Update On Adult Leadership Standards

[Gone]

According to my cousin, the CO does not realize (nor do they want) the unit's gear or money. The unit is taking their stuff (money, gear and all) and deciding to either join the new scouting program, do their own thing or find another CO.

[DigitalScout]

On the second part, I can't see how I can say to another Scouter that his beliefs are intrinsically disordered and gravely sinful, but I respect them. What rank hypocrisy!

 

There is a whole list of grave sins including lying, divorce, contraception, blasphemy, cheating, missing worshop services, envy, hatred, masturbation, and pornography.

 

If you have any married friends with less than 10 children, then I will guarantee they are using contraception. You don't associate with any divorced people?  And none of your friends have ever lied or masturbated?

 

It seems that your are cherry picking what you think is gravely sinful.  To me that is hypocrisy.

[Gone]

 

It seems that your are cherry picking what you think is gravely sinful.  To me that is hypocrisy.

 

...as is the chant of "equality and tolerance for all" while deriding the beliefs of the religious or conservatives.

 

Funny how that only cuts one way, isn't it?

[hicountry]

An open question but I think we all know the answer. Is anyone from BSA going to go to these LGBT activist groups and tell them...."Hey, we rolled over and gave you your way, so you pony up and bring in thousands of new scouts and scouters now that the policy has changed". Is anyone going to hold these peoples feet to the fire and tell them we put up so you would shut up, now it's your turn to deliver? Where are all the people who said they wouldn't join BSA due to the discriminatory policy ? We all know better, these people are just activist trouble makers who once they get their way will for the most part not follow through and join, they will go find someone else's sandbox to mess up with no intention of joining after they get their way. The old, change your club to suit me but after I get my way I won't join anyway. Bottom line I don't expect a flood of new members joining due to the policy change.

 

Same thing goes for Sponsors, who is going to go back to sponsors who pulled out due to the old policy and tell them, hey Mac, we gave you what you wanted, we expect you to pick up some of the tab now like you used to.....I doubt much of that will happen either.

 

So BSA rolled over and will probably not end up getting much damage control over those that supposedly would not join or would no longer donate BUT....they will probably start seeing membership declines of over 10% a year. So what has been accomplished ?

[hicountry]

Duplicate post removed.

Edited July 24, 2015 by packsaddle

[Gone]

This guy doesn't sound like a) he's going to come back to Scouting, despite the pending policy change, b) he's willing to forgive and forget, c) he understands that the local option being considered will STILL allow CO's that elect to, to continue to discriminate regarding gay leaders, d) he's will give up pressing BSA until even the local option is taken away.

 

If this guy is representative of the type of people that BSA is trying to ameliorate, what does the local option get them? It appears the local option is not what they want, nor is it what the conservatives want.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Bad Wolf

[Oak Tree]

See, it doesn't say "religious chartered" organizations, and the don't discriminate clause only appears to apply to BSA employees and non-unit volunteers. In other words, only the district, council and above are prevented from denying membership on the basis of sexual orientation. The full resolution is in the key 3 memo on the issue. A link to it was posted somewhere above.

 

Can anyone find a clear and unambiguous statement from the BSA on this?

 

The clearest statement on this is in the Effect of Changes in Adult Leadership Standards on Religious Chartered Organizations that is linked to from the initial post in this thread: http://scoutingnewsroom.org/blog/update-on-adult-leadership-standards/

 

There it says that under the proposed change, "Units not chartered by religious organizations could not exclude homosexuals who otherwise meet the BSA’s high adult leader standards and the chartered organization’s standards."

[David CO]

DigitalScout,

 

Great post! I agree with almost everything you said. "Cherry picking" or "cafeteria style" observance of religion is a problem.

 

There are many, many different kinds of sins. I agree with you that everything on your list are sins.

 

My religion teaches that some sins are more serious than others. The term "gravely sinful" would not apply to every sin on your list.

 

My religion also recognizes a difference between repentant sinners and unrepentant sinners. I don't believe it is at all hypocritical or "cherry picking" to draw these distinctions.

 

My last point is that not every sin is relevant to the topic of this thread.

[David CO]

Sorry, I double clicked on the post button. But since I already created this post, I will expand on my previous answer to DigitalScout.

 

DigitalScout, You ask me if I have friends and associates who are sinners. Yes. In fact, all of my friends, family, and associates are sinners. So am I.

 

We are repentant sinners. We are genuinely sorry for our sins. We confess our sins, pray for forgiveness, and strive to sin no more.

 

My problem isn't with sinners, it is with unrepentant sinners. It is with people who claim that sinful behavior isn't sin. It is with people who actively promote sin.

 

I try to avoid those people.

Edited July 23, 2015 by David CO

[perdidochas]

This guy doesn't sound like a) he's going to come back to Scouting, despite the pending policy change, b) he's willing to forgive and forget, c) he understands that the local option being considered will STILL allow CO's that elect to, to continue to discriminate regarding gay leaders, d) he's will give up pressing BSA until even the local option is taken away.

 

If this guy is representative of the type of people that BSA is trying to ameliorate, what does the local option get them? It appears the local option is not what they want, nor is it what the conservatives want.

The local option is a compromise position.  Of course it pleases nobody, but it irritates people less than the alternative that the other side wants. 

[Gone]

The local option is a compromise position.  Of course it pleases nobody, but it irritates people less than the alternative that the other side wants. 

 

We shall see. I don't see liberals stopping their haranguing of conservatives on this point until they get the entire ban lifted.

[Rick_in_CA]

This guy doesn't sound like a) he's going to come back to Scouting, despite the pending policy change, b) he's willing to forgive and forget, c) he understands that the local option being considered will STILL allow CO's that elect to, to continue to discriminate regarding gay leaders, d) he's will give up pressing BSA until even the local option is taken away.

 

If this guy is representative of the type of people that BSA is trying to ameliorate, what does the local option get them? It appears the local option is not what they want, nor is it what the conservatives want.

You are miss-characterizing what "This guy" is saying. For example:

One of the questions that hosts and reporters asked most frequently was, if the Boy Scouts changed its policy excluding gays, would I go back to my troop.

 

In 1981, the answer was, "Of course, I would. In an instant." I was 19. Then I was 29; then I was 39. Now that I'm 53, the Boy Scouts of America's Executive Board is on the verge of ending the national organization's ban on participation by openly gay adult leaders. (More precisely, the decision will be placed in the hands of local troops, which can continue to discriminate if they choose. Still, it represents significant progress.)

 

But I'm a middle-aged, partnered, childless gay journalist living in Manhattan. My life is radically different from what it was like when the Boy Scouts kicked me out. Troop 37 doesn't even exist anymore. It would be very hard to wend my way back into Scouting, even if I were welcomed with open arms.

 

I may try anyway. But if I do, nothing can change the fact that the Boy Scouts' exclusionary policy deprived me — along with perhaps hundreds of other gay men who would have stayed in Scouting and the thousands of boys we might have guided as adult leaders — of 35 years of opportunity. Opportunity to teach and be taught. Opportunity to lead and learn leadership.

So, maybe he will return to scouting, but probably not. Not quite as unwilling as you implied. Though I will grant you he isn't willing to "forgive and forget".

On July 27, Boy Scouts of America's Executive Board can vote to make sure that never happens again, and help fix the Scouts' chronic shortage of good leaders at the same time.

 

By simply confirming the recommendation of the Boy Scouts' president and executive committee, the board can ensure that qualified adults are never again kept from an opportunity to give of themselves.

 

And much more importantly, the board can guarantee that prejudice never again deprives boys of "good moral examples" who can Be Prepared, Do a Good Turn Daily, and teach them to fight for the right thing.

So, he appears to be in favor of the local option. I don't see any evidence that he is unwilling to "give up pressing BSA until even the local option is taken away."

[Eagledad]

We shall see. I don't see liberals stopping their haranguing of conservatives on this point until they get the entire ban lifted.

Why would they, it still says they are not normal in society. They will not tolerate a system that does. 

 

Barry

[Gone]

You are miss-characterizing what "This guy" is saying. For example:

So, maybe he will return to scouting, but probably not. Not quite as unwilling as you implied. Though I will grant you he isn't willing to "forgive and forget".

So, he appears to be in favor of the local option. I don't see any evidence that he is unwilling to "give up pressing BSA until even the local option is taken away."

 

I see nothing in his statements that shows he understands that the local option allows units to continue to discriminate against gays. He seems to think the local option will end the ban. He also seems to have "moved on", so if BSA thinks opening up to gay leaders is going to start in influx of new leaders (as opposed to a outflow of leaders), they haven't won this guy over.

[Rick_in_CA]

The clearest statement on this is in the Effect of Changes in Adult Leadership Standards on Religious Chartered Organizations that is linked to from the initial post in this thread: http://scoutingnewsroom.org/blog/update-on-adult-leadership-standards/

 

There it says that under the proposed change, "Units not chartered by religious organizations could not exclude homosexuals who otherwise meet the BSA’s high adult leader standards and the chartered organization’s standards."

I couldn't find your quoted statement in either of your linked sources.

 

However, while the first appears to be saying that the BSA doubts any legal challenge to a religious charter org's anti-gay policy will most likely fail (and they couldn't find any examples of such a lawsuit that didn't fail), they imply that the same cannot be said for non-religious charter orgs. So maybe that is the basis of the not allowing non religious charter orgs local control on this?

 

But I still haven't found a clear statement from the BSA that local control won't be given to non religious charter orgs. To me at least, the language of the proposed change appears to grant local control to ALL charter orgs.