BSA Membership Policy Change Proposal

[Krampus]

A friend of mine in Texas said her Council had the first of three meetings last night on the issue. They invited unit leaders, CCs and CORs. Was attended by 200+ people she said. BSA had national and Council folks present. It was an open forum to discuss the resolution and how units/COs felt. According to her the people there were overwhelmingly against any change in policy. The Council folks revealed that much of the feedback they had received was going that direction too. They are having two more meetings this week to reach the rest of the Council. She was in the "urban" area so the suburbs and rural areas are next. Her take away was that the Council was mostly likely leaning to keep the status quo rather than change anything. I think she said that Council had 7 or 11 votes? Not sure.

[EmberMike]

I'm giving serious thought to not pursuing any sort of future for my kids in the BSA if somehow this policy change is voted down. Although I doubt that will happen. But on the off chance it does happen, I think I'll be looking elsewhere to fulfill the aspects of citizenship and the outdoors that I'd like to instill in my kids. I'd even consider starting up a local Baden Powell Service Association unit. Heck, to be honest, I'm considering that regardless of the BSA vote. But I've got some time to think about it, my son is still a few years out from Scouting age, and the vote this month will certainly weigh heavily into any decision I make about which organization I opt to continue my family's Scouting tradition in.

 

 

[WAKWIB]

Don't know how many of you have seen this...this is the Voting Member Information Packet for the upcoming conference. It goes into better detail than the "Executive Summary," and gives more detail on how the polling took place.

 

The writers of the survey seem a little discombobulated by the fact that the current policy enjoys "strong and widespread support" among scouters, and it is only when push-poll questions are included does support for the policies seem to change:

 

Respondents support the policy by a 61 percent to 34 percent margin, with intensity overwhelmingly favoring supportersâ€â€54 percent “totally support†the policy, while 25 percent “totally oppose†it. While support for the policy is strongest among whites, men, and middle-aged adults, it is consistent throughout virtually all segments of the Scouting family. Only people in the Northeast and the youngest adults oppose the policy.

 

 

 

Considering the scenarios has virtually no effect on people’s view of the current policy. After reading the scenarios, respondents continue to support the policy by a wide 60 percent to 35 percent margin, including intensity that strongly favors supporters.

 

 

The public at large disliked the Local Option that was so favored by many here by a 2-to-1 ratio. It doesn't sound like changing the policy to LGBT inclusion will lead to a huge influx in scouts whose parents disapprove of the current policy. Most people just don't care. Muggles!

 

2. the policy is not a motivating factor for people whose sons are not in scouting. Just 2 percent of parents say the ban on gays is the reason why their son isn’t in the organization. The core reasons for lack of involvement remain the same as we have seen in past researchâ€â€that their son is too busy or involved in other things (29 percent), not old enough (21 percent), or not interested (20 percent).

 

 

Non-scouting parents oppose the current policy and parents with kids in scouting support it:

 

Parents now oppose the policy by 45 percent to 42 percent, in stark contrast to 2010, when they supported it by 58 percent to 29 percent. Parents of current Scouts continue to support the policy, but only by 48 percent to 39 percent (down from 57 percent to 29 percent in 2010). The effect of the policy has also shifted toward the negative, with parents saying it makes them less likely to enroll their son by 23 percent to 22 percent (in 2010, it made them more likely to do so by 30 percent to 15 percent).

 

 

which leads to the question - if you are not involved in scouting and don't care to be...why should your opinion matter if you don't have skin in the game?

 

Although the survey says

 

The Youth Study Group (teens 16 to 18) was charged with listening to the voice of youthâ€â€both current members and nonmembers. Harris Interactive was contracted to survey both current youth members as well as general population teens. Key findings include:

 

• Among general population teens and Boy Scouts and Venturers alike, a majority oppose the current Boy Scouts of America membership policy.

 

• A majority of Boy Scouts and Venturers oppose allowing chartered organizations to follow their own beliefs if that means there will be different standards from one organization to the next.

 

• According to a majority of current Boy Scouts and Venturers, the current policy does not represent a core value of Scouting.

 

 

...I didn't know that the polling group of Scouts was so small (only 218 active Scouts) (and was restricted to those 16 to 18), or that the Baptist and LDS COs elected not to have their scouts included in the polling.

 

BSA youth membership was not directly surveyed as originally planned through the Voice of the Scout process used for adult leadership. When the survey process was originally announced, several chartered organizations, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Baptist church, and many parents asked that their youth members not be contacted as part of the survey. In light of the feedback received, it was determined the surveys could be conducted through Harris Interactive utilizing the Harris Interactive Online youth panelists (HPOL).

 

The membership standards survey was conducted online from March 18-22, 2013, among 1,021 U.S. residents ranging from 16 to 18 years of age who agreed to a consent statement regarding their participation in the research. Of the group surveyed, 803 youth were HPOL general population and 218 (21 percent) youth were from a contact list of registered members of the Boy Scout and Venturing programs. Confidence level in the survey results is 95 percent. Most BSA members who are 19 to 20 years of age had an opportunity to participate in the direct Voice of the Scout questionnaire as adults.

 

One of the more surprising stats (that was not included in the widely distributed executive summary) is this:

 

 

 

In total, about half (48 percent) of Boy Scouts and Venturers believe they can find a way to continue to participate in the organization if the decision on this policy disagrees with their own view. Twenty-two percent do not believe they can find a way to continue, and 30 percent are not sure.

 

 

 

Viewed in terms of their post-scenario opinion of the current policy, 32 percent of those who support the current policy believe they can find a way to continue participation in the organization if the policy is reversed, while another 32 percent do not believe they can find a way to continue in this case; 37 percent have not made up their mind. Meanwhile, 55 percent of those who oppose the current requirement believe they can find a way to continue if the policy remains in place, while 18 percent do not believe they can find a way to continue and 27 percent have not yet made up their mind.

 

 

 

Based on the proportions of support, opposition, and neutral opinions regarding the current policy, and their respective anticipated reactions if the policy decision disagrees with their own view, it is estimated that relatively similar effects on membership would be seen regardless of whether the policy remains or is changed. On either side of the issue, between 10 percent and 12 percent of current members believe they could not find a way to continue, while between 72 percent and 74 percent believe that they could. There are, however, a substantial percentage of undecided members whose effects remain to be seen.

 

When we look at the respondents as a whole, though:

 

 

 

Nearly three-fifths of respondents say the current policy is a core value of scouting found in the scout oath and Law. People say the policy represents a core value by a 58 percent to 42 percent margin, helping to explain the overwhelming, intense, and consistent support for the policy among respondents.

 

The money part of the full report is probably this:

 

 

 

One-third of respondents say they do not believe they can continue with the organization if the Bsa makes a decision on the policy that conflicts with their own view. Thirty-four percent of respondents say they do not believe they could continue with the organization if they disagree with the BSA’s decision on the policy, 33 percent say they believe they could continue, and 33 percent are unsure.

 

 

Views on this matter are far stronger among supporters of the policy than among opponents. Among supporters of the policy, 50 percent say they could not continue with the organization if the policy changed. But among opponents of the policy, just 11 percent say they could not continue if the policy remain in place.

 

Here's the full packet. There is a lot in here to discuss, both pro- and anti- the current, local, and proposed policies:

 

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/MembershipStandards/310-561_WB.pdf

Thanks for posting that link, AZ. There is a heck of a lot to process there. I found the regional summaries and recommendations to be quite interesting. I think the Southern Region is all but ready to "secede from the union."

[Gone]

...and not just from BSA.

[Tim in NJ]

Patriots' Path Council here in New Jersey has released a statement on the vote, which I happen to agree with:

[url=http://signs-up.ppbsa.org/2013/04/30/executive-board-decision-on-membership-standards/]http://signs-up.ppbsa.org/2013/04/30/executive-board-decision-on-membership-standards/[/url=http://signs-up.ppbsa.org/2013/04/30/executive-board-decision-on-membership-standards/]

 

Patriots’ Path Executive Board Statement on National Membership Standards Resolution

Patriots’ Path Council, BSA continues to support the idea of membership standards that would welcome youth and adult participation regardless of race, creed, religion, national origin, ancestry, disability, or sexual orientation.

 

We are disappointed to learn that the resolution proposed by the National Executive committee, to be voted upon at the National Annual Meeting on May 23^rd, would continue the policy of excluding gay adults from membership. However, if approved, the proposed national resolution would change the current membership standards and would permit gay youth members to benefit from Scouting. We strongly feel this is a step in the right direction. We have always been guided by the best interests of our youth members. In keeping with that philosophy, we will support the proposed resolution and continue to work toward further change.

 

[Basementdweller]

People people people......

 

I asked my PLC their thoughts on it....... To a man they didn't care one way or the other........

 

 

THE BOYS ACTIVE IN THE PROGRAM DON'T CARE.

 

 

This is just more adult generated drama.

 

So why not start a BPSA group......Because the only reason the BSA still exists .......The EAGLE. That is the huge reason this is such an issue.

 

Our council produced nearly 400 eagles last year......a ridiculously high number.

[Krampus]

Operationally this will be a nightmare to manage. What happens if the resolution is passed and now a Scout comes out? Do we disclose to the whole troop or keep it a secret? Do we tell the parents of the other Scouts in case they object to having their son sleep in a tent with an openly gay Scout? If we don't disclose to those parents, what liability do the adult leader run into in the event there is an incident?

 

Passing this resolution without clearly guidelines on how to uniformly manage such situations leaves us the leaders open to all sorts of liability and political/social issues we are not equipped to handle. It takes the focus off of why were are there in the first place.

[EmberMike]

Operationally this will be a nightmare to manage. What happens if the resolution is passed and now a Scout comes out? Do we disclose to the whole troop or keep it a secret? Do we tell the parents of the other Scouts in case they object to having their son sleep in a tent with an openly gay Scout? If we don't disclose to those parents, what liability do the adult leader run into in the event there is an incident?

 

Passing this resolution without clearly guidelines on how to uniformly manage such situations leaves us the leaders open to all sorts of liability and political/social issues we are not equipped to handle. It takes the focus off of why were are there in the first place.

Why would it be an issue? Schools manage it just fine. If a kid comes out to a teacher, that's as far as it goes. The teacher doesn't inform the parents of the other kids in the class. And yet life goes on just fine. Kids still interact, share a gym locker room, go on trips, stay overnight in shared hotel rooms, etc.

 

If this issue "takes the focus off of why we are there in the first place" in the BSA, why doesn't it do the same everywhere else?

[Krampus]

Operationally this will be a nightmare to manage. What happens if the resolution is passed and now a Scout comes out? Do we disclose to the whole troop or keep it a secret? Do we tell the parents of the other Scouts in case they object to having their son sleep in a tent with an openly gay Scout? If we don't disclose to those parents, what liability do the adult leader run into in the event there is an incident?

 

Passing this resolution without clearly guidelines on how to uniformly manage such situations leaves us the leaders open to all sorts of liability and political/social issues we are not equipped to handle. It takes the focus off of why were are there in the first place.

I'll point out the obvious: BSA is a private membership organization and the liability that adult leaders are exposed to is FAR more than that of a public school. Schools are covered by far more case law and statue than are private organizations.

 

I have already heard of units with parents that have demanded that, should the policy go into effect, that their son be "kept away" from any gay Scouts. I have equally heard of other units where parents have said they will leave if the policy is not adopted. So with this polarization as a background, suppose a Scout comes out to a leader and says he wants it kept quiet. Do you tell his parents? What about those parents that don't want their child around a gay Scout (if known)?

 

You cannot dismiss this with your school analogy so simply. It is not even remotely the same set of circumstances.

[perdidochas]

Operationally this will be a nightmare to manage. What happens if the resolution is passed and now a Scout comes out? Do we disclose to the whole troop or keep it a secret? Do we tell the parents of the other Scouts in case they object to having their son sleep in a tent with an openly gay Scout? If we don't disclose to those parents' date=' what liability do the adult leader run into in the event there is an incident? Passing this resolution without clearly guidelines on how to uniformly manage such situations leaves us the leaders open to all sorts of liability and political/social issues we are not equipped to handle. It takes the focus off of why were are there in the first place.[/quote']

 

EmberMike,

 

The difference is that in terms of schools we don't have gay students sharing very close living quarters with straight students.

[Rick_in_CA]

Our council has told us that they were allocating their five votes in proportion to how the council board voted: 4 in favor, 1 against.

[MattR]

Krampus, there's nothing that says gays can't be in scouting now, they just can't admit it. So they're already sleeping in close quarters. What does "not avowed" really mean anyway? So a kid knows he's gay, is part of the local gay organization, but denies he's gay. He's not avowed. What an ugly mess.

 

I talked to my DE and it looks like council's South of the Mason Dixon line and East of Texas (including Texas) are voting against, North and East of the Mississippi are voting for (not sure about Florida). The West coast is for. The center of the country is following the red/blue map.

[Krampus]

Krampus, there's nothing that says gays can't be in scouting now, they just can't admit it. So they're already sleeping in close quarters. What does "not avowed" really mean anyway? So a kid knows he's gay, is part of the local gay organization, but denies he's gay. He's not avowed. What an ugly mess.

 

Oh, I don't disagree at all. We have sort of a don't-ask-don't-tell policy now. I guess those who are against gays are somehow fooling themselves now that gay scouts don't exist and their son is not currently associating with them now. But given that current policy it sort of gives scouters an "out" if you will in that we are not supposed to ask or know if a scout is gay and, if he is, he has to leave. If this new policy goes into place that all changes and rises issues about what scouters should or should not do if they find out a scout is gay.

 

[quote=MattR;n373527

I talked to my DE and it looks like council's South of the Mason Dixon line and East of Texas (including Texas) are voting against, North and East of the Mississippi are voting for (not sure about Florida). The West coast is for. The center of the country is following the red/blue map.

Not sure I follow your geography. Are you saying everything south of PA, north of FL and east of TX are voting against? What I heard from a national employee was the the south (TX, LA, MS, AL, GA, TN, AR, NC, SC, WV) were voting a majority against. Split states in that region were VA and FL. They said OK, KS, NB, ND, SD were split but leaning against.

 

He too characterized it in political map terms but from what I understand the states are weighted much differently. That's about the extent of my knowledge and it is all second hand.

 

[AZMike]

The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS) just published a pastoral letter opposing the proposed new policy: http://wmltblog.org/2013/05/boy-scouts-of-america-why-the-proposed-policy-change-matters/

 

[h=1]Boy Scouts of America: Why the Proposed Policy Change Matters[/h]

A statement by the Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison, President,

The Lutheran Churchâ€â€Missouri Synod

May 16, 2013

 

Western culture is at a crucial moment in history. After 103 years of existence, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) may vote to change drastically its membership policy. For those who may be unaware, the BSA, in recent months, has discussed allowing both gay Scouts and Scout leaders into its organization. Recently, however, the BSA has changed its course. Now the vote will determine only whether to include openly homosexual Scouts as members.

 

LCMS leaders have been carefully monitoring the proposed BSA policy changes. When news of the proposed change was made public, I sent a letter to BSA, imploring its leadership not to make the proposed policy change. And even though the initial proposal to focus on Scout leaders has been shelved, I believe the current proposal still has unknown implications for the future of BSA as well as LCMS support and involvement. The proposed change will highlight sexuality, which has not been and should not be a matter of focus for Scouts. I suspect it will make it more challenging to care for young people struggling with same-sex attraction and perhaps open our churches to legal action.

 

This vote matters to the LCMS. The proposed change in BSA policy on values and membership to include openly homosexual Scouts adversely affects, even supersedes, the authority of the local pastor and congregation by allowing and promoting a moral position that we as LCMS Lutherans believe is against the will of God and in opposition to Holy Scripture.

 

This vote matters because, if enacted, the proposed change to BSA policy on values and membership will cause a crisis of conscience for our church leaders, pastors, parents and congregations. Even if the decision of values and membership remains at the local level, Scouts from troops sponsored by congregations of the LCMS will be affected because, as part of the scouting program, they also participate at regional and national scouting activities.

 

This vote matters because, for more than a century, scouting has sought to uphold moral values at a level greater than that of general society. The capitulation now to societal pressures would mar the long and honorable history of the Boy Scouts to honor the natural law of God, which at least for now, is still reflected in the current scouting membership policy.

 

For these reasons, I and some 25 other Protestant church leaders have signed onto a statement, copied below, that implores BSA not to change its policy, noting that, “In our current culture, it’s more important than ever for our churches to protect and provide moral nurture for young people and for the Scouts.†The statement will be released in conjunction with its delivery to the BSA office and before the organization’s vote, which will take place May 24.

 

I share this with you today because it is difficult to know which of our LCMS BSA members will be part of the 1,400 members who will vote on the policy change later this month. I am hopeful that all of you will share this information with those in your congregation who are involved with BSA and even those in your community who will cast votes later this month.

 

As the church awaits the BSA vote, we still have much to do. We repent, and we pray. We confess Christ and elevate marriage among us. We do what the church does best: We bear witness to Christ, show mercy to those in our midst  including those challenged by same-sex attraction  and care for all in our life together.

 

Pastor Matthew C. Harrison

 

President, The Lutheran Churchâ€â€Missouri Synod

 

Statement

 

We strongly support the Boy Scouts of America current prohibition on open homosexuality and retaining it without revision. Nearly 70 percent of BSA troops are hosted by churches and religious institutions. Upholding traditional morality is vital for sustaining this partnership, for protecting Scout members, and for ensuring BSA has a strong future. A proposal from the BSA board to prohibit “discrimination†based on “sexual orientation or preference†for BSA members potentially would open the Scouts to a wide range of open sexual expressions. In our current culture, it’s more important than ever for our churches to protect and provide moral nurture for young people and for the Scouts. We implore members of the upcoming BSA Council to affirm the BSA’s present policy, which the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed, and which has served BSA well.

 

 

Bishop David C. Anderson, Sr.

 

President, American Anglican Council

 

 

Sara L. Anderson

 

Executive Vice President

 

Bristol House, Ltd. (United Methodist)

 

 

The Rev. Canon Phil Ashey

 

Chief Operating & Development Officer

 

American Anglican Council

 

 

Dr. Robert D. Benne (Lutheran)

 

Jordan Trexler Professor Emeritus

 

and Research Associate

 

Religion and Philosophy, Roanoke College

 

 

Dr. Robert H. Blackburn

 

Past Chairman, National Association of Covenanting Congregations

 

 

The Rev. John Bradosky, Bishop

 

The North American Lutheran Church

 

 

Pastor Mark C. Chavez

 

General Secretary, North American Lutheran Church

 

 

The Rev. Sue Cyre

 

Executive Director of Presbyterians for Faith, Family and Ministry (PFFM)

 

 

The Rev. Dr. Matthew Harrison

 

President, The Lutheran Churchâ€â€Missouri Synod

 

 

Doug Harvey, Executive Director

 

Disciple Heritage Fellowship

 

 

The Rev. Charles Huckaby

 

Dean, Western Classis of the Calvin Synod Conference United Church of Christ Term 2010– 2013

 

 

Dr. Jeffrey Jeremiah

 

Stated Clerk

 

Evangelical Presbyterian Church

 

 

John Lomperis

 

Director, United Methodist Action

 

 

Alex McFarland

 

Director for Christian Worldview and Apologetics

 

 

Senator Patricia Miller

 

Executive Director, Confessing Movement (United Methodist)

 

 

Bob Morrison

 

Secretary, REVIVE! (Iowa United Methodist renewal)

 

 

The Rev. Dr. Mary Holder Naegeli

 

Minister-at-Large, San Francisco Presbytery; Moderator of the Presbyterian Coalition

 

 

Rev. Kevin C. Rudolph

 

National Covenant Association of Churches

 

Windwood Presbyterian Church

 

Houston, TX

 

 

The Rev. Dr. Frederick J. Schumacher

 

Executive Director, American Lutheran Publicity Bureau

 

 

The Rev. W. Stevens Shipman

 

Director, Lutheran Coalition for Renewal

 

 

The Rev. Paul Stallsworth

 

President, Taskforce of United Methodists on Abortion and Sexuality

 

 

David M. Stanley

 

Director, Institute on Religion and Democracy

 

Chairman, United Methodist Action Steering Committee

 

Co-Chair, REVIVE! (Iowa United Methodist renewal)

 

 

Bishop Ray Sutton

 

Ecumenical Officer, Anglican Church in North America

 

 

Mark Tooley

 

President, Institute on Religion & Democracy

 

 

The Rev. Dr. David Wendel, Assistant to the Bishop for Ministry and Ecumenism

 

The North American Lutheran Church

 

 

Dr. George O. Wood

 

General Superintendent

 

General Council of the Assemblies of God

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AZMike]

I spoke with a friend Thursday who is active with a troop in California. He has been told by his CO's rep that if the resolution passes, the congregation will no longer be able to be a CO. He is worried that many other troops in his council will be left adrift if the resolution results in religious CO's rejecting the relationship with the BSA, and that will also lead to the scouts who are members of the CO church leaving the troop in solidarity with their church and their religious faith (which understandably have a stronger hold on their loyalties than the BSA), and he is further concerned that the fact that the BSA still will not allow LGBT adult membership means that the schools, civic organizations, and military units who have to follow corporate or government policies on LGBT "inclusion" will not be willing or able to step up to offer to be COs for the unchartered troops.

 

We may devolve into a movement of Lone Scouts.