Update On Adult Leadership Standards

[eagle77]

Of course, if you read the document detailing why the decision now, the excessive cost of litigation is high list of reasons.  So, if it's too expensive to defend the current policy now, why should a chartering organization believe the BSA won't decide it's too expensive to defend the new policy later?  As Mary Poppins once said, it's a pie-crust promise, easily made, easily broken.

 

  Let's see right now (today) ALL CO's have to abide by the policy and IF the new option comes to be only some CO's will still be functioning by the old policy. That I think will bring down the amount of units that may have some sort of litigation brought against them. BSA has always stood behind this promise I see no reason why they would change that. But maybe Mary Poppins has better insight on that then I do.

[fred johnson]

... That does not mean that on their free time, they have to follow those rules, so the Charter Org. can not demand they turn their back on their homosexual friends and not support them in their marriage while on their own time.  ... 

 

@@moosetracker ... Ummm....  I think this is exactly what the "local option" policy (which I think is a good idea and the only option) enables.   You correctly used the term "churches youth organization".  As a youth organization of the church, the scout leaders play a ministerial role within the church.  As such, churches are protected and can pick and choose leaders who's private life matches the church teachings.  The church can't remove the leader from BSA membership, but the church can remove the leader from their scouting unit. 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 Just wait till the poop hits the fan in CA with the vaccine law that their governor signed into law mandating that ALL children must be vaccinated no excuse.

 

That's not an accurate summary of SB277; medical reasons, plus homeschooling/special education/independent study can get exemptions (basically, if your child isn't attending school with other children).

[eagle77]

That's not an accurate summary of SB277; medical reasons, plus homeschooling/special education/independent study can get exemptions (basically, if your child isn't attending school with other children).

 

 Agreed I am wrong on that, but they will not be able to use religious convictions or belief as a reason. Which is wrong.

[Joe Gillespie]

From reading the comments here, it would suggest that BSA's Declaration of Religious Principle, which among other things states that Scouting activities "shall be carried on under conditions which show respect to the convictions of others in matters of custom and religion" requires Scouting to allow adults holding any religious viewpoint to serve as a role model for youth. That does not follow. Just because an organization files for a federal income tax exemption as a religion does not make it bona fide. Although Scouts have a duty not to ridicule or belittle others due to their religious viewpoints, it does not mean that Scouting must accept any and all religious viewpoints. It means Scouts must show proper dignity and respect for others holding those viewpoints. BSA has a long tradition of interpreting the Scout Oath and Law as proscribing homosexual conduct as immoral and prohibiting adult leaders in Scouting from living a homosexual lifestyle. See BSA v. Dale: "homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values embodied in the Scout Oath and Law, particularly with the values represented by the terms 'morally straight' and 'clean'" ... and "homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts." 530 U.S. 640, 650-651. No world religion in orthodoxy, of which I am familiar, has affirmed homosexuality as moral conduct. Yes, in recent years, splinter groups of various churches have begun to welcome homosexuality. Scouting though does not need to agree with these religious viewpoints, but Scouts can respectfully disagree and show proper dignity for those who hold a different opinion. But that does not mean that Scouting must change its timeless values and traditions on the whim of the ebbs and flows of changing public opinion. The BSA National Executive Committee is not leading Scouting in the right direction. It is leading BSA down a path of secularism and relativism, which will leave the program without any values or integrity upon which to stand. The Scout Oath and Law will be meaningless or, at least in the manner now proposed, they will have whatever meaning each chartered organization wishes to attribute to them. There are fundamental truths revealed to us in the natural order that do not require interpretation by theologians to be recognized as truth. Scouting's policies recognized that truth, which has now been cast off. The Scouting program was founded in part in a belief in God, which means Scouting's fundamental base of support and membership is among the faithful. As society has become more secular, the answer is not to secularize Scouting. The answers is for Scouting to remain true to its tenets, even if it means fewer members. I fear that the recent change may mark the flight of Scouting's most faithful families, leaving a spiritually bankrupt program.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 Agreed I am wrong on that, but they will not be able to use religious convictions or belief as a reason. Which is wrong.

 

I disagree.  They can opt out if they homeschool their kids; unvaccinated kids are a public health hazard for other people.

[HICO_Eagle]

What infuriated me the most about this is the way they have tried to sneak it by.  Announced on a Friday with the vote scheduled in 2 weeks while most units are busy camping.  This has got to be the most unScoutlike behavior I've ever seen from National and as far as I'm concerned, every member of the Committee and Board that chose to sneak this implementation through this way ought to be removed.  If you believe in your cause so much, why try to sneak it past with no time for reaction or comment?  My SE said he was told ONE HOUR before the public announcement was made.

[moosetracker]

Again you are not understanding that your religious convictions can be enforced upon your willing flock, and not the public at large, no matter how you twist yourself into knots to try to argue you have a right to do so.. But, I will agree the paper they sign should just state their opting out based on religious conviction, the insurers should only need the written opt out from them, with that the Insurers should then be able to set up a side insurance for any employee who can prove they are employed by a company who has signed the opt out..

 

The law in California is basically a law for public/private school children, it is not worded to force those with religious/personal objection.. Religious folks who take exception have the option to homeschool.. Therefore eagle77 is wrong in stating that ALL children do not need to be vaccinated.. You have an out in homeschooling your unvaccinated child..  Unfortunately this became a public health issue.. They tried to accommodate those with objections and they still had large outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases..

[moosetracker]

@@moosetracker ... Ummm....  I think this is exactly what the "local option" policy (which I think is a good idea and the only option) enables.   You correctly used the term "churches youth organization".  As a youth organization of the church, the scout leaders play a ministerial role within the church.  As such, churches are protected and can pick and choose leaders who's private life matches the church teachings.  The church can't remove the leader from BSA membership, but the church can remove the leader from their scouting unit. 

 

Sorry, but No..  You as a conservative religion are free not accept homosexual leaders, if you find out someone is homosexual you can end their volunteering for your unit.. You can expect them not to publicly promote homosexuals  (like a gay parade, or bringing in photos of a same-sex wedding to a scout meeting and passing them around)..  But you do not have total control over their day to day personal lives.. Therefore you do not have the right to approve or disapprove of every friend they have out of scouting, or approve or disapprove of every function they attend..  That is like stating that because BSA requests you not drink alcohol  or smoke on an outing then you can not have a drop of alcohol or smoke when not at a scouting event sitting in your own home..  If you are going to be that demanding, then you had better only accept adult leaders who are members of your religion..  Being a scout leader but not of your religious belief means that they follow your rules while at scouting events or with scouts, but it does not mean that they are forced to follow your religious rules in their personal lives when they are not members of your religion..  But, hey try go for it.. I guess you can let them go for being civil to a person you want them to damn to H*LL.. I am sure they will be happy you showed your true colors and allowed them the ability to see that they do not want to bring up their child to share your values.  Most conservative religions will at least say "love the sinner, not the sin"..  Even your staunch republican politicians acknowledge it is not a good idea to totally spit on and crucify homosexuals..

[fred johnson]

@@moosetracker ... Whose staunch republican politicians ?  You have no clue.  Get past righteous indignation and writing diatribes and stop trying to find the bad guy.

 

We live in a pluralistic society and our policies need to reflect and support that.  It means people believe different things and we need to find a way to live together.  

 

 

Being a scout leader but not of your religious belief means that they follow your rules while at scouting events or with scouts, but it does not mean that they are forced to follow your religious rules in their personal lives when they are not members of your religion.

 

That's the whole point of a "ministerial role".  It's leading a life that reflects the teachings of the organization.  To be a minister in the church, churches may or may not require you to be a member of the faith, but they can rightfully expect that you believe in what they teach.  How you lead your life is a strong reflection of your beliefs.   I am sure the vast majority of churches will be as you said, show respect and courtesy while you are there serving as a scout leader.  But some churches can and will expect certain boundaries not be crossed.  

 

 

This policy is not about "crucifying" people or "damming them to hell".  This policy is about scouting providing a consistent program to millions where the charter organizations teach different things and the members believe different things.  We've got to find a way to work together otherwise our own irrationality will dam a great youth organization to hell. 

Edited July 15, 2015 by fred johnson

[eagle77]

 

.  We've got to find a way to work together otherwise our own irrationality will dam a great youth organization to hell. 

 

 

 Fred I think any of us who really believe in and support this program could argue with that.

[Rick_in_CA]

From reading the comments here, it would suggest that BSA's Declaration of Religious Principle, which among other things states that Scouting activities "shall be carried on under conditions which show respect to the convictions of others in matters of custom and religion" requires Scouting to allow adults holding any religious viewpoint to serve as a role model for youth. That does not follow. Just because an organization files for a federal income tax exemption as a religion does not make it bona fide. Although Scouts have a duty not to ridicule or belittle others due to their religious viewpoints, it does not mean that Scouting must accept any and all religious viewpoints.

Actually, yes it does. The line "but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training" means the BSA doesn't pick and choose among religions.

 

It means Scouts must show proper dignity and respect for others holding those viewpoints. BSA has a long tradition of interpreting the Scout Oath and Law as proscribing homosexual conduct as immoral and prohibiting adult leaders in Scouting from living a homosexual lifestyle. See BSA v. Dale: "homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values embodied in the Scout Oath and Law, particularly with the values represented by the terms 'morally straight' and 'clean'" ... and "homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts." 530 U.S. 640, 650-651. No world religion in orthodoxy, of which I am familiar, has affirmed homosexuality as moral conduct. Yes, in recent years, splinter groups of various churches have begun to welcome homosexuality. Scouting though does not need to agree with these religious viewpoints, but Scouts can respectfully disagree and show proper dignity for those who hold a different opinion.

So calling religions that you don't agree with as not bona fide or simply a "splinter group" and therefor not legitimate is isn't belittling them??? And who gets to pick which faiths are, or are not bona fide enough? You? Denying the legitimacy of other faiths is a very strange way of showing people who hold those faiths "dignity and respect".

 

Unfortunately I am no longer surprised when religious conservatives dismiss more accepting faiths as illegitimate and therefor ignorable. Dismissing people of faith that don't condemn homosexuality as "not real people of faith" is common, and un-scout like.

 

Person A: "My faith says that homosexuality is a sin, so the BSA shouldn't allow those people".

 

Person B: "But I'm Unitarian, and my faith says homosexuality isn't a sin, so why can't we pick leaders based on that belief?"

 

Person A: "Because your faith is crap and isn't a real religion so it doesn't matter what the Unitarians think!" (this last line was actually spoken to my face by a scouter before the big vote)

[Rick_in_CA]

That's the whole point of a "ministerial role".  It's leading a life that reflects the teachings of the organization.  To be a minister in the church, churches may or may not require you to be a member of the faith, but they can rightfully expect that you believe in what they teach.  How you lead your life is a strong reflection of your beliefs.   I am sure the vast majority of churches will be as you said, show respect and courtesy while you are there serving as a scout leader.  But some churches can and will expect certain boundaries not be crossed.

I agree with Fred on this. Part of the ability of a CO to pick the leaders that reflect their values can include actions and behaviors outside of a scouting context. If a tenet of a church CO's faith is that adult men should have beards, it would be appropriate to only pick male leaders with beards. And to ask an ASM that shaved his off to leave until it grew back. Same thing if a church CO's faith didn't allow divorce, they could ask a newly divorced ASM to leave, even if that ASM was of a different faith.

[fred johnson]

I agree with Fred on this. Part of the ability of a CO to pick the leaders that reflect their values can include actions and behaviors outside of a scouting context. If a tenet of a church CO's faith is that adult men should have beards, it would be appropriate to only pick male leaders with beards. And to ask an ASM that shaved his off to leave until it grew back. Same thing if a church CO's faith didn't allow divorce, they could ask a newly divorced ASM to leave, even if that ASM was of a different faith.

 

I agree.  I would not be proud or happy if either happened.  But for BSA to hold together, we need BSA administering the program and charter organizations administering the membership and leadership.

Edited July 16, 2015 by fred johnson

[JoeBob]

Those of you that don't think that this is a fatal blow need to look back on the LGBT's past actions.

 

A baker that wouldn't put 2 brides on top of a cake lost their business and has to pay $135,000.00.  They were not mean or demeaning, they just wouldn't disrespect their God.  $135,000.00.

A pizza parlor that wouldn't cater a hypothetical gay wedding (not even a real service request!) suffered death threats, protests, and had to shutter their doors.

 

So you can bet that somewhere some LGBT activist is going to apply for SM or ASM or CBW and be refused, because of the CO's beliefs.  (It won't matter that the applicant hasn't camped in 20 years and doesn't own a pair of boots - it will only matter that he is gay and was turned down...)

 

There will be protests that the CO doesn't need.  Amid a flood of negative media attention, the CO will shut down the troop.

And other CO's will take heed and choose not to re-charter when their option is up.

 

Trail Life should be gleeful.