About this word "avowed"

[littlebillie 10]

"avowed" atheist, "avowed" homosexual.

 

does this mean we in fact have an "official" don't-ask-don't-tell organization? I am not aware of any Charter, by-law or other verbiage that definitively and specifically bans gays (I don't consider 'position statements' on a par with the instruments listed) or atheists (tho' there are ritual statements addressing this issue, where is it explicitly written - de jure, as it wure :-) ?

 

Now, I'm NOT raising those already well-discussed issues; instead, what does anyone think "avowed" means?

 

is it in fact "don't ask, don't tell", or is it don't be obvious, or don't politicize, or...?

 

Well, what? my concern is that the "avowed" test is an invitation to deceptions at many levels. I could be wrong, tho' and I'm very interested in what "avowed" means.

 

The preamble to the GSUSA constitution mentions God, and I think the membership practice is to leave it up to the individual to decide if they in fact have a "spiritual side" sufficiet to meet the membership requirements. I know that's seen as atheist-tolerant, but I'm not convinced it's the best approach for youth...?

 

Thoughts?

[sctmom 11]

I don't have the adult application with me but I looked at it when I filled out new one recently for a new position. It seemed pretty clear about agreeing to the BSA religious principles and the part about being a best citizen requires a belief in a higher power.

 

Anyone got the app handy and can quote it?

 

[ScouterPaul 11]

Excerpt From the Declaration of Religious Principle (Adult Application No. 28-501T)

The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God (it is capitalized).....The Boy Scouts of America's policy is that the home and the organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life.

 

I wonder if that last part perhaps gives authority to the Chartering Organization to accept or decline atheists?

 

[littlebillie 10]

Actually, I'm more interested in the use of the word "avowed", as used in the following excerpt from another - record-setting? - thread:

 

"We've asked him to search his heart, to confer with family members to give this great thought before any decision is made," said Brad Farmer, council Scout executive of Chief Seattle Council,

Boy Scouts of America. "If he says he's an AVOWED atheist, he does not meet the standards of membership of our traditional programs and as such cannot participate. We would return his registration fee to him and wish him the best."

 

 

And of course the phrase "avowed homosexual" is well known.

 

 

How does the BSA use "avow"? What is meant? Is it... oh, y'all know!

 

Is it a loophole for either side, is it entrapment, or - well, what?

[ScouterPaul 11]

littlebillie

Try this one. It would appear to me that he is an avowed atheist now.

 

avowed

 

adj 1: openly declared as such; "an avowed enemy"; "her professed love of everything about that country"; "McKinley was assassinated by a professed anarchist" [syn: avowed(a), professed(a)] 2: asserted as true under oath; "a statement attested by witnesses" [syn: attested] 3: openly affirmed; "an avowed Jeffersonian" [syn: avowed(a)]

Source: WordNet 1.6, 1997 Princeton University

 

[littlebillie 10]

"The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God (it is capitalized).....The Boy Scouts of America's policy is that the home and the organization or

group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life."

 

Well, so far there's no confirmation by a signee that they're not atheist. is there other verbiage elsewhere that clarifies this? (sorry, couldn't find a copy online) also requiring clarification - is "the organization or group" mentioned supposed to be the "chartering organization or

group"? and does it define it as such elsewhere?

 

this would seem to suggest at the least that a public school in fact CANNOT be a that group or organization (even if a group of parents can). Is that in fact the legal state of things?

 

so far the citation seems to have some flex room...?

[littlebillie 10]

ScouterPaul,

 

You've listed how one reference defines it, and I have other definitions that leave out the dark side ('enemy' and 'anarchist' :-), but the question in my mind is what does the BSA mean when it bans "avowed homosexual" or an "avowed atheist". What's the intent - that's it's oke to be either of these as long as you keep your mouth shut? Or what?

 

Then, however the BSA uses it, what are the implications thereof?

[sctmom 11]

BSA DECLARATION

OF RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLE

Excerpted: from Adult Registration Application B.S.A. No. 28-501K.

 

The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but is absolutely non-sectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. The Boy Scouts of America's policy is that the home and the organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life.

 

Only persons willing to subscribe to this Declaration of Religious Principle and to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of leadership.

 

 

****

Now the question is what are the Bylaws? Where do you get them, especially as a new leader?

(This message has been edited by sctmom)

[tjhammer 10]

Clearly it is a "don't tell" policy... as I mentioned in the other thread, the BSA seems to be happy if a person indicates a belief in something... anything... that the same person considers to be "supreme"... it doesn't matter if it's God, a group of gods, a sycamore tree, a big rock or a '67 Chevy Chevette, it seems. And then they want the person to just shut up about their beliefs, in case they aren't "conventional"... so we definitely have the "don't tell" aspect.

 

It seems in this case in particular, the Council Scout Executive sought out the person to specifically "ask" him about his beliefs. So I don't think we have a "don't ask" policy. (Sure, the CSE probably did it after he got report from the district Scout leader with who Mr. Lambert had the disagreement.)

 

Take it a step further, and refer to the Supreme Court case transcripts over the gay issue, and you'll find the BSA actually argues that ANY person who ADVOCATES that homosexuality (in that case) is not inherently immoral and does so in front of any boys (either Scouts or of the age to be Scouts), they too fall under a rather broad definition of "avowed". See, in the BSA's view, you don't actually have to be a homosexual to be unworthy of membership. You just have to believe that homosexuals should be capable of being members. I wonder if that same broad definition extends to the atheist issue? Probably (it's pretty much up the BSA to enforce their rules however they want, we mostly all agree, regardless of whether we agree that those rules should exist in the first place).

 

So it's really a bastardization of the word "avowed" that's implied by BSA policy. It seems to mean someone who acknowledges, particularly within earshot of any boy, a contrary opinion to BSA.

 

It also seems that BSA would be quite content to allow Mr. Lambert to stay in Scouting and continue to say the Scout Oath, etc, AND continue to be an atheist. Just as long as he doesn't tell anyone that he's an atheist. And it's just fine with BSA if members who are gay stay in the organization, just as long as they are never honest with anyone about their sexuality.

 

BSA's position seems awfully disingenuous to me, and the addition of the word "avowed" to their exclusionary criteria only seems to make the policies even more disingenuous than if the word was left off.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[sctmom 11]

This is from

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/scouting/rec.scouting.issues/section-27.html

 

Written Jan 2, 2002

Note the following while reading the DRP:

 

The DRP does not require nor forbid a belief in a Supreme Being.

 

The DRP does not talk about being a 1st class or 2nd class citizen, it talks about the quality of citizenship a member can obtain.

 

The BSA does not define what constitutes belief in God or the practice of religion.*

 

[ScouterPaul 11]

littlebillie

To me the answer is obvious. If a Scout or Scouter is in the "closet" then they are okay. It is only when and if they come out do they become unacceptable.

 

Paul

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Interestingly, when BSA officials first started sending memos and internal policy statements to each other on the "gay issue," as reported in the court decisions in the Dale case, the operative phrase was not simply "avowed homosexual." It was "avowed or known homosexual." By the third or fourth document, the "or known" had been dropped. That seems to indicate that the BSA wanted to limit the exclusion to those who were self-proclaimed gay persons, and not to have to deal with rumors and statements that "everybody in town knows" someone to be gay. One could infer a range of motives for this decision; on one hand, the desire to avoid a "witch hunt" (no offense to Wiccans); on the other hand, a desire to avoid lawsuits and resource-consuming investigations to determine the truth.

 

I think the BSA explanations of the "gay policy" actually fit well with the exclusion of only "avowed" gays. The policy is explained in terms of "role models." If you accept that homosexuality violates the values of Scouting, then someone who proclaims that he or she is gay cannot be a good role model for these values. Of course, if you do not believe that homosexuality violates the values of Scouting (and I do not), then the whole thing falls apart. But at least there is some relationship between the initial premise and the result, so that if you accept the premise, the result makes a lot of sense, and if you don't, it doesn't.

 

It is also interesting that the function of "avowed" does not seem to be exactly the same between the gay issue and the atheist issue. The young leader discussed in the 13-page thread told a district Scouter that he was an atheist, and the response was a message from the Scout Executive giving him the opportunity to declare his belief in a higher power, and if not, he's out. The clear implication is that an avowed atheist can become an un-avowed atheist, and become re-eligible for a leadership position. (But only for a limited time, apparently. If he missed the 7-day deadline and then a year from now said he had thought it over and now believes in the Easter Bunny or Dionysius, god of wine and spirits, I am not sure what the result would be.) Compare this with the reaction to James Dale. Based on what I have read, he never actually said anything about his gay orientation to anyone in Scouting. In fact, so far as anyone could prove, he never even said "I am gay." An article appeared in a newspaper about a conference discussing the problems of gay teenagers, I believe, and he was quoted as one of the speakers, and he was also identified as the president of the Rutgers Gay Alliance. (An organization I am familiar with from my days as a reporter and editor for the Rutgers Daily Targum; our office was across the hall from theirs.) Apparently someone in his home district or council (which was one county away from Rutgers) saw the article and inferred (correctly) that he was gay. The Scout Executive then sent a letter terminating Dale's involvement with the BSA. Dale was not asked to un-avow that he was gay. I guess the theory is that once you are gay, you're gay (this may remind some of a very crude saying, which I will not repeat), but that an atheist can become a non-atheist. The latter is true, of course, but it's not something that's likely to occur in 7 days, or on demand.

 

So those are my thoughts on "avowed."

[tjhammer 10]

Very astute observation, NJ... it is peculiar that the BSA believes you can become "unAtheist" but can't become "unGay"... of course, you and I recognize that being gay has more to do with the way God made you than any choice you make, and apparently BSA's logic, in a twisted sort of way, acknowledges this.