Ron writes:
So National Council passed – 62:38 – a resolution stating that a youth who openly proclaims themselves as homosexual cannot be denied membership in a unit solely on that ground.
1) This actually goes beyond “local option”. Regardless of their own policies on the origin or sinfulness of homosexual behavior, a sponsor cannot ban gay or lesbian youth solely on the basis that they are gay or lesbian.
2) Units currently have complete discretion on what kind of behavior on the part of a youth can justify declining a youth’s membership application or membership status in the unit. There’s nothing in the resolution that addressed that and no one’s talked about it. Sexual activity between heterosexual youth is banned, so any such activity between homosexual youth would get them bounced I”m sure. And yes, I’ve seen hetero kids tossed out for that. What other behavior units will or will not tolerate varies from unit to unit.
3) Openly gay/lesbian adults are still forbidden registration. If adults had been included in the policy change it would not have passed. The vast majority of the opposition to this is not a suspicion of adult/youth abuse but the concept that homosexual adults are a poor example of morality for youth. It’ll be a few years before that changes – unless the Mormons and Catholics have a quick change of heart. What permitted this new resolution to pass was a change of heart on the part of the Mormon church, in my estimation.
4) The BSA’s Youth Protection training’s component on youth/youth abuse will doubtless be quickly updated. All Scouters already have to re-take it every 2 years to stay registered, so any new info will get spread around completely in that time frame.
More info here.
Obviously this is not a perfect step – but it’s a big step in the right direction, and I’d rather have this change than no change at all. Major congratulations are due especially to all the gay and bi Scouts who have been fighting for this change for so many years. They rock, and I hope they’re enjoying their victory (although obviously there’s still work to be done).
The ban on gay and lesbian adults participating in scouting is vile, and implies that openly homosexual adults are threatening to children. Although I’m not against compromise as a way of moving forward, it’s clear that what’s being compromised with is bigotry, plain and simple.
Still, I’m very optimistic about the future of gays in Scouts. Once there’s a critical mass of openly gay Scouts who grew up in the Scout program and want to be included in the leadership, I don’t think the ban on adult Scouts will be sustainable.
Right wing leaders have dealt with this change with the charm and gracefulness we’ve all come to expect:
https://twitter.com/BryanJFischer/statuses/337729717794926592
https://twitter.com/jmattbarber/statuses/337736846454968320
The symbolism of this event can hardly be overestimated. As traditionalist and conservative churches withdraw troop sponsorship, and parents pull their sons, this will split the Boy Scouts Of America just like the homosexuality issue has split mainline Protestant churches.
The American Humanist Association:
“The Boy Scouts of America still supports an untenable, unreasonable and unnecessary discriminatory policy by excluding gay leaders and staff members,” said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. “If the Boy Scouts are truly a values-based organization, bigotry can’t be part of the program.”
Speckhardt added, “In addition to ending all anti-gay policies, the Boy Scouts should also open their doors to those without a religious affiliation. Their national policy of discrimination against humanists and atheists, like the anti-gay policy, needlessly shuts out millions of Americans.”
More reading: How NOM’s Reaction To The Boy Scouts Decision Reveals Its Anti-Gay Animus | ThinkProgress
This is really good, Ron. I would, of course, like to see adults included (what with them not being any more or less moral than straight adults and all) but this is absolutely progress, and you should be proud of the scouts. I look eagerly forward to the day when I can recommend scouting to the kids @ my church.
—Myca
As things go, gays aren’t as bad as atheists or women is a fairly gentle kind of bigotry. I am kind of in two minds about the atheists and women, it sucks to be left out the club, but do organisations like the scouts remain what they were – basically boys and religious clubs – or is that not legitimate.
Part of this isn’t I want to be in the scouts so much as I wish the scouts were something else. And the religion and the masculinity stuff seem much more core to scouting than heterosexuality.
The only time that I was asked about religion in scouts was when I was doing the final interview for my Eagle award. However, since the interviewer went to the church where I was an alterboy, he answered his own question before I figured out how to answer that I wasn’t so sure about the existence of a deity.
Probably I should be embarrassed that I choose to lie by omission, but, at that point I thought it was not worth upsetting him, and my parents, and scout leader, and priest.
I guess I can rationalize it as a conflict between “trustworthy” and “loyal”, “obedient” , “courteous” and “reverent”.
I’m not going to support the Boy Scouts until they rescind their ban on atheists. (Imagine the outcry if they didn’t accept Jews…)
You are certainly entitled to predicate your support for an organization on the condition that they embrace viewpoint neutrality on that question (or any other for that matter).
Your last sentence puzzles me, however. Usually when I get into an argument with atheists, the point comes up that atheism is not a religion. If it’s not a religion, then how would the decision to not accept a religion be equivalent to the decision not to accept atheists?
If you say “we accept christians only” that’s pretty much SOP; every church does that. You identify the group you like and you only play with them.
But if you say “we accept christians, hindus, jews, muslims, zoroastrians, buddhists, and everyone else except for atheists” than that is a different situation, functionally. You end up ignoring all of the major and compelling differences between the religions you admit (which, as you can see from reading the worldwide news and a bit of history, are pretty extreme) and focusing all the groups’ attention on their dislike of atheists.
Singling out a group to INCLUDE (and rejecting everyone else) is very different from singling out a group to EXCLUDE (and including everyone else by default.) In a world with only two choices, they are the same thing–but in a world with lots of religions those are functionally quite different.
BOS can still do that, of course–it’s their group, to run as they see fit. But the decision is more comparable to “no Jews allowed” than it is to “only Mormons may enter the temple.”
Not following you.
The Scouts aren’t making the distinction based on group identity, they are making it on the existence (or not) of a specific, though broadly phrased, belief. If you are the chief bishop of the Missouri Synod but disavow belief in God, you’re not welcome. If you’re part of no church or temple whatsoever, but opine that there is a divine energy that created the cosmos, you are welcome.
It is plainly an ideological, rather than an identity, test. Thus, “what would people say if they were excluding the Jews?” seems nonsensical as a comparison. “Jew” is not an ideology; it is a label for an ethnic group and a strongly associated religion, membership in either of which qualifies one for the label. “Atheist”, it seems reasonably clear, is an ideology (whether fully developed or just a ‘there’s no god’ hunch), but not an identity.
So saying “No Jews allowed” would seem to be a clear-cut expression of prejudice, since Judaism either by faith or by ancestry does not conflict with anything about the organization; atheism, being a specific intellectual belief which contradicts an intellectual belief the organization considers foundational, is an entirely different story.
The Geography Guild doesn’t admit Flat Earthers; “what if they were doing that to Catholics???” would be an equally odd response.
I see your point regarding the “no jews” thing–you may be right but it feel different. I think it’s due to the interaction between the “no atheists” rule and their status as a “religious organization” (or “not a religious organization”, depending on what is convenient for them to assert.) Can’t put my finger on it though.
Amp:
Thanks for breaking this out as a separate thread. Too bad it took me 4 days to see it! It’s been a pretty active Memorial Day weekend. My wife and I went car shopping on Saturday and settled on a used Toyota Prius. I went in Monday to close the deal before someone else bought the car. I didn’t want to take time to go home to change after the Memorial Day parade, so I walked into the dealership in full uniform. Maybe that’s why they decided to close the deal anyway even though I didn’t have the title to my trade-in with me. “Oh, we’ll trust you to bring it in later.”
Myca:
Thanks. As I’ve said before, I have reservations on this matter because I think that we are going to have some serious bullying issues and incidents of overt sexual activity. I’m not going to go into any details, but this last summer’s summer camp experience was the worst I have had in 30+ seasons in camp – to the point that it was kind of depressing – and it has really made me anxious on this point.
So I don’t know who’s going to stay and who’s going to quite and who’s going to join because of this. I know I’m not going anywhere. The decision has been made and I’m going to support it in my units. I will do my best to give every young man and woman who shows up in one of my units the full benefit of the Scouting program. If any problems come up I’ll deal with them as best as I can consistent with my understanding of what’s best for the youth.
Amp:
Just to emphasize – the issue that kept National from putting homosexual adults on the ballot was one of morality, not abuse. It’s pretty clear to everyone involved (yeah, there’s a few outliers you can quote) that there’s plenty of outwardly hetero adults who end up abusing kids.
I will note that this can bring in an issue in the Venturing program, where you can have a 23-year old adult and a 20 year old youth. The law would not see a voluntary relationship between the two as sexual abuse, but Scouting would.
alex:
Not clear on what you’re on about here with the references to women. Women are perfectly eligible for any registered position as adults. Girls are ineligible to join the Cub Scouts (6 – 10) or Boy Scouts (11 – 18) but are eligible to join as Venturers (14 – 21) – making them far more inclusive than, say, the Girl Scouts of America. I became a Scouter in September of 1992 after having been a Scout from 1960 to 1972. I remember going to my first Roundtable and being completely non-plussed to see a woman wearing a red jacket and a Order of the Arrow sash. I thought to myself “Boy, things have really changed!”
The situation with exclusion of atheists is a different matter. Unlike the exclusion or inclusion of homosexuals, the exclusion of atheists is fundamental to the entire Scouting movement. The original Scout Oath as written by Lord Baden-Powell included “Duty to God”. The World Organization of Scouting Movements includes the BSA and Scouting movements in ~150 other countries and is the overall umbrella organization for just about all Scouting movements in the world that are not exclusively female (those tend to be in the World Association of Girl Guides and Girls Scouts, which includes the GSUSA). Their charter requires that every countries member movements ensure that their individual Scouts and Scouters pay especial attention to this duty. It’s considered a fundamental principle of Scouting in general, not just the BSA. As an aside, there are probably more Scouts in the world that are Muslim than there are of any Christian denomination and very possibly more than there are of all Christian denominations total. I’ve met a few, too.
Mike:
Were I sitting on your Eagle BoR and you told me that you weren’t sure about the existence of a deity, I’d probably still pass you after a few questions about spirituality in general. I’d only flunk someone who explicitly denied the possibility of any higher power at all (whether you meant a specific incarnate deity or a more general concept of a spiritual/supernatural influence or state of being).
Amp:
Leaders of what? I have no idea who any of those guys are. Are they leaders of anything with any particular influence, or are they just a few windbags that the MSM likes to quote?
Ron,
Bryan Fischer is one of the people who runs the American Family Association, and one of its chief spokespeople. I’d say he’s fairly major league – you may not know who Bryan Fischer is, but I guarantee your Senator does.
I don’t think Matt Barber is as well known; he’s one of the people who runs the Liberty Counsel, which is a nonprofit dedicated to providing legal support for evangelical Christians who feel oppressed. i think he also has a radio show.
Oh, and I find objecting to gay adults because of “morality” rather than “abuse” to be, at best, a marginal improvement. The belief that homosexuality is morally wrong is, as far as I can tell, unjustifiable except by resorting to religion, and causes a lot of harm.
I think the atheist issue is that it excludes small children from an activity often based in their elementary school which has fun activities that don’t seem to have much of anything to do with god based really on their parents’ non-belief. I accept your statement that god is a big deal at the higher organizational level, but your local elementary school cub scouts don’t do much religion so it seems pointlessly exclusionary and excludes kids from otherwise positive fun group activities. Most 7 year old are just whatever their parents are. It’s not like they e made their own choice yet.
Emily, if a 6-year old kid strolls into a Cub Scout meeting and declares “I’m an atheist” he’s not going to get to join. But nobody’s actually asking either the kids or their parents what their religious beliefs are before they sign the kids up (the parent’s beliefs aren’t even relevant unless they want to register as adults). How many kids would you therefore expect to see excluded from Cub Scouts on that basis? Very, very few, unless there’s a parent with an agenda behind the kid trying to create a controversy.
Amp, I didn’t expect you to like it, I just wanted to get the record straight. So to speak ….
This was a number of years ago, obviously, but this was absolutely not the case when I was a member. Scouts were asked to affirm a belief in God as a condition of membership.
That being said, the exclusion of atheist kids and their parents doesn’t bug me as much as the exclusion of gay kids and adults (and I say this despite being a straight atheist). I think that there’s a legitimate purpose for religious organizations to restrict their membership to ‘religious people,’ and the BSA is kinda-sorta-kinda a religious organization. I don’t think that there’s a legitimate purpose for camping-and-knot-tying organizations to restrict their membership to ‘religious people,’ but whatever. Plus, your religious affiliation is a choice in a way your sexual orientation is not.
The main downside I see to their exclusion of atheist scouts is that it has the potential to stunt the free development of the scout’s thoughts and beliefs, and to encourage the scout to lie in order to maintain their membership in an organization that’s important to them … but I think the “wanting young men to grow up living healthy, happy, honest lives” boat sailed, foundered, and sank a long time ago for the BSA.
—Myca
@Myca:
That was absolutely the case for me while I was in the Police Explorers. When I signed the membership form, I remember having to affirm that I believed in God. I didn’t like lying, so it was tough, but the cost would have been not continuing on in an activity I had grown to care about very deeply.
The fact that I remember all this 20 years later should give you an idea that 1) it was important to me, and 2) it made me feel awkwardly enough that I have a permanent memory of it.
This person – a religious conservative who is unhappy about the new Scouts policy – brings up a point I haven’t thought of: Is the new policy constitutionally defensible?
Regarding “surely the Scouts had a First Amendment right” to slip in a pretext by suddenly redefining the meaning of words, remember what the word surely means. But that’s all moot now, happily.
Based on private and not-so private conversations I had from people representing the higher levels of the B.S.A.’s hierarchy I’m thinking Amp’s speculation would be viewed as a feature, not a bug. I’m guessing there’s a lot of people in Irving (Texas, where the B.S.A.’s National HQ is) that would rather just admit gays but believe they’re being stymied by the religious groups that sponsor so many units.
Myca, understand that as far as the organizations that sponsor BSA units are concerned, a belief in God (in the generic sense that the BSA uses it) is in fact a necessary component for someone to live a happy, healthy and honest life. You may disagree, and I’m sure atheists would, but that’s their position.
Homophobic asshole father ruins part of son’s childhood for reasons his son is too young to understand or be affected by in the slightest.
Yeah … it is hard to teach bigotry to kids. Keep on trying, Miller. You’ll get it eventually.
—Myca
Eh, declaring “I’m an atheist” can take many forms. Most Boy Scout troops say the Scout Oath like a pledge at the beginning of every meeting, and that means you’re affirming a belief in God every week. I’d say that asking you to state out loud, every week, that you will “Do your duty to God” is pretty close to asking you what your religious beliefs are.
Myca:
It seems to me that the point of going to church is to both learn and get help in following the path to salvation. It’s hard. You’ll need help and support through the ups and downs. There will likely be pain as well as pleasure. But you can get sympathy and comfort there, and join in the joy of learning the truth and applying it to your life.
“all-inclusive”? I don’t believe you’ll find the word “inclusive” in the Bible. What you will find is numerous passages where believers are commanded to preach the Word to all – and predictions that for one reason or another the Word will be listened to by some but be spurned by others. The Apostles were told that if they were listened to then they should stay and teach. But, if they were not welcomed and listened to, they should shake the dust of that place from their sandals and move on. The Church is to include all who will listen, but not those who will not.
The Word is supposed to change people. People are not supposed to change the Word.
Phil:
I’d say that it’s an affirmative statement that you have a duty to God, but it’s nowhere near close to asking what you think that duty is.
Ron, the ‘church’ part of the 9-year-old’s comment was not what I was focusing on, but rather that he had a really kind, positive, accepting understanding of how the world ought to work that his father was focused on perverting into exclusion and bigotry. I have no doubt that you’re right that there are many who do the same thing in terms of churches.
Where you’re wrong is in thinking that all churches have the same goals, or that all churches have the goals you think they ought to have. Since the BSA at least pretends to be non-denominational, ‘seeking salvation’ is an inappropriate goal or message for it to be involved in.
—Myca