New MOU between BSA and Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod

[fred johnson]

SUMMARY - If my church had to sign that agreement, I'd recommend my church drop the BSA charter.

 

The agreement scares me.

 

It implies an interpretation that applies the new BSA membership rules onto specific units. I always thought units could choose their membership, youth and adult. Most units accept everyone. Some do not.

 

Maybe I was wrong to be sad when churches have drop their BSA charter. Now from reading the above memorandum, it seems those churches may have been justified and right. The above agreement says the Lutheran M.S. church will not deny membership to a scout based on sexual attraction alone. But clearly stating such an orientation is promotion. Going thru the teenage years and exporing sexuality is promotion. Having a boyfriend is promotion. All those actions say that it's okay and normal and in the face of churches that do not support, teach or believe that.

 

Instead, the agreement requires some further action called "promotion" or other to trigger removal from the troop.

KDD - You are right. It's just that the originally poster included the new memorandum of understanding for Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, LCMS. That document confirms and reinforces the major objection that you yourself listed. Local option in all except sexual orientation. The document explicitly states that LCMS can not use sexual orientation as the basis for denying memborship.

 

Of course, the statement is still vague and creates lots of questions. "Will respect the membership standards" of the BSA. Is that just emotional respect and thus meaningless to practial implementations or does that mean the LCMS promises to use that standard also for membership in their units? Is LCMS promising to accept all orientations into their scouting units? And only dismiss them from the unit if it becomes an issue. That is not a local option anymore. It's a half-[[mule]]'ed local option. "you must accept the scout. But if it becomes a problem that conflicts with your beliefs/teachings, then you can dismiss them."

 

So much for "must" and so much for "local option".

 

=======================

 

ghjim - This memorandum seems to limit local option.

[Pack18Alex]

I think people upset at these things didn't realize how draconian the old "policy" had become. A lad that thought he might find men attractive (even if he dating women) violated the old policy and could be kicked out. Attending a gay resort, despite no evidence that one engaged in any behavior was grounds for termination. Joining a high school LGBT tolerance group was reason for dismissal. It went beyond practicing gay youth, it was anyone who expressed any curiousity. Under the new policy, which is being clarified. BSA has no opinion in gay tendencies, and units can't kick a youth out for simply having tendencies, but they can make any rules they want on sexual activity, or any other activity. Now can we please stop talking about the sexual desires of teenagers. It creeps me out.

[fred johnson]

I think people upset at these things didn't realize how draconian the old "policy" had become. A lad that thought he might find men attractive (even if he dating women) violated the old policy and could be kicked out. Attending a gay resort, despite no evidence that one engaged in any behavior was grounds for termination. Joining a high school LGBT tolerance group was reason for dismissal. It went beyond practicing gay youth, it was anyone who expressed any curiousity. Under the new policy, which is being clarified. BSA has no opinion in gay tendencies, and units can't kick a youth out for simply having tendencies, but they can make any rules they want on sexual activity, or any other activity. Now can we please stop talking about the sexual desires of teenagers. It creeps me out.

I'm not sure your statement matches the situation at all.

 

- Old policy was draconian? Not really. From what I saw, the policy was mainly imposed when someone was trying to make a statement about the policy being wrong. Essentially boxing in the BSA on it's own beliefs. There were no witch hunts. There were no 20 question interviews.

 

- BSA has no opinion? Again, I'm not sure that's entirely clear. BSA never removed any previous statements. It just says youth are better off in scouting than not in scouting. Previous statements about morally straight have not been revoked. Adults can still be band.

 

- Youth can still be removed from units. The change was BSA membership, not unit membership. Any unit can remove youth for any reason, as it should be. If you want to take a stance opposite of what my church teaches, then find a scouting unit that is sponsored by a church or community group that supports your beliefs.

 

- Creeps you out? It's the political groups that have chosen to use BSA and the youth BSA serves as a battle ground that should creep you out. People are looking for changes in politics and beliefs and are willing to destroy the BSA to achieve their end. I know BSA isn't perfect, but it's hard to find a group with a better cause or purpose than the BSA.

[Stosh]

I think people upset at these things didn't realize how draconian the old "policy" had become. A lad that thought he might find men attractive (even if he dating women) violated the old policy and could be kicked out. Attending a gay resort, despite no evidence that one engaged in any behavior was grounds for termination. Joining a high school LGBT tolerance group was reason for dismissal. It went beyond practicing gay youth, it was anyone who expressed any curiousity. Under the new policy, which is being clarified. BSA has no opinion in gay tendencies, and units can't kick a youth out for simply having tendencies, but they can make any rules they want on sexual activity, or any other activity. Now can we please stop talking about the sexual desires of teenagers. It creeps me out.

Scout Law #10 makes it a target. Tolerance is no longer PC.

 

Stosh

[packsaddle]

I think people upset at these things didn't realize how draconian the old "policy" had become. A lad that thought he might find men attractive (even if he dating women) violated the old policy and could be kicked out. Attending a gay resort, despite no evidence that one engaged in any behavior was grounds for termination. Joining a high school LGBT tolerance group was reason for dismissal. It went beyond practicing gay youth, it was anyone who expressed any curiousity. Under the new policy, which is being clarified. BSA has no opinion in gay tendencies, and units can't kick a youth out for simply having tendencies, but they can make any rules they want on sexual activity, or any other activity. Now can we please stop talking about the sexual desires of teenagers. It creeps me out.

Since when is 'tolerance' the 10th point of the Scout Law? I always thought it was 'brave' (and it's not clear how 'brave' applies in this case, either).

[Stosh]

I think people upset at these things didn't realize how draconian the old "policy" had become. A lad that thought he might find men attractive (even if he dating women) violated the old policy and could be kicked out. Attending a gay resort, despite no evidence that one engaged in any behavior was grounds for termination. Joining a high school LGBT tolerance group was reason for dismissal. It went beyond practicing gay youth, it was anyone who expressed any curiousity. Under the new policy, which is being clarified. BSA has no opinion in gay tendencies, and units can't kick a youth out for simply having tendencies, but they can make any rules they want on sexual activity, or any other activity. Now can we please stop talking about the sexual desires of teenagers. It creeps me out.

Typo - should be #12