Petition to the BSA

[Wingnut]

I find this a difficult thing. My heart goes out to the man who wants to serve as scoutmaster. He obviously has some parenting instincts as he wants to guide kids to learn important skills and become morally upstanding. I think that's a wonderful thing and I wish him the best.

The person in question in the article is a female lesbian former Tiger Cub den leader.

[Wingnut]

I signed it. 186K+ signatures already.

[HEthePrimate]

(sorry--mistaken post)

Edited April 27, 2012 by HEthePrimate

[MarginOfError]

The BSA upholds that being in a homosexual relationship is not compatible to being "morally straight". Period. That's it. We really don't have to go into what is morally straight and what is not outside of the BSA because there are other threads for that. The BSA do not bar gay people from being leaders if they are not living a homosexual lifestyle. The only thing that I might have a problem with is that (in my understanding) somebody who openly declares they are homosexual is considered by the BSA as living a homosexual lifestyle. In the BSA mindset, there is no reason to declare yourself homosexual (sexual orientation is deemed private) unless you intend to practice it. That's the only iffy thing about it.

As it happens, the BSA ideal of "morally straight" is compatible with my ideal of "morally straight" which is the same ideal as what the Church holds so you will not see me signing a petition for this woman. Because, in this particular instance, this woman is living with another woman in an active homosexual relationship. It is, to me, a smack in the face of the Scout Law to declare in an Oath to be morally straight when you have a scout leader who defies that standard.

If your moral inclination is different than the BSA inclination, please start your own BSA. I like the BSA moral standard just the way it is.

I do not agree that homosexual relationships are inherently promiscous. I do not agree that homosexuals are pedophiles. The only reason - and it's the ONLY reason - that I uphold the standard that homosexual relationships are not morally straight is because my God says so. And please recognize the use of the word "relationship". I never said, and my God never said, being a homosexual is immoral. That's really it and the end of my story.

I'll step away from BSA rules and whatnot and state my opinion on it. If a man/woman can pass a criminal background check and seems like a decent enough leader who works well with kids, I'd let him/her be a Scout leader regardless of religion or sexual orientation or hat color preference*.

*Though if they show up to Scout meetings wearing really stupid hats that are totally out of Scout uniform guidelines, that's another thing entirely.

I completely understand what you're saying, and would actually be supportive of you choosing a troop where homosexual leaders are not permitted. I don't like that it is a general BSA policy, however. There are many churches that don't believe living in a committed homosexual relationship is incompatible with living a "morally straight" life. But I think the decision should be made at the level of the chartering organization, not the national level.

As an example, there was a troop or pack in North Carolina (I think) a couple years ago that booted a couple leaders from the unit because they were Mormon. That decision was upheld by the BSA and actually had my support in doing so.

In the current situation, the chartering organization went to the BSA and asked them to do the dirty work. In essence, the church didn't want to deal with the fallout of discontinuing membership in the organization so passed the buck on to someone else (truth be told, if it were the Church that had discontinued her membership, I wouldn't have been phased). If the chartering organization is permitted to decide what religion its leaders can be (or can't be), would it also be the end of the world if the chartering organization could make the decision about sexual orientation?

[MarginOfError]

I agree the BSA has much to offer, but I'm not sure how to take your opposition to excluding atheists/agnostics. I suppose I don't agree with excluding them, but Scouting has a deeply spiritual quality to it. Should atheists/agnostics join the BSA and demand a removal of any reference to a higher power?

Oddly enough... I've met two Wiccan boys in Venturing units. Very active Scouters.

I have a couple of issues with excluding atheists and agnostics. The less important to me is that it's just mean. (I know...great reason)

The second reason I dislike this policy is that it isn't entirely uncommon for teenagers to express doubt about religion and faith and it bothers me that the BSA is poised to punish boys for doing something that is a natural part of teenage growth and development.

Several years ago, there was a boy in our troop that was asked in his Eagle board of review about his faith. He stated that he didn't know how to answer; he wasn't sure what he believed about God or if he believed in God. Things blew up from there and a couple members of the board tried very hard to deny him the rank of Eagle. Ultimately, the council decided that if the chartering organization had no qualms with the status of his faith, the council didn't either.

I haven't heard what the current status of that boy's faith is, but it wouldn't surprise me if he was more religious now that he's grown a few years into adulthood. Questioning your faith is just a part of normal development for some teenagers and I think when we penalize them for it, they're more likely to abandon faith altogether.

[Vort]

Second, the attitude that someone accused the BSA of being homophobic, so we should deliberately act in a manner that vindicates their response is an equally stupid attitude.

And not one I suggested, as you so dishonestly imply. I am pointing out that the term "homophobic" is a lie, and BSA should do nothing whatsoever to give even an inch toward those who use such hateful and dishonest language to try to bully their agenda.

[carlimac]

Just have to put this out there and I don't suggest looking it up (because the evidence it puts out is fairly disturbing) , but in an article called "Crafting Gay Children" (that has been so handily dismissed by a few posters here) it's writer shows that the official mascot of a gay slang dictionary is a picture of a Boy Scout. Just saying...

[carlimac]

Just that if we're worried about sexual dalliance between adult leaders and boy scouts, remove any adult leaders who are attracted to males from the equation. Neither heterosexual men nor homosexual women are attracted to males, and so would presumably be safe with the boys.

I was being a bit facetious, but in my opinion, if it's a matter of the boys' safety, the important thing to consider is not whether or not adult leaders are homosexual or heterosexual, but if they're child molestors.

homosexual =/= (does NOT equal) child molestor

Got it. Sorry. I was reading it in the middle of the night with cough/cold medicine on board. I couldn't add 2 + 2 at that point.

Interesting line of thought. For safety of the boys, that's probably the best combo of leaders. But then they have to define "safety" and what they are trying to keep safe. I think they'd want to keep all aspects of these kids lives "safe"- physical (although that could be debated after hearing stories from my boys and husband ), emotional, spiritual, moral...the whole ball of...chewed up bubble gum.

[MarginOfError]

And not one I suggested, as you so dishonestly imply. I am pointing out that the term "homophobic" is a lie, and BSA should do nothing whatsoever to give even an inch toward those who use such hateful and dishonest language to try to bully their agenda.

Gee, Vort, I'm so sorry. How could I forget that Vort is always the victim.

Please, teach me more about not bullying my agenda.

[carlimac]

And not one I suggested, as you so dishonestly imply. I am pointing out that the term "homophobic" is a lie, and BSA should do nothing whatsoever to give even an inch toward those who use such hateful and dishonest language to try to bully their agenda.

Speaking of agenda, as well as attitudes and behavior of this group who so desperately want to be set apart and protected, I wonder how this is supposed to garner support from the conservative faction. Making a big stink and fussing generally doesn't earn one any respect. She should realize she is dealing with a private organization who can write their own rules. If she is really sincere about wanting to do volunteer work with kids there are a host of other organizations she could put her energy to that don't have the same restrictions.

I just see this as more of that same junk agenda- trying to get the world to say her lifestyle is A-OK.

[HEthePrimate]

The second reason I dislike this policy is that it isn't entirely uncommon for teenagers to express doubt about religion and faith and it bothers me that the BSA is poised to punish boys for doing something that is a natural part of teenage growth and development.

That's a very good point. A person's belief system evolves over time. It's fine for adults to teach religion to kids, but it seems unfair to punish kids for having doubts, and not allow them to ask some very important questions.

[carlimac]

That's a very good point. A person's belief system evolves over time. It's fine for adults to teach religion to kids, but it seems unfair to punish kids for having doubts, and not allow them to ask some very important questions.

How does it punish them for asking questions? Again I can't see the connection. And the cold medicine has worn off now. They are going to ask questions regardless of who their scout leaders are or aren't as the case may be.

[Wingnut]

How does it punish them for asking questions? Again I can't see the connection. And the cold medicine has worn off now. They are going to ask questions regardless of who their scout leaders are or aren't as the case may be.

Did you read the experience MOE shared about a boy in his own troop?

[Guest]

I completely understand what you're saying, and would actually be supportive of you choosing a troop where homosexual leaders are not permitted. I don't like that it is a general BSA policy, however. There are many churches that don't believe living in a committed homosexual relationship is incompatible with living a "morally straight" life. But I think the decision should be made at the level of the chartering organization, not the national level.

As an example, there was a troop or pack in North Carolina (I think) a couple years ago that booted a couple leaders from the unit because they were Mormon. That decision was upheld by the BSA and actually had my support in doing so.

In the current situation, the chartering organization went to the BSA and asked them to do the dirty work. In essence, the church didn't want to deal with the fallout of discontinuing membership in the organization so passed the buck on to someone else (truth be told, if it were the Church that had discontinued her membership, I wouldn't have been phased). If the chartering organization is permitted to decide what religion its leaders can be (or can't be), would it also be the end of the world if the chartering organization could make the decision about sexual orientation?

I don't see it this way. The BSA has ONE moral standard. Not separate moral standards for separate troops. So, it is like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the BSA and each Stake is a Troop and each ward is a den. Now, we can't really have homosexual lifestyles deemed morally straight in the East Stake and not morally straight in the West Stake. The moral guideline is set at the LDS Church level. Make sense?

But, each troop may impose stricter standards than others... but it's not a BSA standard. The BSA standard is the bare minimum. And this is how it should be because the BSA standard of morally straight is what they put their hands up to when they proclaim the Oath.

Edited April 27, 2012 by anatess

[MarginOfError]

I don't see it this way. The BSA has ONE moral standard. Not separate moral standards for separate troops. So, it is like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the BSA and each Stake is a Troop and each ward is a den. Now, we can't really have homosexual lifestyles deemed morally straight in the East Stake and not morally straight in the West Stake. The moral guideline is set at the LDS Church level. Make sense?

But, each troop may impose stricter standards than others... but it's not a BSA standard. The BSA standard is the bare minimum.

Your analogy would work better if the LDS Church were a non-denominational collection of franchises, but I see your point. Really, it's a difference of opinions. I want the BSA to allow the chartering organizations to decide if homosexuals can be leaders in their units, you want it to be uniform across the entire national organization. Hence, I signed the petition and you didn't. I can live with that.

[Vort]

Gee, Vort, I'm so sorry. How could I forget that Vort is always the victim.

Lying is unbecoming.

Please, teach me more about not bullying my agenda.

Sure. What do you want to know?

[Vort]

Please, teach me more about not bullying my agenda.

Sure. What do you want to know?

Edited April 27, 2012 by Vort

[carlimac]

Did you read the experience MOE shared about a boy in his own troop?

Ok I just read it and yes it was wrong of the leaders. But is any kid who wonders about his faith going to be treated the same way by the BSA or was this an isolated incident?

[MarginOfError]

Ok I just read it and yes it was wrong of the leaders. But is any kid who wonders about his faith going to be treated the same way by the BSA or was this an isolated incident?

By BSA policy, any kid who declares himself agnostic or atheist is ineligible to participate in the program. It doesn't mean that it will be applied any time a kid claims this, but it could be, and that's a policy I dislike.

[carlimac]

By BSA policy, any kid who declares himself agnostic or atheist is ineligible to participate in the program. It doesn't mean that it will be applied any time a kid claims this, but it could be, and that's a policy I dislike.

Then the leaders were wrong to make a stink if he was only questioning but hadn't really declared himself aetheist or agnostic.

But then again, if BSA has a no aetheist policy they get to call the shots, like it or not.

[Vort]

By BSA policy, any kid who declares himself agnostic or atheist is ineligible to participate in the program. It doesn't mean that it will be applied any time a kid claims this, but it could be, and that's a policy I dislike.

Why? BSA is openly theistic.

[Guest]

Your analogy would work better if the LDS Church were a non-denominational collection of franchises, but I see your point. Really, it's a difference of opinions. I want the BSA to allow the chartering organizations to decide if homosexuals can be leaders in their units, you want it to be uniform across the entire national organization. Hence, I signed the petition and you didn't. I can live with that.

This does not make sense. You can't allow the chartering organizations to decide what is "morally straight". It just doesn't make sense to do that. I'll give you an example: one chartering organization might decide that, as part of the BSA eagle scout requirement fulfillment, they are to line up on the road facing a soldier's funeral with protest signs that say "You will burn in hell for engaging in war"... They wear the scout uniform and wear the BSA insignia on their chests. No, that doesn't make sense. The moral code should be up on the BSA level.

Yes, it's a difference in opinions. You want the BSA to acknowledge that homosexual relationships are morallly straight, I don't. That's all there is.

[log2]

Boy Scouts of America: Reinstate Cub Scout leader who was removed for being gay.

I know this will produce mixed results here, but if you agree with the purpose of this petition, please take a moment to sign it. This is one of only a very few things in BSA policy that I openly oppose without reservation.

Is there a petition one may sign in support of the BSA's decision? After all, the Boy Scout oath specifies that Scouts should be "morally straight," and if one cannot abide by this oath, one has no business in the organization. This is especially true for the leaders, and more especially if it is the case that homosexuals are responsible for a disproportionately high number of child sexual abuse cases.

[Soulsearcher]

Is there a petition one may sign in support of the BSA's decision? After all, the Boy Scout oath specifies that Scouts should be "morally straight," and if one cannot abide by this oath, one has no business in the organization. This is especially true for the leaders, and more especially if it is the case that homosexuals are responsible for a disproportionately high number of child sexual abuse cases.

LOL i know it won't mean much coming from me, but just a heads up that the FRC isn't exactly known for their strong relationship with the truth when it comes to stuff like this. LOL maybe MOE or somebody with a lil more credibility here can support me lol.

[log2]

LOL i know it won't mean much coming from me, but just a heads up that the FRC isn't exactly known for their strong relationship with the truth when it comes to stuff like this.

As I said, "if." If you happen to know of any specific error in the link, please feel free to demonstrate it - otherwise, as they say, talk is cheap, and mocking laughter cheaper still.