Update On Adult Leadership Standards

[packsaddle]

NJ, as for understanding? I think he's calling me a 'lady'.

Edited July 17, 2015 by packsaddle

[David CO]

There are indeed two different sets of rules.

 

Both the Supreme Court decision and the recent BSA policy changes will draw distinctions between religious and secular, churches and businesses.

 

For some of us, it is very difficult to distinguish a church from its ministries, even if those ministries can be similar to existing businesses. Is a church owned school, hospital, or nursing home not a ministry just because other people operate similar institutions as a business? Does the existence of commercial wedding halls in a community mean that a church's sacramental wedding ceremony should be seen as a competing business activity, and regulated as such?

 

Some CO's are churches, some CO's are ministries of churches, and some CO's are made up of church going people. Which of these three groups are entitled to exercise their freedom of religion?

 

We live in an increasingly polarized society. These decisions only act to further polarize us. I suspect that this will be true in Scouting as well. We may well be seeing the start of a future in which there will be two groups of Scouting, religious Scouting and secular Scouting.

[packsaddle]

David, as I understood these things, and I could be wrong, all of the freedoms are freedoms for individuals first...groups in the respect that individuals form them. NJ can probably provide the needed clarification if any.

[Stosh]

Ok, I just realized what that meant. This forum is not "Scouting." It is ABOUT Scouting, mostly. Scouting has its rules, this forum has its own rules (which are few in number) and general practices. We do discuss things here that would not be appropriate to discuss at a troop meeting. But Packsaddle asks a good question: Do you want to change that?

 

Making a comment on an observation can not always assumed to be advocating anything.

 

Me thinks the Lady doth.....

 

I believe I answered the question....

 

As far as the quote, ya gotta bone up on you're Shakespeare.  

[walk in the woods]

My apologies.  What two versions of these new rules?  I'm confused as what BSA is proposing does what you indicate later in your post.  BSA is letting the CO and essentially only the CO choose.  

Well, when I hear two different sets of rules I consider this from the FAQ attached to the resolution (FWIW, I pulled the doc from https://www.scoutsforequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Adult-Leadership-Standards-Update-and-Resources-for-Key-3.pdf because it doesn't seem to be on any BSA websites):

 

12. Will non-religious chartered organizations have an option in this matter?

No, but as they always have, all chartered organizations will select their leaders and can require

adult leaders to demonstrate behavior that exemplifies the highest level of good conduct and

respect for others. For example, units chartered by the American Legion may allow only veterans to

serve as Scoutmasters.

 

As a result, "Friends of" or home school associations or other private organizations don't get local option. 

[Stosh]

Seriously?

 

Home school group CO's a unit.  They pick a SM and other leaders they think are all heterosexual.  Oops, lo and behold, one of the ASM's comes out of the closet.  They start a witch hunt and soon the ASM is gone.  A replacement comes forward who is the partner to the former ASM looking for a court case to punish the group.  So the group folds, only to reappear later on with a new troop number and a few different people on the committee.  

 

What makes one think that this whole process can't be sidestepped over and over again by a secular group that wishes to have a say in their own organization?

 

The school group can screen all scouts and leaders and assist them in finding them a scout troop without having to accept their membership.

 

Heck, one can sit in a pew Sunday after Sunday and the congregation does not have to accept your request for membership.  A simple vote and a negative outcome and that ends the discussion.  I have seen that voting process happen in both religious as well as secular organizations.  

[eagle77]

There are indeed two different sets of rules.

 

Both the Supreme Court decision and the recent BSA policy changes will draw distinctions between religious and secular, churches and businesses.

 

For some of us, it is very difficult to distinguish a church from its ministries, even if those ministries can be similar to existing businesses. Is a church owned school, hospital, or nursing home not a ministry just because other people operate similar institutions as a business? Does the existence of commercial wedding halls in a community mean that a church's sacramental wedding ceremony should be seen as a competing business activity, and regulated as such?

 

Some CO's are churches, some CO's are ministries of churches, and some CO's are made up of church going people. Which of these three groups are entitled to exercise their freedom of religion?

 

We live in an increasingly polarized society. These decisions only act to further polarize us. I suspect that this will be true in Scouting as well. We may well be seeing the start of a future in which there will be two groups of Scouting, religious Scouting and secular Scouting.

 

  David I agree, but the polarization already does exist in scouting. How many times on this forum have we seen some of the confusion that is out there concerning shall we say regular scouting and LDS scouting? Man has been fighting and dying over religious issues since the beginning of man (again according to which beginning you want to believe) and it still continues today.It is a "walking on eggshells" type of discussion. Where some here see this decision as one that is "right" or "wrong" it actually is neither, again in my opinion. It is a matter of you respecting my right to believe my way and me respecting your right to believe your way. Many of us have no problem with the latter, others on the other hand see any belief that doesn't agree with their's as being wrong. Man in all of its history still hasn't found the way to please everyone 100% concerning this and believe me BSA won't/hasn't either.

[Stosh]

@@eagle77

 

I concur.  We have enough intolerant people out there polarizing our society at ever turn.  It's my way or the highway for most people today and they can't seem to allow for the live and let live people around them.  This lock-step kind of thinking is what our Founding Fathers desperately tried to avoid with the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion and Freedom of association which have now all come under attack.  

 

Unless one jumps up and down and cheers for someone's opinion on even this forum, it automatically means they are against us and they have to be indoctrinated to our way of thinking.  No they don't!  They can think anyway they wish and as long as they stay civil they can act any way they wish.  Just don't expect me to be BFF and stick around to stand up for you when I walk away to do other things I think are more important than you and your antics.

 

However, if you ask my opinion and then don't like what I believe in, just do me the courtesy of just walking away.  I'll do the same for you, it's called the Golden Rule.  Remember that?  Been a while since that's been touted around.

[Rick_in_CA]

Evil and predatory are two different things. One can believe that an activity is immoral, sinful, or evil without it being predatory. Evil can be consensual.

You are correct, they are not the same thing. Hence I wrote "evil and predatory". If I am understanding Scouter99's concerns correctly, his main concern with allowing gay leaders into scouting is that they will be seeking to have sex with the youth (i.e. predatory). And that this predatory nature is somehow inherent in "homosexual culture".

[David CO]

I would not personally recommend to a non-religious CO that they sidestep the rules on membership. Of course it can be done, but it doesn't feel to me like the Scouting way of doing things.

 

A neighboring Troop created a new name, avoid-a-sphere, to sidestep a ban on dodge ball. Sure, the ban on dodge ball, like the bans on water guns and water balloons, is silly. But what kind of example are we setting for the kids if we sidestep the rules we disagree with, especially if we make a joke of it.

 

A couple of years ago, on this forum, we had a lengthy discussion about ethics which raised the question of when it is ethical to break the rules. While we don't need to repeat that thread, I do find it interesting that it keeps reappearing on other topics.

[Stosh]

I would not personally recommend to a non-religious CO that they sidestep the rules on membership. Of course it can be done, but it doesn't feel to me like the Scouting way of doing things.

 

A neighboring Troop created a new name, avoid-a-sphere, to sidestep a ban on dodge ball. Sure, the ban on dodge ball, like the bans on water guns and water balloons, is silly. But what kind of example are we setting for the kids if we sidestep the rules we disagree with, especially if we make a joke of it.

 

A couple of years ago, on this forum, we had a lengthy discussion about ethics which raised the question of when it is ethical to break the rules. While we don't need to repeat that thread, I do find it interesting that it keeps reappearing on other topics.

 

So what you are saying is that it is unScoutlike to have a group to associate with that you feel comfortable with?  BSA is thus promoting a hypocritical religious CO's can do that but no one else can?  The Bill of Rights says one has the right to associate with those you wish to, but the courts today are saying that's not the case anymore.  

 

Nope, I'll do my Scoutlike civil duty and stay within the Bill of Rights allotted to me by the Constitution.

[packsaddle]

I did a search on the words, "freedom to associate" and "freedom of association" and couldn't find those in the Bill of Rights. Am I missing something?

Also, "Right to privacy". Must be in there somewhere.

[Rick_in_CA]

Well, when I hear two different sets of rules I consider this from the FAQ attached to the resolution (FWIW, I pulled the doc from https://www.scoutsforequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Adult-Leadership-Standards-Update-and-Resources-for-Key-3.pdf because it doesn't seem to be on any BSA websites):

 

12. Will non-religious chartered organizations have an option in this matter?

No, but as they always have, all chartered organizations will select their leaders and can require

adult leaders to demonstrate behavior that exemplifies the highest level of good conduct and

respect for others. For example, units chartered by the American Legion may allow only veterans to

serve as Scoutmasters.

 

As a result, "Friends of" or home school associations or other private organizations don't get local option.

OK, now I'm confused (thanks walk in the woods for finding that pdf). After reading the actual resolution, I'm not seeing the religious vs non-religious difference. The specific section is (bold emphases is mine):

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

 

The standards for selecting adult leaders of the Boy Scouts of America are as follows:

 

Adult leadership positions in the Boy Scouts of America are open to adults who meet the requirements set forth in the Bylaws, the Rules and Regulations, and the policies of the Boy Scouts of America.

 

Adult leaders in the programs of the Boy Scouts of America must (a) subscribe to and abide by the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law, (b) subscribe to and abide by the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle, and © demonstrate at all times behavior that exemplifies the highest level of good conduct and respect for others and that is consistent with Scouting’s values and codes of conduct.

 

No adult applicant for registration as an employee or non-unit-serving volunteer, who otherwise meets the requirements of the Boy Scouts of America, may be denied registration on the basis of sexual orientation.

This is appearing to give local control to all COs, not just religious ones? Reading the rest of the resolution, the only place that appears to specifically identify religious COs is the indemnify clause:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT:

The Boy Scouts of America will defend and indemnify to the fullest extent allowed by law any bona fide religious chartered organization against any claim or action contending that the chartered organization’s good faith refusal to select a unit leader based upon the religious principles of the chartered organization is in violation of the law.

The rest of the resolution doesn't. So I'm not sure what the "No" in faq question 12 is actually referring too?

 

Even the media statement later in the pdf implies this:

This resolution will allow chartered organizations to select adult leaders without regard to sexual orientation, continuing Scouting’s longstanding policy of chartered organizations selecting their leaders. The National Executive Board will meet to ratify this resolution on Monday, July 27.

It doesn't say "religious chartered organizations".

Edited July 17, 2015 by Rick_in_CA

[David CO]

No, Rick, I think Scouter99's main point was that homosexuality itself is evil.

[Stosh]

I did a search on the words, "freedom to associate" and "freedom of association" and couldn't find those in the Bill of Rights. Am I missing something?

Also, "Right to privacy". Must be in there somewhere.

 

My bad, must not be able to pick ones' friends anymore and hang out with them without the government stepping in.