to have leaders who are female, non-members of their own particular religion, or any one of a number of other factors, they could still decide not to have leaders who are gay or atheists, right? I would not want the BSA to tell CO's that are Catholic or LDS churches, or other kinds of churches or organizations, that they HAD to permit openly gay or atheist leaders -- just as I do not like the BSA's current policy of telling CO's that are Unitarian, Reform Jewish, Episcopalian, United Church of Christ, etc. that they CANNOT have gay leaders.

[Hunt]

I'd pinch myself, and then I'd wake up.

 

 

[Scoutndad]

Great point NJ...sounds very cohesive.

 

I still like the idea of the "hypothetical" news flash!

[NJCubScouter]

I don't think the issue of abuse is relevant to Semper's question. The question really is about people who are "avowed" whatevers because that is what the BSA's policy is about. As we know from many of the articles that are posted in this forum, a person who uses his position as a Scout leader to abuse children is usually not "avowed" as anything but a good husband, good father, quiet neighbor, wonderful Scout leader and pillar of the community -- and is known to be such things by everybody around, until he is carted away in handcuffs.

[OldGreyEagle]

Prairie Scouter

Having worked in the Medical Field for over 30 years I understand about being sued, but I didnt ask about being sued, I asked about having the COs responsible for judgments against the BSA based on the actions of the leaders in their troops.

 

Scoutndad

I have no idea of how my question digressed anything. It was a question that I would have liked to have been answered before I gave my answer.

 

Next what the heck does the Catholic Churchs history have to do with this question?

 

Next you will soon learn you cant control how people will respond to posts, if you read these forums you will know I am Roman Catholic and have often posted that I would not have a problem if gay leaders were allowed in scouting. I may not do it so much in the recent past, but I learned awhile ago my views were not going to change anyones mind.

 

As far as my fitness of a moderator I would think you could wait at least month before you make the assessment. In the recent past I have not posted my views on a lot of issues because of my role as a moderator and I take great umbrage at your posting.

 

Now, can we get on with the thread?

 

[DugNevius]

Not only would i continue scouting, id be glad that those they left did so and confident that scouting is better off without people like that.

[OldGreyEagle]

See Dug, I knew we could find common ground

[Scoutndad]

OGE - If not for fear of legal reprisals and judgements, why would you have presented your question?

 

Regardless of your experience in whatever professional, vocational or practical forum, I do not believe your question had any merit or relevancy in this forum without qualifying your concerns further.

 

This is going to be a long thread so, believe it or not, I am still interested in how you feel the CO's liability aspect would be affected by the acceptance of homosexuals and agnostics in to the BSA?