Policy on Sexual Orientation and Atheism

[mds3d 90]

I would like to offer my opinion about how to "fix" the problem of "discrimination" in the BSA as related to Atheist and Homosexual leaders.

 

First, a few assumptions...

1. The objections of the LDS church is based on the potential for homosexual leaders in positions that are both "superior" in relation to their unit and out of their total control. (ex. District scouters and above)

2. Agnosticism is equated with Atheism in that the general definition of "Agnostic" is someone who thinks that a higher power cannot be known/proven and has no relation to our lives. Those who believe in a "higher power" but are unsure of its specific nature are classified as "Deists" whether they self-identify that way or not.

3. NO SCOUT should ever be turned away because of expression of religious belief or sexual orientation.

 

Now my solution.

 

National recognizes two classification of units- "Inclusive Leadership" and "Restricted Leadership"

 

Inclusive units theoretically allow homosexuals and atheists to be unit leaders.

 

Restricted units do not.

 

Districts will follow current guidelines unless all units in that district identify as "inclusive." Councils will follow current guidelines unless all districts have become "inclusive." (Continue on up the chain).

 

At no time are Chartered Organizations required to give an explaination for denying an Adult application or removing a volunteer from a position in the unit.

 

Additionally: At no time will awards (knots or otherwise) be awarded based on athiestic beliefs (no "atheism" religious knot) or sexual orientation (No official "scouting for all" or similar knot). The intention of this is that at district/council/etc. functions it will be impossible to identify those belonging to "inclusive" units by their uniform. Nothing about the program should differentiate these two types of units.

 

So what does everyone think?

[le Voyageur 72]

Seeing how LDS deep pockets has steered BSA to the hard political right, I don't see such an ideal bearing fruit.

 

An apparent problem I see first up is where these different types of units co mingle at summer camps. They would have to have seperate weeks to prevent intercine warfare.

(This message has been edited by Le Voyageur)

[Scoutfish 16]

Here's my viewon it:

 

I filled out an adult leader application last year I am currently an Assistant Den Leader foir a Bears den.

 

Nobody asked me about my sexual orientation. Nobody asked me about mt religious beliefs.

 

They saw my wife right? Yet, they never saw me kiss her ( not that - that is proof!) at a pack party or B&G. They didn't ask proof that my son was my biological son. Maybe I'm a guardian or adopted him right?

 

But at the same time, OI never really volunteerd that info either.

 

I had the blessing of two comittee members, 3 adults leaders including the CM and ACM as well as the COR.

Point is, it never came up.

 

Now to fill in some background. I am a heterosexual male who is a non practicing Episcopal. I just don't see eye to eye with any current religion although I do believe in God and yhave my own views.

 

Thing is, at any and all scout function, I do not talk about my sexual preferences or religious views. I talk about scouting stuff.

We do have scout reverance, but it's a pretty much watered down non-denominational thing . It's more of a "code of general good morals " than anything else. Why? Because we have a few Jewish kids,m a Muslim, a Bhuddist and the rest are various "christian" denominations (although actual practive of is debateable).

 

 

Ok,here's my point: Why not a Don't ask, don't tell attitude?

I didn't walk into the scout meeting talking about my sexual preferebnces. Why shouls a gay person? I didn't talk about my religious views..whyshould an athiest, agnostic or Deist?

 

If you want to be a part of scouting for the sake of teaching and coaching kids...why not go into it with that attitude: IT's about the kids!

 

Not about you or me or our own preferences.

 

 

I presonally don't care how gay you are or are not when you are telling my son about hos to catch a fish or the best way to strike flint against..whatever you strike flint against.

 

I don't care if you are Muslim, Bhuddist, Pagan or Christian - or none_ when you teach my son the best way to dry a wet tent after a rainstorm.

 

Point is, anything and everything I have taught so far is taught as a camping/hiking/backpacking/lets build something out of wood scout leader. Not as a - I want to have sex with a guy/girl/ inflatable doll while rejecting/embracing God scoutleader.

 

Leave the sex completely out of it. Use general good morals as a Interfaith thing and it covers all, not just one!

[JoeBob 606]

Our CO is a Catholic Parish. Our kids have lots of parental involvement in their lives.

No way, no how, are they/we going to want to send our children into the woods with a leader of indeterminate sexuality. Scout leaders and their lifestyles are supposed to set good examples that we want our children to emulate.

 

The phrase 'two deep leadership' shouldn't mean having a look-out or a watchog.

Heck, we have our hands full keeping an eye on the priests!

[mds3d 90]

le Voyageur - "An apparent problem I see first up is where these different types of units co mingle at summer camps. They would have to have seperate weeks to prevent intercine warfare."

I really think that both being at camp would be fine. I'm not sure what kind of "warfare" you refer to, certainly nothing that would be scout-like"

 

Scoutfish - They didn't ask about your sexual orientation, but you agreed to live by the oath and law. That agreement includes (though not on the acutal application) an agreement to live by the Oath and Law as interpreted by the BSA which currently includes that "Morally Straight" and Homosexuality cannot coexist. You also signed the declaration of religious principle. Think of it like "I understand the Terms and Conditions" checkboxes. You are expected to read and abide by the terms.

 

 

 

[CalicoPenn 729]

Mds,

 

Under your proposal, either everyone is inclusive or no one is inclusive. In other words, if 59 of 60 units in a District want to be inclusive and 1 declares that they are restricted, all must be restricted. If that's the case (and that's how I read the proposal), then why bother?

 

Wouldn't a much simpler policy be to just get rid of the discriminatory clauses in the first place and make Scouting available to all - and I mean girls too - without removing the local option sponsors and units have to choose who can be members and leaders of their units which they already have?

 

The argument that some units won't show up to summer camp or district events because some other unit has athiests, or gays, or girls in it is nonsensical garbage. I know people who think Muslims shouldn't be allowed in Scouts but won't dare suggest that their Troop shouldn't go to the District Camporee because a unit with Muslims in it might attend too. They know how stupid and bigoted they would look.

 

Bottom line is this - why should we let anyone's racism, prejudice or bigotry interfere with providing a great program to youth? The bigotry and prejudice of the current BSA policy doesn't enhance the program at all - it just demeans the program and will continue to lead the program down the path of marginalization in the general public's consciousness that it's been on since the Dale decision.

 

 

 

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

JoeBob says:

 

No way, no how, are they/we going to want to send our children into the woods with a leader of indeterminate sexuality.

 

"Indeterminate sexuality"? I have news for you, you (and I) already do send our children into the woods with leaders of "indeterminate sexuality." You never know for sure what someone else does in private. But the policy in question really has nothing to do with protecting our youth from abuse. It only deals with "avowed homosexuals." Someone whose sexuality is a secret (whether gay or straight) isn't affected by the policy. So it might be said that the BSA policy requires that leaders be of "indeterminate sexuality".

 

The phrase 'two deep leadership' shouldn't mean having a look-out or a watchog.

 

This really is irrelevant to the thread for the reasons stated above. But I can't let this go, because I think you have a misunderstanding of the Youth Protection policies. If your statement means that you don't think that part of the reason for the two-deep leadership policy is to have the leaders "watching" each other, you are incorrect. That essentially is one of the main reasons for that policy. It doesn't mean you are supposed to be standing there videotaping your co-leader or anything, but it does mean that each leader is supposed to be generally aware of what those around him/her, both adults and Scouts, are doing. In the Youth Protection Training course, two-deep leadership is listed as one of the "external barriers to abuse", and I believe it is second on the list, after no one-on-one. In order for it to be a "barrier to abuse", then yes, some level of "watching" is involved. The other main reason for two-deep leadership is to try to provide some amount of protection against false accusations by a youth member, although obviously that isn't foolproof. Hopefully, none of us in our "watching" will ever actually see anything where we then have to report one of our fellow leaders, or have a situation where a false allegation is made, but that is what the policy is about.

[evmori 11]

I say more pie!

[Dimemaker 10]

I agree Pie is much better than cake.

[BadenP 93]

I too think there really is no solution, as others have pointed out, not to mention it would be extremely hypocritical for the BSA to have two seperate policies, a local option is just plain unworkable. Either scouters are going to have to accept the policies as they now stand or if their consciousness will not allow it move on to another organization, or start their own. While I don't agree with the atheist rule and would love to see religion not a part of the program I can abide by it. As far as homosexuals are concerned the logistical problems far outweigh any benefits a change in that rule might bring about.

[DeanRx 69]

BP-

 

The only issue with "move to another organization or start their own..." is the fact that BSA owns the copyright to the structure, the rank system and most other program items.

 

There are groups out there that would "start their own", but those that have tried in the past have been successfully sued and shut down for copyright infringement by the BSA.

 

Funny, if the issue was if blacks could or could not be members in scouts, the bigotry would be plain as day. However, if it was the 1940's or 1950's and the internet existed, we'd be having the same discussion about whether or not Negros should be allowed into scouting. Heck, some on this forum attest to the fact that there are pockets of folks out there questioning if Muslims or Budists should really qualify under the religions policy. That's going on present day.

 

I'd really like to see some data or hear from scouters outside the U.S. as to whether this is a hot button topic in their scouting arenas? I know from what little interaciton I've had with multinational gatherings (we get a good amount of scouts up here from Mexico), that the gay, atheist, and co-ed issues presented by current BSA policy are a thorny subject in the greater World Scout Organization. BSA is viewed by the WSO as somewhat of a black sheep in the international scouting family because of these policy stances.

 

LDS (and to a lesser degree Catholic and other Christain CO's) may have saved scouting in the late 1980's, but without a change to policy somewhere down the road, it will likely be the death nail as well for holding onto prejudices that will not be tolerated by secular values in the next couple generations. If scouting is percieved to be a bigoted / prejudiced organization by a majority of mainstream society (some already view us as such), then the organization will not survive. We've already had issues with land use permits, corporate FOS funding, and most recently being asked NOT to sell popcorn in front of certain retail outlets because of BSA's policies and these entities being afraid of being targeted for condoning or endorsing a prejudiced organization.

 

Maybe thats what needs to happen... if no retailer will let us sell popcorn because we don't let in the gays, and companies don't wish to give FOS dollars because BSA promotes prejudice, then national will likely change their tune. Hold on to your hats, 'cause that day may be on the horizon.

[JoeBob 606]

NJC: I have a simple question for you.

If BSA allows openly homosexual leaders, will Cub Scout membership go up or go down?

How many children of homosexuals are not in Scouting because BSA is branded as prejudiced?

 

I'd say that 2 deep leadership forestalls more lawsuits than molestations. As a published policy it may serve as a deterent to predators volunteering in leadship roles with Cubs. But a true predator isn't going to worry about following BSA policy, nor have much difficulty circumventing 2 deep.

 

BSA is one of the last bastions of political incorectness for me. With all the harms being caused by PC (Fort Hood Shooting, TSA screening grannies, etc.), someone needs to carry the memory of plain speech.

[Lisabob 13]

Whoa. Even supposing that one buys into the notion of PC in the sense you appear to mean it, I do not see how anybody could attribute murder to PC.

 

 

[Oak Tree 15]

Calico,

 

I read mds3d's proposal for the district as pertaining to district leadership, not to all units in the district. So an LDS troop wouldn't be subject, say, to a district commissioner who was gay or atheist.

 

BadenP, I'm not sure why you think a local option is unworkable. That's what we have for female Scoutmasters, for example. Or for girls in Venturing. Or even for membership in a church. Or whether units can camp on Sundays. Units can use lots of other criteria to decide on appropriate leadership as well. Given that the local option works for all of these, why wouldn't it work for gays? Atheists are a little different, with the current wording of the Oath.

 

mds3d, I think that there are several problems with that solution. While it is an elegant logical solution, it fails in a variety of other ways. It would be hard to tell a volunteer, for example, that he could serve as district commissioner but not council commissioner. BSA does not have that policy for women leaders in those positions. It also does look a bit odd to the outside, and it would be hard to justify. "We don't discriminate, except when we do."

 

As le Voyageur points out, summer camps mingle Scouts from many different units, district, councils, and even regions. Your solution would be creating a complex (and constantly changing) web of who would be eligible to have which positions. We have a gay district commissioner, but we just got a new LDS church in the district. Do we have to fire our DC?

 

I feel safe in saying that this will not be the solution that BSA eventually proceeds with.

[Phibbles 10]

BP - What are the logistical problems for having homosexuals in scouts?