Problems at other youth groups?

[Hunt]

I think this might be another time to point out the differences between the no gays and no atheists membership restrictions.

In my opinion, BSA has done a pretty good job of explaining why it excludes atheists. It has admitted that it is a religious organization, that it considers reverence and duty to God an element of its basic law, and that it believes that some kind of religious belief is necessary to be the best kind of citizen. You may not like this explanation, but you can understand it.

The explanation for the no gays rule is a lot thinner and vaguer. It simply asserts that homosexual behavior is not morally straight, without really explaining why, or according to whose moral code. Imagine if BSA had said the following: "The largest charter organizations in BSA are religious denominations that strongly believe homosexual behavior is immoral, and we continue to believe that this is the shared fundamental moral belief of most Americans." That would be an explanation you could disagree with, but again, at least you'd understand it. (It would explain, for example, why gays are out but divorced people are in.) In fact, I can't really think of another explanation, except for one of the explanations that the denominations give (such as that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible)--but that would be accepting a sectarian doctrine.

 

When we are recruiting, people ask us about these policies, and ask for an explanation. For the no atheists policy, you can give a pretty good answer. For the no gays one, you basically have to say, "Because National says so." Even if you agree with the policy, you can't give your reasons for agreeing as National's reasons, because you don't really know what National's reasons are.

[evmori]

Its a good answer when you remember what your personal responsibilities to scouting are. They do not include determining or approving national policies or program. As commissioners our job is to support those decisions not make them. The fact that representatives of the chartering organizations that contract to use the program, reviewed and approved this policy, is all the detail needed to do the job you accepted.

 

I don't think anyone is trying to determine or approve National policies or goals. I think what we are doing is asking "Why" to some of those policies or goals so we can be better informed when we support them. "Because National said so" is not a good answer. The BSA expects the Scouts to "Be Prepared" and we, as adult leaders, need to just as prepared.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White]

We train commissioners in how to indentify good scouting program and keep them strong, and how to identify those in trouble and offer assistance. We also teach them the structure of the BSA and how the pieces fit, as well as the various resources available.

 

One of the important things we remind them of, especially when they are new and inexperienced, is that if you do not know an answer or uncomfortable in giving an answer to just be honest with the person and say "I don't know how to answer that,let me find a better resource for you". Until you become more comfortable explaining the roles and responsibilities of the BSA national council you could direct their questions to a more experienced commissioner or to the local scouting professional.

 

I hope this helps.

[madkins007]

(Hypothetical breakroom conversation...)

 

Coworker: So, Mad, how long ya been doing this Scout thing?

 

Madkins007: Oh, since 1994 when my son entered Tiger Cubs.

 

Coworker: Wow! So, tell me, what does the BSA have against homosexuals? I mean, we know that homosexuals and pedophiles are different situations, and I know you have some rules about groups of 3 or something to protect people. So what's the deal?

 

Me: I don't know how to answer that,let me find a better resource for you. Try calling the Scout Exec at the local Scout office, or let me give you my commisioner's home phone number so you can call them and they'll call you back.

 

Coworker: That's OK. I guess I am surprised that the BSA works that way on big issues. I woulda thought they'd try using you guys as sort of a grass-roots tool to get their side of the story heard. Oh well. So, have you seen the new XR-7000 in the shop?

 

 

 

 

 

(Hypothetical conversation at recruiting night...)

 

Potential volunteer: OK, here is my app. I've also provided a resume and several character references. I've been a teacher for years with excellent reviews and commendations for my work with youth. Letters of support from my minister, boss, and leaders of other youth programs I've worked with.

 

Leader: Wow! I'm impressed. This is great. It looks like you'll be a tremendous asset to the unit. I also see your background check comes out sparkly clean, and our Chartering Org even put in a good word for you! And just look at all these testemonials from kids you've worked with! Gee whiz!

 

Potential: There is just one little thing, though... I did not notice a place to note sexual orientation. You see, I'm gay but I don't show it in public, just like straight people don't flaunt that all the time either. I thought the BSA did not like guys like me, but I did not see anything about it on the application. What's that all about?

 

Leader: I don't know how to answer that,let me find a better resource for you. Try calling the Scout Exec at the local Scout office, or let me give you my commisioner's home phone number so you can call them and they'll call you back.

 

Potential: Ooooh-kay. So, can you take the app anyway?

 

Leader: I don't know how to answer...

 

Potential: (interrupting) Never mind.

 

 

 

 

 

[Bob White]

You misunderstood wha I said madkins, I was helping ed know how to answer scouters when he didn't know whatto say. I would be glad to lend you some advice as well.

 

hypothetically of course.

 

Coworker: So, Mad, how long ya been doing this Scout thing?

 

Madkins007: Oh, since 1994 when my son entered Tiger Cubs.

 

Coworker: Wow! So, tell me, what does the BSA have against homosexuals? I mean, we know that homosexuals and pedophiles are different situations, and I know you have some rules about groups of 3 or something to protect people. So what's the deal?

 

Me: Well you really have three questions there where you you like to start.

 

Coworker : well what's this thing with Homosexuals.

 

Me: What "thing" do you mean"

 

Coworker: Well the BSa doesn't allow homosexuals in the boy scouts.

 

Me: Thats not true. The fact is there probably are homosexuals in scoutng, but we don't ask and we ask that they not say. We don't want sexuality used as a political tool. we are trying to teach values and character not be a political platform for social issues.

 

Coworker: Well that makes sense but what about child abuse if you say there are homosexuals on campouts how do you protect the kids.

 

Me: Well thats another misconception. There is no evidence that adult homosexuals are any more likely to commit sex crimes than someone you would consider hetero. But safety has always been a big part of scouting and we have special training and special procedures we follow to help insure scouts are safe in scouting and in their everyday life. Whether its being safe with fire, or wood tools or rock climbing or protecting themselves, scouting is as safe a place for youth as ever.

 

Coworker: That's great. I remember when I was ascout. we had a great time, I hope to get my son in when he gets old enough.

 

Me; Well let me know when your ready I'd be happy to help you two get started.

 

 

All it takes is to tell the truth, but first you have to be willing to learn it.

 

[evmori]

I wasn't asking for nor was I looking for help nor did I not know what to say, Bob and your posts you are referring to were of no help anyway. But thanks for trying.

 

madkins,

The examples you gave are what I was talking about. If we at the grassroots level can't answer questions like these or our answer is "Because the BSA said so" then we are doing a great disservice.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt]

"We don't want sexuality used as a political tool. we are trying to teach values and character not be a political platform for social issues."

 

But this isn't BSA's explanation for why it doesn't permit openly gay leaders, is it? You could tell somebody this, I suppose, but it would just be your opinion, and it leaves out the minimal explanation that BSA does give, which is that homosexuals are not "morally straight."

 

Wouldn't a truthful conversation go like this:

 

Potential Recruit: "I've heard that openly gay people can't be Scout leaders. Is that true?"

 

Scout Leader: "Yes."

 

PR: "Why is that?"

 

SL: "The Executive Board of BSA, after consultation with representatives of a cross-section of its Chartering Organizations, have stated that homosexual behavior isn't morally straight."

 

PR: "On what do they base that conclusion?"

 

SL: "I don't know, but I can refer you to an experienced commissioner or a Scouting professional with your question."

 

PR: "And will that person be able to explain to my why Scouting thinks homosexuality isn't morally straight?"

 

SL: "They'll probably tell you the same thing I told you, although they may be able to give you reasons why they think BSA's position is the right one."

 

I'm not talking about whether BSA's position is right or wrong--I'm just talking about how well it is explained. The position on theism is explained well; the position on gay leaders really isn't. Surely anybody who (a) agrees with the position and (b) believes that BSA follows reasonable and proper procedures in arriving at and maintaining such positions, shouldn't object to BSA explaining in public what the reason is.

[Bob White]

But Hunt what you said is untrue and inaccurate. There is nothing that says that homosexuals cannot be in scouting, and you we know from a poster here that there are homosexuals in scouting.

 

If this were purely a morality issue we would be asking every person for proof that they weren't homosexual. We don't even ask

 

 

 

[Hunt]

If you'll read my dialogue carefully, you'll see that PR asks, "I've heard that openly gay people can't be Scout leaders. Is that true?"

 

I suppose I could have used "avowed," but normal people don't talk that way. Surely you don't think openly gay people can be Scout leaders, do you? In fact, the FAQ on BSAlegal.org uses the terms as synonyms.

 

If you look at that FAQ, you get what explanation of the position BSA has given. Here are the relevant excerpts:

 

"Boy Scouts believes that homosexual conduct is not compatible with the aims and purposes of Scouting and that a known or avowed homosexual does not present a desirable role model for the youth in the Scouting program."

 

"Boy Scouts regards homosexual conduct as not morally straight as required in the Scout Oath. Morally straight is a broad term which includes all types of moral behavior. There are many persons who may be unsuitable role models of the Oath and Law for adolescent boys."

 

That's pretty much it. Openly gay leaders are not desirable role models because homosexual conduct is not morally straight.

 

Given that this is BSA's explanation, with no other official explanation that I know of, my little dialogue is accurate. Bob's suggestion that BSA doesn't want sexuality used as a political tool may be true, but it's not part of the official explanation. What's lacking is any context for the statement that homosexual conduct isn't morally straight. Perhaps another way to answer PR's question would be, "BSA is don't ask, don't tell, just like the U.S. military." (Of course, the government has had similar problems explaining why "don't ask, don't tell" makes sense.)

 

(This message has been edited by Hunt)(This message has been edited by Hunt)

[Bob White]

You are correct, I did not see the word 'openly' I apologioze. I would have given a different answer if I had.

 

As to why they feel that way, would you be comfortable saying that "the decision is made by representatives of BSA chartering organizations, based on the goals and values of the organizations that use the scouting program"?

[Hunt]

Well, I do know that BSA's position on gay leadership does represent the goals and values of many COs, including some of the largest ones. On the other hand, I know that it does not represent the goals and values of some other COs. I suppose something like "the decision was made by representatives of a majority of BSA's chartering organizations, based on the goals and values of those organizations" is probably true. But I thought this was supposed to be one of values of Scouting itself, not the religious views of the COs.

Here's the problem, I think, what we're all struggling with: On the one hand, everybody realizes that what is going on here is that many, probably most, and possibly an overwhelming majority, of the COs that are involved with BSA, and many, probably most, of the members of BSA think that homosexual conduct is a sin, because their religion teaches that it is. But if BSA simply came out and said that this was the reason for the policy, it would raise two problems: First, it would suggest that majority rules on matters of principle--and it would leave the door open for a change in the policy if the views of the membership shifted. Second, it would look too sectarian, because it would say that the religious views of the majority trump those of the minority. This is a real bind, and it appears that BSA has chosen to deal with it by not being explicit about its underlying reasons for the policy.

 

To try to state this another way, BSA doesn't have a "bible" to point to on questions of morality, other than the Oath and Law themselves. If there is disagreement about what one of the terms of the Oath or Law means, the decisionmakers have to look at something outside those documents to decide. What are their options? Each can look at his own religious/moral tradition, or his own personal opinions of what is moral. Or, they can look at whether there is a social consensus, or a consensus among selected groups (such as COs). Imagine, as an example, that somebody raised a proposal that nobody who was a Conscientious Objector could be a scout leader because he isn't "Brave." The Oath and Law themselves wouldn't give you what you needed to determine whether such a person was brave or not--you'd have to look at other sources of values--ultimately, you'd be stuck with reaching a consensus view among the decisionmakers. I guess what I'm saying is that realistically this is probably what BSA did with respect to the gay leaders issue, and I think they should say so--that it's a majority (or better, a consensus) view, rather than suggesting that it's a timeless value of Scouting.

[Prairie_Scouter]

Is it possible, as some web documents have indicated, that the gay issue isn't as much decided by a majority of CO representatives as it is by a significant minority, including the LDS units, who had threatened to leave BSA if their views weren't accepted as policy?

 

Caveats....

I'm not saying that I think this is what happened.

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with the LDS membership.

 

I can post some references, if anyone would like, or you can just Google "Scouting Gays LDS"

[madkins007]

I have no clue as to the sexual orientation of most of my leaders*, and that is just the way I think it ought to be. (*- Overlooking the obvious presence of offspring, that is!)

 

I don't particularly want anyone going around flaunting their sexual orientation in Scouting- homosexual OR hetereosexual. I think that for the most part, any behavior that would get a person branded as 'openly homosexual' would be just about as wrong coming from a hetereosexual.

 

To me, it OUGHT to be the *behavior* we are worried about.

 

 

 

(Sorry, Bob White- I posted the conversation I did because it struck me as funny rather than because that is the way I do things! At one point in its history, it had a note to that effect on it.)

[Hunt]

"Is it possible, as some web documents have indicated, that the gay issue isn't as much decided by a majority of CO representatives as it is by a significant minority, including the LDS units, who had threatened to leave BSA if their views weren't accepted as policy?"

 

I think it's possible, but highly unlikely. I think given the COs that BSA has, the majority of them probably do agree with the policy--at the very least, the majority of those that have an opinion about it at all. That's why the only proposal worth discussing is allowing COs to have "local option" on this particular issue--this would be the majority recognizing that a minority view exists. This is what BSA does with some other issues (such as whether women can be unit leaders). But trying to persuade BSA to insist that all units allow openly gay leaders and/or members is a non-starter. That really would cause a bunch of relgious COs to leave, and they'd be justified in doing so, in my opinion.

[seabear]

It seems as if BSA has the sole by-line if anything that is out of place, etc...Yes other groups do hit the news now and again. It seens as it is open season on BSA, why,it is easy pickings, the views of a boy scout being squeakey clean, doing no wrong has for a very long time been the key note of scouting, helping a old lady across the street, doing a good deed, scout law,etc...So when something hits the fan, the news media pick it up and runs with it.

 

Just look at the media in the past several months, where one female has been in the news every day, yet how many other go missing without a word in the press, or without the resources being used to seek out the facts of their disappearance...

 

As for whom owns the unit, it matters not, It is called DEEP Pockets, sue everyone; even if BSA at National level is removed ,there is still councils, districts, units and the CO's as well as leaders, and even the boys.

This cost both in monetary and resources, which could be better used in achieving the mission.

 

 

AS for National ; pasting down to the rank and file, information on judgements,reason for changes what ever, this could be handle better in many cases. The lack of good communications is at every level. Just explained better the reason or concept, it could clear up a great deal of misinterpret information. If this is/could be done by training, information sheets, or by word of commissioner.

 

Not everything at National, or even district level effects the program at unit level, yet there is concern by many that resouces could be handle better for further generations of scouts, yet some feel that these resouces should have more local level input.It is hard for some to understand the workings of BSA, and questions are the norm.