Now that we disagree, can we agree?

[tjhammer 10]

OK, the other thread has finally gotten to the inevitable conclusion I knew it would, which is ultimately no conclusion. Debate over Scoutings policy to ban anyone who does not profess homosexuality to be immoral is a quagmire. Honest Scout leaders strongly disagree on morality, and it is their right to do so.

 

These are my points, summarized with nice little bullets:The BSA was right to win the Supreme Court case for free association. Now that we won the right to associate, many believe we need to correct the prejudice that won us that right before we die on our own sword. Were not an organization based on any narrow view of morality (not sectarian, political or otherwise). We are not the Royal Rangers. Universal (or even consensus) opinion does not exist on the issue of homosexuals in Scouting. There is no definitive and universal source for Scouting (we looked at God, religion & Scouting founders) to equate homosexuality with immorality (that is not to say that some do not make that equation personally from an intrinsic truth within). Scoutings gay ban policy is ambiguous and not enforced equally. Scoutings gay ban policy is severely typecasting our organization as something were not, namely narrow, sectarian and exclusionary; and it allows some to marginalize the other benefits of Scouting. Scoutings gay ban is not consistent with any other national exclusionary standard of the organization. The gay ban policy is influenced by numbers the BSA affirmed the policy under pressure from the Mormon Church (which has adopted Scouting as their official boy program for all members, and now constitute 30% of the organization). The BSA does not pull the charters of the other major churches that sponsor units and deem homosexuality moral. The Chief Scout Executive has been quoted as saying the BSA would have to seriously reconsider its policy if membership plummeted. Scouting already has a mechanism for including/excluding leaders from the organization, and the chartering partner of each unit controls it.I believe each of the above statements is fact. Certainly they may be worded or organized in such a way as to argue a specific perspective, but I have tried hard to make sure they are fact nonetheless.

 

Much as I expected, the other thread has ended in the quagmire of my definition of morally straight is better than yours, because I say so. Well never all agree. And therein is the answer really.

 

It is not a novel concept; others have suggested it on this board. Certainly it is one that has been discussed nationally, and there is a considerable amount of precedence it. The judgment simply must be left to the parents at the local level. The decision simply must be left to the chartering partner.

 

We followed this policy with women in leadership roles, and we followed the policy with setting the age for Cub Scouting (both issues that the Mormon Church was heavily involved in). For those that argue that the BSA has a right to set this standard, I agree, I just disagree at what level the standard can be set. The national organization (not known for being in touch with Scouting in the field, or for exceptional public relations) is too broad of a standard bearer. Now that the BSA has won the right to free associate, lowering the standard to the local level no longer risks units having to defend their own policies.

 

And as was noted on another thread, the fact that Scout units do not operate in a vacuum is a problem local units that have different policies on gays must interact at Camporees, etc. And while that is a difficult problem, its not one that we cant deal with. (Not to pick on the Mormon Church more than I have, but they make a simple example of this many of you have dealt with scheduling weekend Camporees and knowing that the Mormon units would be leaving on Saturday night because they chose to worship Sunday morning in their house of worship a different standard than most of the other troops.)

 

Ive been accused by some of my opponents in the debate on the other thread of having an agenda. And while its not the agenda they think it is, they're correct. My agenda is to save an organization that I love from cutting off its nose to spite its face. My agenda is to right what I perceive to be a wrong, without forcing my morality on anyone. My agenda is to change the BSA policy to make it a local matter.

 

And its going to take time. A lot of time. And a lot of debates like the other thread that are passionate but ultimately end in the exact same, frustrating place.

 

[eisely 13]

The above post is well thought out and well written. I still count myself as one of those who would oppose changing the policy.

 

Nevertheless scouting will continue to lose the public image battle, and some membership, over this issue. That is the price the movement will continue to pay. Perhaps scouting in the United States will dissolve into different movements based on attitudes towards this and other issues. I hope not.

 

I have not had the time or energy to participate in all the more recent debates. However, it appears that little has been added that has not already been said many times before. I do hope people will stop insulting one another.

[cjmiam 10]

I see nothing wrong with those that disagree starting their own organization. Come on we live a capitalist society. We all know that competition is good- its makes us all better and work harder right? Therefore the Scouts would actually receive an even better program! Then, come joining night at the local school, there can be a table set up for straight Scouts and one for (did you come up with a name yet?). What more could we ask for? Im not trying to be rude, disrespectful or sarcastic. Im being logical, just as I have tried to be in my other posts. I have not argued morality or the meaning of life. I have argued that this is the way it is.

 

You have continued to question in many ways and forms of reasoning whether we really mean it and for the 10th time, yes. Those that are members of the Boy Scouts of America are obligated to abide by its rules and principles. If they cant there are no other options. Blame whoever you want for what you feel is an injustice. But just remember, we are all very capable of knowing right from wrong and able to make our own decisions. We dont need any others to tell us how to do it better or what we must believe. Many millions like us just the way we are and choose Scouting for what we represent. We are the Boy Scouts of America, not the Boy Scouts of some state or some council. We are a bastion of hope and decency for a great many people. We have not caved to political pressure. We have not bowed in the face of constant attacks and ridicule. We have remained strong and endured. No matter what the few loud voices might try to make the world think, people do believe in us and believe in what we represent.

 

So in the end, after you have torn apart every piece of my organization that I hold dear and I have nothing left. When I start my new organization and it is successful. When it flourishes throughout every state of our great Union, will you attempt to tear that one down too?

 

"Now go do the right thing."

Dr. Laura (I give credit to other's work)

 

[evmori 11]

"My agenda is to change the BSA policy to make it a local matter. "

 

Making this a local matter only will complicate the issue more! This isn't like the federal government deciding the individual states can decide! This is a national policy. If it is left up to each council, then the Boy Scouts of America will be come the Boy Scouts of Greater Pittsburgh, etc.. Not a good thing.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

 

[tjhammer 10]

This isn't like the federal government deciding the individual states can decide!

 

No, evmori, I would say a closer example would be this is like the Federal government letting the local school districts decide, placing specific influence over a child as close to the child's parents as possible (something I think everyone on this board believes is a good idea).

 

It's really disheartening to see how some people have responded to the debate I raised on the board. Some of those arguing against me on the other thread found it necessary to try and villify me or define me by association to outside forces.

 

And now that I propose a real solution, very few want to comment. I suppose it is because it is hard to disagree with lowering the standard to the local unit level, and I suspect that is the solution that will take hold over the next several years (either through action by National or simply by default out of local units ignoring the policy).

[Bob Russell 10]

"I suspect that is the solution that will take hold over the next several years (either through action by National or simply by default out of local units ignoring the policy)."

 

tj, I suspect that this is the solution that has already taken hold - that is, by default by local units ignoring the policy. I stated under a different topic, that would be my approach, if it has the concurrence of our CO and parent's committee. For gay/lesbian adults that want to participate in scouting for the right reason, and who are known to the troop and respected as individuals, I think that most scouters will look the other way. Will this be a real solution? No, from both sides. Those with strong moral opposition will not approve, and I understand this, and I am not here condemning these individuals. A number of posters here I am sure fall into this category, and I respect and acknowledge their view, as I respect their overall commitment to scouting. I merely disagree with it. On the other side, the strong gay rights advocates, who do not really care about scouting, but instead will oppose any one or any group that does not celebrate homosexuality , will also not be satisfied. But we can never bring all people together, and I suspect that the informal approach of "don't ask, don't tell" will ultimately become the norm.

[Rooster7 11]

tj, I suspect that this is the solution that has already taken hold - that is, by default by local units ignoring the policy. I stated under a different topic, that would be my approach, if it has the concurrence of our CO and parent's committee. For gay/lesbian adults that want to participate in scouting for the right reason, and who are known to the troop and respected as individuals, I think that most scouters will look the other way.

 

First, I do not respect any Scouter that would purposely ignore a highly publicized policy, and particularly so when National has clearly stated their position. If you are not following the policy, you should start or leave the organization. I don't care how devoted one might be, that person is obviously not devoted to BSA as the organization that it wants to be.

 

Second, when a child is molested by one of these individuals that you and others have so much confidence in, don't be surprised when the parents of the said child, come to take your home and everything else you might possess. BSA certainly won't back that charter. The parents would have a very strong case since they have every right to expect that the charter would be following BSA policy. These people (who ignore policy) do BSA, the boys, the parents, and themselves a huge disservice.

 

[Bob Russell 10]

Rooster, sorry to hear that you don't respect me as a scouter. I have read all of your posts, accept your devotion to scouting, and have no reason to attack your capabilities as a scouter. I also respect your right to hold views different than my own. If you want to attack my devotion to scouting, I suggest you first pay a visit to see our troop in action. I believe that we have a fine program based upon the scout ideals.

 

As to your comments regarding me being sued some day, I will not lose sleep over this issue. I've said before in some post that I am a lawyer, for over 20 years. I tend to give pretty conservative advice to my clients to avoid litigation, and I feel absolutely no risk here. Since the BSA itself says its policy is not for youth protection, but for moral values, any violation on my part will not be looked at as a violation of safety rules. As long as we strictly obey the 2-deep leadership requirements, we have done the right thing. I have all the faith in the world that a jury of twelve honest citizens in my community will see through any attack based only upon the sexual orientation of an adult in our troop. I don't however expect any such event to occur, in that we know our adult volunteers, and in the event we ever have an adult who may be gay/lesbian actively involved, that person will be known by us to be as fine a person as all others involved.

And please note that I said "an adult who may be gay/lesbian." The policy of BSA is one of "don't ask, don't tell." I don't intend to ask any adult what they do in their bedroom, so I do not believe that I would be violating BSA policy.

[ScouterPaul 11]

With all due respect Rooster I need to ask the following question. Do you as a leader ask each leader and parent whether they are homosexual or hetrosexual?

[Rooster7 11]

I shouldn't have to ask. Nevertheless, I am not adopting a policy that is contradictory to National. Bob, frankly, I can't respect you as a Scouter. On the one hand, you claim to believe in BSA and the program. On the other, you're circumventing policy.

[cjmiam 10]

I strongly agree that anyone deliberately ignoring a BSA policy is not an example of a good Scout or Scouter. What a great example they are teaching- we dont need to abide by the policy, because we dont agree with it and well sue them if they try to make us. Yep, thats what I want my Scouts to learn.

 

If you dont agree with it- LEAVE! Dont however disgrace or degrade the organization that many Scouts and Scouters believe in.

 

Many of you continue not getting it. This policy is not open for your interpretation. As if our courts, lawmakers and executive body could not have made it clearer This is what we believe, this is what we have a right to believe, and this is what we continue to believe. Just what dont you understand? Maybe some of you are still confused with what the meaning of is is And once again I ask, why dont you start your own organization? Leave mine alone!

 

[evmori 11]

BSA policy should be followed whether it is a good or bad policy. If an individual feels it is a bad policy, then that individual should do everything in his/her power to try and change that policy. Until that is accomplished, the policy should be followed.

 

There are some things that local councils now do that differ from national. In my council, we are not permitted to use liquid fuel while national allows liquid fuel. Whether I agree with this policy is not important. What is important is that I follow it. By not doing so, would pass the wrong impression to my Scouts and after all the Scouts are why we are involved in this organization. At least that's the reason I am.

 

Now, imagine if each council interpreted national policy a different way. Would there be any uniformity? I don't think so. Would there be any reason to have national policy? No since every individual council would have the ablilty to interpret any policy any which way they felt & also the ablility to change that interpretation any time they felt like. This is sort of like having the IRS make the laws then enforcing them. The interpretion can become what ever they want it to be.

 

Rooster7, ditto. I agree 100% with your posts.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I agree there has to be national policy and we all must follow it. If "local discretion" becomes the norm, how long before rank and merit badge requirements are open to local interrpretation.

 

The ranks mean something because of natonal uniformity. Why are there ACT and SAT tests? SO colleges can get a grip on the knowledge base of students because not all A's mean the same thing.

 

I would hate to see BSA go the way of modern education with grade "inflation"

[tjhammer 10]

Women were not allowed to serve in leadership positions with Boy Scout Troops.Many local units thought that policy was wrong, and simply gave their women leaders "committee member" positions, despite their real role as Assistant Scoutmasters, etc.Many of the same groups that staunchly opposed women in leadership roles are at the helm of the "gay ban" policy (Mormon Church).Today the policy has been changed, and women serve in leadership roles throughout the country, except in the Mormon Church sponsored units, because the policy was changed to make it a local decision.Does the fact that it was national policy to bar women from being Scoutmasters make those units that ignored the policy wrong?

 

Or does their setting of a specific policy--conducive with their unit and the parental preferences of that unit--make them right (since that was the eventual policy change)?

[Pioneer DC 10]

I agree that this cannot become a local discretionary issue - that would certainly be the death of the program because as OGE has stated, that opens up other items such as advancements, training, etc. to local discretion, as well. Those who are unwilling to accept the National policy should leave the program. I would have much more respect for someone who would leave the program on principle than stay in the program and circumvent the established and stated policies of BSA.

That said, I will point out once again that the establishment of alternative Scouting programs is not in the cards. While seems like a good and logical solution, the agenda is much different. BSA is under attack because of its stand on traditional values and nothing less than getting National to change its policies will be acceptable. The BSA issue is just part of the whole program we see in the media, our schools, etc. to do away with family values, one piece at a time.