City bans: So how do they actually impact things on the ground?

[Horizon]

onevoice - how does being gay make someone in violation of the oath and law?

[Novice_Cubmaster]

onevoice - gay and morally straight are not incompatible in everybody's religion or system of beliefs. There are those among us that think every gay person leads a promiscuous Fire Island lifestyle. Which is as unrealistic as judging your hetero lifestyle by Lindsay Lohan's, or Magic Johnson's behavior.

 

And I think you can be reverent and an atheist. If you show respect for the world you live in, the people around you, your"good fortune" (what theists would call "blessings" in your life, and not take everything good in your life for granted - then I'd say you're reverent.

 

perdidochas - your point is more to the point... How can you be an atheist and do your duty to God. The answer is you can't. And I think that to an ever growing faction of US society, the answer is "you can't and who cares". Is doing your duty to God important to me personally - yes. Do I think it's the most important part of Scouting - no; if it went away, would scouts stop being brave, trustworthy, etc?

 

NC

[ScoutLass]

OneVoice--How are gay people causing the breakdown of the family? I just don't see the logic there. I know many committed gay couples--more committed than many of the hetero couples I know--raising children and for all purposes modeling a good family life. How is that modeling poor family behavior?

 

Novicecubmaster said: "gay and morally straight are not incompatible in everybody's religion or system of beliefs."

 

Thank you for saying this. BSA is not a Christian organization, by their own literature they are a religious organization that is completely non-denominational and prescribes to no specific dogma. My religion does not practice bigotry against homosexuals. In fact, excluding someone due to sexual orientation is something that wouldn't be considered morally straight. Of course my religion also doesn't have a god or diety but BSA doesn't seem to mind as they publish info about it in every handbook where there is any sort of religious guide and it's part of every Scout's Own I've ever heard.

 

As for city bans, not a lot of effect here that I see as most COs are PTGs, churches and private organizations and clubs. I've heard some rumblings that there is some problems brewing in the school district with the PTG packs and troops, but I have no idea what the basis for those problems are or if they are related or not to the issues in this thread. A few stores I know of do not let us have popcorn booth sales in front of them because of the BSA stance on homosexuality. The stores do not want to be seen as supporting us.(This message has been edited by Scoutlass)

[onevoice]

Posted by novice cubmaster: "And I think you can be reverent and an atheist. If you show respect for the world you live in, the people around you, your"good fortune" (what theists would call "blessings" in your life, and not take everything good in your life for granted - then I'd say you're reverent"

 

That's an interesting opinion, and you're entitled to your opinion, but do you seriously believe that is what was meant by reverent when the scout law was written?

 

What would really be interesting is a survey of scouters. Don't be fooled by the "but everyone I know agrees with me" line of thinking and it's just some bigots that disagree. If your ideas had substantial backing by scouters, we would be a lot closer to resolving the issue. I see the exact opposite.

 

Posted by Horizon: "how does being gay make someone in violation of the oath and law?"

I think in the context of this discussion, the general interpretation of "morally straight" only includes sex inside a monogamous marriage. That doesn't always happen among heteros either, but as an ideal, I think it is a fine thing to pledge to do your best to meet. "On my honor I will do my best" means something. You can't do your best if you don't believe in what you are pledging, and it is a lie to pledge to something you have no intention of upholding. That is why I say, change the oath and law if you have the muscle, or get over it and start your own organization. A big hurdle in your way though, is that unlike the U.S.Constitution, the scout law and oath don't have a mechanism for being amended. How do you think you will enact such a change?

 

My personal opinion though, is that if the gay issue had been quietly changed 40 years ago, no one would have noticed. The vast majority of scouters would have never even met a gay leader. It is too late for an easy solution now, the battle lines have been drawn. Financial blood has been shed that has hurt many districts, mine included. The "no gays or atheists" side sees themselves as defenders of the faith, and they feel they have already been unfairly attacked as bigots for upholding what they believe as scoutings true beliefs. They will not go quietly, and I fear some would rather scuttle the ship, than see it taken over and changed.

 

 

[onevoice]

Posted by scoutlass: "How are gay people causing the breakdown of the family"

 

Hmmm, you tell me, I never said they were.

[Novice_Cubmaster]

onevoice, you ask "...is that unlike the U.S.Constitution, the scout law and oath don't have a mechanism for being amended. How do you think you will enact such a change?"

 

I'm completely unable to enact a change to BSA policy, as all Scouters are.

 

What will change BSA policy? Dwindling numbers, and a diminished stature. Look at some of the other forum topics, with titles like "why does band beat scouting?", "why do parents support sports over scouting?", "Council selling Camp due to lack of funds", "United Way no longer supporting Scouting", "City Bans...". Even in this thread, a Scouter reported "A few stores I know of do not let us have popcorn booth sales in front of them because of the BSA stance on homosexuality. The stores do not want to be seen as supporting us."

 

The BSA can change to reflect broader interpretations of "morally straight", and acknowledge that atheists can be good people and worthy role models - without abandoning the other 11 more universal points of the scout law.

 

And regarding, "Take out "morally straight", and "Reverent" and no one will have an issue. Or go start the Gay Atheist Scouts. Why are all these people afraid to start their own organization? If the numbers are there, they will come out the winner, and Boy Scouts will wither and die." I don't think any other group could ever create a national organization to equal the BSA. But that doesn't mean the BSA won't wither and die on its own. All over a couple of issues, that in 50 years nobody will comprehend.

 

[onevoice]

Posted by novice cubmaster: "The BSA can change to reflect broader interpretations of "morally straight", and acknowledge that atheists can be good people and worthy role models - without abandoning the other 11 more universal points of the scout law"

 

Not going to happen. You will never convince the BSA to take "duty to God" out of the oath. Just how does an atheist do that anyway? Does it bother you to pledge to something you don't believe in?

 

Posted by novice cubmaster: "I don't think any other group could ever create a national organization to equal the BSA"

 

Why do you think that? If sentiment is as you think, an organization like what you want would surely surpass BSA and leave them in the dust.

 

Or is it that deep down you know that an organization that stands for nothing will appeal to no one. Their oath could be:

 

If I feel like it

I will try a little

to do something

for my country as long as I get to pick its course.

To obey the parts of the law I want to,

to help others when I feel like it and it doesn't bother me

To keep myself from falling apart, but give me an award for everything, even if someone beats me.

Mentally awake, as long as that doesn't mean I can't take drugs, because lots of other people do

and accept any other behavior that someone will call me a bigot for not accepting.

 

 

Posted by novice cubmaster: "But that doesn't mean the BSA won't wither and die on its own"

 

It's not going to die on its own. It is with the help of groups like:

 

http://www.scoutingforall.org/data/layer02/wycd/wycd3Frame.html

 

Who claim they are helping, but are just tearing scouts down, by trying to starve BSA to death.

 

Why don't they start their own group instead of trying to destroy BSA, and turn it into their group? Because they don't want their own group, they just want a punching bag to use to get their position in the news. It's all politics.(This message has been edited by onevoice)

[ScoutLass]

This is what I am referring to:

 

Onevoice said: "I said in my first post in this thread that the largest problem facing scouting is the breakdown of the family. My issue with gays is that their example is just more fuel on the fire of bad family role models, and that they do not fit within the boundaries of the Oath."

 

 

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

I guess it was just a matter of time before this would get moved to the Politics and Issues section,

 

Just a thought, Habitat for Humanity is an organization that just about everybody respects. They are a Christian Organization. Take a look at their Website and you see the following:

 

Habitat for Humanity International is a nonprofit, ecumenical Christian organization. We are dedicated to eliminating substandard housing and homelessness worldwide and to making adequate, affordable shelter a matter of conscience and action. Our ministry was founded on the conviction that every man, woman and child should have a simple, decent place to live in dignity and safety.

 

They make no bones about it, Habitate is a Christian Ministry, then later on the same page they say:

 

Habitat has an open-door policy: All who desire to be a part of this work are welcome, regardless of religious preference or background. We have a policy of building with people in need regardless of race or religion. We welcome volunteers and supporters from all backgrounds.

 

Jesus's name is mentioned on the page and in the picture of an under construction house is a bible

 

http://www.habitat.org/how/christian.aspx

 

Yet as far as I can tell, no one boycotts Habitat because of its religious principles and foundation and receives no bad press because it uses phrases like "Theology of the Hammer"

 

Do you think the BSA could learn anything from Habitat for Humanity?

 

PS

 

I am not saying that the BSA is a Christian Organization, or that it should label itself as such. I think the BSA should say it is an Organization with a religious foundation that is open to all(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[onevoice]

 

Posted by oldgrayeagle: "Do you think the BSA could learn anything from Habitat for Humanity"

 

Sure they could, that a charity organization shouldn't exclude anyone, and don't stand for anything, and no one will have a problem with you. Unfortunately, we don't fit that mold, and the issue won't be solved so easily. Nearly 2/3rds of CO's are churches or religious organizations, most of whom object to the atheist/gay inclusion. A substantial part of the others probably also don't want a change.

 

It's pretty easy really, there are less than 5 million of us, take a vote and find out where everyone really stands. If it is hugely one way or the other, everyone shut up and get on with life as the results dictate. It could kill scouting, but this struggle will surely kill us also.

 

I could live with that, could you?

 

 

[The Blancmange]

OGE wrote:

 

Yet as far as I can tell, no one boycotts Habitat because of its religious principles and foundation and receives no bad press because it uses phrases like "Theology of the Hammer" Do you think the BSA could learn anything from Habitat for Humanity?

Yes, and OGE answered his own question elsewhere in his post:

 

Habitat has an open-door policy: All who desire to be a part of this work are welcome, regardless of religious preference or background. We have a policy of building with people in need regardless of race or religion. We welcome volunteers and supporters from all backgrounds.

If BSA were to adopt a similar policy, tailored to a youth-serving organization, it would in no way inhibit their fundamental core beliefs and mission.

[OldGreyEagle]

Well, firsr of all, two things

 

Habitat certainly does stand for something. The Chartering Organization of the Crew and Troop I am a member of has been doing a Habitat for Humanity Trip for the last 10 years. The youth and adults who make that trip certainly feel Habitat stands for something. Perhaps you don't agree, and that ok

 

Second, after reading the posts on the thread "Does National Care" which is just a few posts of being moved here itself (not that there is anything wrong with that) I was about to suggest the same thing. A poll of adult BSA members concerning membership standards.

 

The results would be, to say the least , interesting. Of course no matter how it went, there would always be comments on the "losing" side that the poll was fixed. I would be interested in a poll if not for any other reason than to get the dialogue started. Perhaps just a survey of CO's. Just let us know what the truth is

 

I could live with any result

[Oak Tree]

a charity organization shouldn't exclude anyone, and don't stand for anything, and no one will have a problem with you.

 

That's absolutely not the case. Habitat for Humanity very much does stand for something. But they picked that one thing that they stand for and don't muddy it up by adding in other things as well.

 

Their mission, in a nutshell:

- We seek to eliminate poverty housing and homelessness from the world and to make decent shelter a matter of conscience and action.

- To accomplish these goals, we build houses together in partnership with families in need.

 

I would say that the BSA

- Offers young people responsible fun and adventure and outdoor skills training

- Trains young people in citizenship, service, and leadership

- Serves America's communities and families with its quality, value-based program.

 

Standing for those things does not require including "duty to God" in the pledge; or alternatively, BSA could easily say that each person should determine what his or her duty to God is, including atheists.

 

I think the BSA does itself a disservice by taking a fundamental stand on something that is not fundamental to its mission.

[The Blancmange]

Another analogy ocurred to me. I am sure there are differences that someone will point out; I could probably think of some myself if I gave it more time. I went to Catholic schools through high school, and I know many other schools have a similar policy (whether it can be called universal, I don't know); that is that students of all faith backgrounds (or no faith) are welcome. Students who were not Catholic were not required to take religion class (although some of them did). An alternative (study hall) was provided during all-school masses (again, although some chose to attend mass).

 

My point is this: If a school that has as one of its fundamental missions, education of youth in a particular faith, sees fit to open its doors and provide its quality program to youth of other beliefs, including those with no particular belief, and does not consider the presence of those people to be contrary to its mission, how can the BSA, which has a far less rigid, non-sectarian belief, not be equally welcoming? (I realize that is an awful run-on sentence but don't have time to fix it).

Edit; here is the actual policy:

 

"Notre Dame College Prep admits students of any color, racial or ethnic origin to all rights, privileges, programs and activities accorded to students at the school. Notre Dame does not discriminate on the basis of color, race, ethnic origin or religious affiliation with regard to the administration of its education policies, admissions policies and scholarship and aid programs. We encourage applications for admission to the ninth grade from the community at large. Notre Dame draws from over 70 different grade schools in metropolitan Chicago. A student's enrollment at Notre Dame implies acceptance of the mission, philosophy and expectations set forth by the school.

 

Entrance requirements are based on intellectual ability, personal character, and a demonstrated willingness to learn."(This message has been edited by the blancmange)

[Penta]

I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in the 3G debate I have no skin in the game on...But, oh, hell. It's Friday and I'm bored.

 

OGE's thought of a poll of the membership is a good one. I'd make it of the *membership*, however, not the COs - for the sake of the COs. One of the biggest CO groups, the Catholic Church, has an impressive split in the US between 'conservative' and 'liberal' factions (relatively speaking!) just among the bishops, and you could wreak all sorts of unintended havoc if you polled parishes acting as COs. Similar with a lot of other CO groupings like the VFW - you could concievably be forcing them to confront an issue they don't want to touch, and tear them apart as they decide how to vote. If you make it of members as natural persons, however, you don't run the same risk.

 

Alternatively, if National didn't think a poll would do anything but kill Scouting...I'm going to sketch up a policy I think threads the needle. Please note, I'm avoiding specific language, just sketching out ideas.

 

Actually, two if not three policies. Membership as a Youth can be different from Adult Membership. Adult volunteer membership can be different from being an adult professional.

 

Youth membership: Should, IMHO, embrace all boys. Period. We should not care whether a boy identifies as gay, straight, bi, atheist, agnostic, or what. That they be a boy who can understand and subscribe to the Oath and Law *in their conscience*, "without mental reservation or purpose of evasion" to quote another Oath, is good enough. (If we take heat, it's most for the impact of policy on the boys. Which is to my view totally fair, because one's sexual orientation is often not really *definable*, if I'm reading the research right, until the early 20s. Teens will not-uncommonly engage in acts of a homosexual nature, but without actually being homosexual in orientation. Similarly, religiously, we must accept that teens (and younger, I'm not forgetting the Cub Scouts!) will question the faith (or lack thereof) they grew up with, and we should be accepting of that fact. It may make adults uncomfortable, but screw the adults.) It should never be permitted that any boy must be anything but a Scout in good standing who is otherwise qualified, to join a troop, to advance within a troop, or to hold a POR. (This bans, for example, an LDS-chartered troop requiring a PL or SPL to hold a certain position within the Church.)

 

Whether BSA should admit girls is a different, trickier question...One I am choosing not to address. Until GSUSA collapses, the BSA can say with a straight face that we are not competing with our (historical and sort-of-philosophical) sibling/cousin, and that we'd not like to be seen as "poaching". After all, a Scout is friendly, a Scout is kind, and a Scout is courteous, and that would not be any of those. If the GSUSA collapses, then we'll cross the bridge when we come to it.

 

Adults: Here you can get more restrictive, and IMHO should.

 

Adult volunteers at unit level: Should be required to subscribe to the Oath, Law, and the Declaration on Religious Practice (which, for the record, is absolutely brilliantly written, shame the implementation can fall short). Should be required to undergo Criminal Records Checks at initial joining and every so often (2-3 years?) thereafter as a condition of membership. However, whether an adult volunteer may be of a certain sexual or religious orientation is, of necessity, a unit concern for unit-level posts. (Yes, I am a fan of 'local option'. I believe that for unit-level posts, it won't come up. If it does, the unit is who's impacted, and should have the choice.) If a volunteer handles money, it may be required by the CO that they be subject to credit checks, to prevent financial misconduct. (Before anyone says "That's extreme" - No, it's not. It's not extreme if you are dealing with money. It's *good risk management*. Whether it's $50 or $5000, embezzlement is still embezzlement.)

 

Adult volunteers at district or council: Same as unit-level, but with a council-level policy regarding sexual orientation *voted on by all adult volunteers in the council*. Unit and higher volunteers would all have a vote. Religiously: So long as you can subscribe to the Oath, Law, and Declaration on Religious Practice, you're okay. There should never ever be a "religious test" that cannot be directly and universally tied to the post in question, however (such as a requirement that you be of a certain priesthood in an LDS-dominated council, or whatever - I don't mean to pick on the LDS, but while I've heard of priesthood requirements for LDS troops (for instance in the 1974 NAACP v BSA fight), I've never heard of similar for other COs - and it's those sorts of requirements I mean to ban, not a requirement (that could be justified) that a chaplain of whatever faith group be ecclesiastically endorsed). Again, if a volunteer handles money or makes financial decisions, it may be required by the Council or National that they undergo a credit check additional to any criminal records check, with the specific intent of screening out those who may be vulnerable to financial misconduct.

 

Adult pros: Here I would get even more restrictive, so far as the law allows. A volunteer acting badly is bad enough, a pro acting badly can kill Scouting dead for all time, particularly in a local area. I see the volunteer standards as a bare minimum for pros. Criminal Records Checks, Credit Checks, etc. should occur regularly, with provision for deeper checks (including interviews of people) upon employment and at some regular period afterwards, also allowing for "out of cycle" checks if it is deemed required, or upon promotions. "Morals clauses" should be in all contracts. It is self-evident that professionals must meet at least the standards set by the council of employment, or National standards where those are stricter. (Who are pros employed by, legally? BSA National? The council?) National-level posts may be addressed by specific, even stricter standards, due to their high visibility and profile.

 

Comments?