NBC News: Boy Scouts Close to Ending Ban on Gay Members, Leaders
Source: NBC News
Exclusive: Boy Scouts close to ending ban on gay members, leaders
By Pete Williams, Justice Correspondent, NBC News
The Boy Scouts of America, one of the nation’s largest private youth organizations, is actively considering an end to its decades-long policy of banning gay scouts or scout leaders, according to scouting officials and outsiders familiar with internal discussions.
If adopted by the organization’s board of directors, it would represent a profound change on an issue that has been highly controversial -- one that even went to the US Supreme Court. The new policy, now under discussion, would eliminate the ban from the national organization’s rules, leaving local sponsoring organizations free to decide for themselves whether to admit gay scouts.
“The chartered organizations that oversee and deliver scouting would accept membership and select leaders consistent with their organization’s mission, principles or religious beliefs,” according to Deron Smith, a spokesman for the Boy Scouts’ national organization.
Individual sponsors and parents “would be able to choose a local unit which best meets the needs of their families,” Smith said.
Read more: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16739587-exclusive-boy-scouts-close-to-ending-ban-on-gay-members-leaders?lite
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
AllyCat
(16,186 posts)If they change this policy, we will allow our boys to join if they wish.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)It was great. We had gay parents, atheists, and just plain liberals who didn't like the Scouts.
Sent a great message to the kids -- you don't have to just go along with something that is fundamentally wrong.
AllyCat
(16,186 posts)Even if they get beyond that, there is the issue of God which we do not believe in a supreme being and have not taught our kids that. I heard about Explorer Scouts, but have not found a group where we live. Did you partner with a larger org or just came up with your own thing? Any information? That sounds really cool. I'd like to see a group that is not segregated by gender.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)We came up with a name, made some t-shirts (the uniform is a big part of the allure!) and we'd take turns organizing activities through email. Often it was a monthly activity, ranging from just plain fun stuff (roller skating or marching in a local parade) to community service (food bank volunteering, pulling invasive plants from a state park) to educational ("brain fair" at a local science museum), etc. Every holiday season we'd get toys and presents and food together for a family or two in need.
However, if you prefer an established, co-ed group, I've heard good things about the group Camp Fire. http://www.campfire-usa.org/
Blasphemer
(3,261 posts)Many of our girls are girl scouts but Boy Scouts of America has been banned. This will be a welcome change.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)This will cause some Mormon, Catholic and Fundie heads to explode. Should be fun to watch.
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)"Boy Scouts Close to Ending Ban on Gay Members" just a few months ago? It was in the news for a few days, until the BSA announced, "no, we're not considering changing" our discriminatory ways.
Boy Scouts: We're keeping policy banning gays
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014168722
Xithras
(16,191 posts)I think there's been a longstanding assumption that the BSA would eventually drop the ban. When the ban was up for review a few months ago, many people fully expected to see it finally go away. When they didn't, there was a lot of frustration and shock among their sponsors. Since then, they've seen major funding sources dry up, new scout recruitment is WAY down, and the general perception of the BSA has gone into a nosedive. I don't think they expected this reaction. They certainly didn't expect Intel, their single largest corporate sponsor, to cut their funding off entirely, for several of their other major sponsors like AT&T to come out and threaten to do the same if the policy wasn't ended. They also didn't expect the CEO of AT&T, who will rotate into a position as the head of the BSA's board next year, to come out and publicly condemn the group, and state point blank that he'll be leveraging the power of that position to end the Scouts anti-gay policy once and for all.
The BSA misjudged their position and screwed up pretty badly when they rejected that last attempt at changing things. They've also been taking broadsides left and right from people furious over everything from Eagle scouts being stripped of their ranks (I've even seen anti-gay BSA leaders who were furious over that...once a rank is earned, it's earned) to the ongoing abuse debacle in the courts.
I'm not suprised at all to hear that the BSA may be backpedaling on their previous position. The rejection was a blatant attempt to pacify the LDS and Catholic units, but I think they're realizing that keeping them happy may kill the organization as a whole. They have to make a choice between Mormon morality and ceasing to exist.
Ian David
(69,059 posts)Xithras
(16,191 posts)Probably one of the only things he said in his campaign that I agreed with!
Ian David
(69,059 posts)Xithras
(16,191 posts)But I don't spend a lot of time worrying about Mitt Romney's political positions anymore. He can flip-flop all he wants in the unemployment line 
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)and continue to receive. If the pressure from sponsoring organizations gets the BSA to buckle, GREAT! Thanks for the nice and informative comment Xithras.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)... to recover their sources of funding. Now they can stay out of the limelight and push the controversy down to the lower level organizations. The fight will actually spread out, not be resolved.
I'm an old Eagle Scout (class of '66), but I think the time of the organization is over. Not sure an organization founded at the turn of the last century by an old English Lord, founded in the principles of the time, is a fitting model for today's society. It's really hard to recharge the Xbox at the campfire.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)In some ways, scouting is more important today than ever. It's one of the few systems that exist to get many urban and suburban kids AWAY from their XBoxes and out into nature. For that reason alone, it's worth preserving.
I've seen kids dragged into scouting kicking and screaming by their parents, who later went on to become avid outdoorsmen and environmentalists simply because scouting gave them an alternative to sitting in front of the TV all day. Most parents nowadays know that their kids should be getting out of their houses, but lack the time, knowledge, money, or ability to take the kids out regularly themselves. That's where scouting-type organizations have value...they give parents and kids the opportunity to experience the outdoors with their peers, for relatively little money ($15 a year), and with little to no previous experience.
I do agree that some of the pomp surrounding scouting is a bit dated and that the program could use some modernization, but the core values and activities that scouting is built around are as relevant now as they ever were.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Sorry, as a former scout, that is all that I can see now.
The oaths, the pledges - need to be eliminated and the hatred and bigotry wiped out before one can say as a whole, scouting is a net positive for society.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)If you believe that "hatred and bigotry" are core values, then you didn't pay much attention to the values that are actually laid out in the program . As a reminder, these are the core values that scouting is built around: trustworthiness, loyalty, helpfulness, friendliness, courteousness, kindness, obedience to family, cheerfulness, thriftiness, bravery, cleanliness, and reverence (not just as faith, but of the world around us).
I was a leader for many, many years, and two of my sons are scouts. I challenge you to name one "oath" used in scouting that is "hateful". In fact, the only thing about any of the oaths or pledges that are even REMOTELY "bigoted" are the three words "Duty To God" in the Promise, which is exclusionary to atheists (and yes, I do want that changed as well). There is absolutely NOTHING, in any of the programs, that teaches the superiority or inferiority of group x over group y, whether we're talking about gender, race, culture, or anything else.
The prohibitions against homosexuals and atheists exist outside of the program and aren't included, or even remotely referenced, in any part of the scouting program that the boys participate in. They're certainly not mentioned in any of the oaths. They are outside sanctions imposed on local units (which are largely ignored, fwiw) by the national organization outside of the program, and it's completely disingenuous to call them a "core value". It's a stupid limitation placed on scouting by a handful of Texas bigots, and an anomaly when contrasted against the inclusiveness that is otherwise one of scoutings core values.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Let's see how many local organizations lift the ban if allowed to by the Texas/Utah bigots.
You will see it in Blue states, but states like Arizona, which are really Mormon Scouts, have already said they would keep the ban in place.
So yes, they have core values of hatred and bigoty.
Scouting COULD be a wonderful thing. As is now, nope.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)Remember, the structure of scouting is that each unit is effectively an independent franchise "owned" by its chartering organization. The chartering organization can be anything from a church, to a community group, to schools and private businesses. That organization creates, and is ultimately responsible for, the units it creates.
For what it's worth, the Moron Church is the chartering organization for thousands of THEIR OWN units. The Mormon units generally meet in their church facilities, and consist exclusively of boys who are members of those Mormon churches. Even in deepest, reddest Mormon Utah, however, there are plenty of units in existence that are NOT chartered by the Mormon church, which belong to other community groups and are generally open to the public. None of them would be bound in any way by the decisions of the Mormon units, even if those units are located in Mormon dominated councils.
If the Mormons stood by their statement, it would mean that homosexuals could not join scouting units that actually belonged to the Mormon church. I agree that it's bad, but IMO no right-minded parent would send their kids to one of those units anyway (Mormon units are notorious for various other "issues"
. There would be nothing stopping other units in those same areas from opening themselves up.
In many ways, this change would be MORE responsive to outside pressure as well. If a unit is chartered by a church or community group, gay rights advocates can bring pressure to bear DIRECTLY on those chartering groups. That would lead to the charters either dropping the bigot-units to avoid the publicity, or caving and ordering the units they've chartered to be inclusive in order to save their own arse.
Many chartering organizations simply aren't going to fight it because they don't want any bad press. Others will support it because of their own anti-discrimination policies. My kids belong to units chartered by a local public law enforcement group, and our charter rep has told us bluntly that the ban is gone the moment they're permitted to eliminate it.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Are linked to the Mormon or Catholic church.
they are not changing.
BSA should take the stand that either allow gays, or be kicked out of Scouting. No access to materials, jamoborees, Philmont, etc.
Anything less is a tactic endorsement of bigotry.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)The Catholic Church officially has no position on the issue, and the National Catholic Committee on Scouting, and organization that semi-officially directs all of the Catholic scout units has pointedly refused to comment on the issue. The idea that Catholics will flee inclusive scouting comes from one statement made by one nun, which threatened nothing of the sort. There are two important things to remember here though:
1. Catholics don't prohibit gays from attending any other church-oriented functions or participating in any other church-oriented roles. Gays can even become Catholic priests.
2. The official catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."
Catholics are opposed to same-sex marriage because they believe that it violates a tenent of their religion. There is no tenent of their religion that bans gay scouts and scout leaders. I've seen a lot of commentators and pundits PRESUMING that the Catholics will flee scouting en-masse, but I've seen no such statements from the Catholic Church itself, am aware of no historical statements from the church leadership, and have seen no "off the record" statements from any of the church leaders claiming that they would close their units if the ban were relaxed.
As of this moment, the only group that has actually said it would leave if they were forced to accept gay scouts is the Mormons. Everything else is conjecture, and I believe that a LOT of the noise is just empty bluster.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)In the Grand Canyon Council, which oversees most of Arizona, Scout Executive and CEO Larry Abbott says 80 percent of its units are sponsored by Mormon or Catholic churches, two organizations that have rallied against gay rights.
“I don’t see a big change in the makeup of our membership,” Abbott said.
Both the Mormon and Catholic churches issued noncommittal statements.
"The Church is aware that BSA is contemplating a change in its leadership policy,” said Michael Purdy, spokesman for the Mormon Church. “Until we are formally notified that it has done so, it would be inappropriate for the Church to comment."
Sister Mary Ann Walsh, spokeswoman for the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said, "The bishops hope the Boy Scouts will continue to work under the Judeo-Christian principles upon which they were founded and under which they have served youth well."
http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/20130129boy-scouts-gay-policy-change-arizona.html
Xithras
(16,191 posts)First off, the she's a spokesperson for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The USCCB has never previously extended any kind of control over scouting units or done anything to attempt to direct them. Catholic scouting units are typically chartered directly by the local churches in coordination with the National Catholic Committee on Scouting (which does not answer to the USCCB). The National Catholic Committee on Scouting has never made any public statements on the issue.
Even looking at the USCCB's statement makes you wonder about the claims though: "The bishops hope the Boy Scouts will continue to work under the Judeo-Christian principles upon which they were founded and under which they have served youth well." It's interesting to see the media twist that solitary statement into "We're going to close all Catholic units and flee scouting if gays are allowed in." Not only is that NOT what they said, but they have NEVER said anything even remotely close to that.
IMO, it's mostly fearmongering by the right-wing that's driving the meme. If you look into all of the claims, both current and historical, the Mormons are the ONLY church that has ever said that they would leave scouting if homosexual youth and leaders were permitted. And even the Mormon statement, which was made a number of years ago, only went as far as saying that they would leave if they were forced to accept gay leaders in the units chartered, organized, and run directly by their church. The Catholics have never made a statement even remotely approaching that, and the Catholic Church has never once been implicated in the expulsion of a gay scout.
Finally, there's another issue as well. In both of these cases, we're talking about church-run units. While that 80% number may currently be correct, there's no real question that MANY more organizations would be willing to charter scouting units if they were to drop their current prohibition on homosexuality. Many organizations currently refuse to charter scout units BECAUSE of their prohibitions against gay scouts and leaders. If that prohibition goes away, the number of non-church charters will climb, further diluting the influence of the churches within the BSA. As their relative influence wanes, so does the damage they can cause by leaving.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)And the local gay youth organization wants to sponsor an inclusive troop in Phoenix, they could, and the local Boy Scout camps would be forced to accept them?
Xithras
(16,191 posts)Scout camps are run by the regional scout councils. Regional scout councils are required to make their facilities available to any registered scout unit in their council area without discrimination. By pushing the decision all the way down to the chartering organization, the National Council will also be bypassing the Regional Council's ability to discriminate against units within their council area. Existing BSA policy already states that the boys and leaders in any registered unit must be given equal access to any training, outings, facilities, or other resources offered by that Regional Council.
The requirements to start a scouting unit are simple. You need 5 boys, 1 Cubmaster/Scoutmaster, 3 other adults (typically parents of the boys) willing to act as the steering committee to run the unit, and a chartering organization willing to underwrite the whole thing and pay the $20 annual fee (typically chartering organizations also arrange the meeting place for the unit, and many also help to underwrite other operating costs, though neither is required).
If a group like GLSEN chapter wanted to charter a scout unit, they could do so under this proposed change. Once chartered, they would have the same access to scouting resources and facilities as any other unit.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)
surrealAmerican
(11,360 posts)"local sponsoring organizations" will still be free to discriminate.
... also they will still discriminate against atheists as a national organization.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Taverner
(55,476 posts)
Bohunk68
(1,364 posts)things. We all know that gay lads have been there for decades. Who else would teach those non-gay lads how to masturbate? Oh, that's right, maybe their counselors.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)
SpartanDem
(4,533 posts)color me unimpressed with this "change".
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Since he is taking that exact same stance.
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)last week, have you? You deserved the hammering you took from other DU'ers, LGBTQ community members or not, you were correctly hammered, as well as having your comments hidden, for your conduct and words.
Have you read the article regarding the possibility the Supremes may not hear the DOMA case afterall? It's posted right here on DU.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251281179
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)NO one should get hammered for wanting equality.
This experience has shown that many DUer's are more concerned with staying in power and looking good rather than advocating TRUE equality.
Your article means SQUAT to my argument - that civil rights are NOT state's rights issue.
Stop being dense.
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)to get across their point/opinion, they deserve serious hammering; you got what you deserved.
So, the article means squat to your position? Really? If the Supremes decide to follow the guidance of their appointed counsel it will mean plenty, and will set back LGBTQ equality for several years.
As someone involved on the front lines of the struggle for gay equality for nearly 40 years, I'm very well aware of what's involved. You can be angry and throw all the temper tantrums you want about the struggle for equality, demanding it not NOW but RIGHT NOW but, as I've learned, it doesn't happen that way. Just look how long black folks and women have been struggling and they aren't there YET.
Stop behaving like a child.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)You are telling me to st down, shut the fuck up, and be greatful for crumbs.
FUCK THAT.
You are part of the problem, I will not sit down. I will not shut up until full equality if reached.
randome
(34,845 posts)You can't brow-beat bigots. They just become more bigoted. But progress, when it occurs, should not be dismissed.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)My thoughts exactly.
Time will tell but....
Xithras
(16,191 posts)Leave it up to the CHARTERING ORGANIZATION. If a church sponsors a scout unit and doesn't want gay leaders, then fine, whatever, let them do what they want. We all know how to avoid their bigoted asses.
My sons, on the other hand, belong to scout units chartered by a local law enforcement agency. NOBODY, from the current leadership to our chartering organization, has any problems with either gay scouts or gay leaders. In fact, the ONLY worry expressed by people who knew that I was a bi leader was concern over the possibility that I'd be "outed" to someone far enough up the chain to get me booted. They weren't worried ABOUT me, they were worried FOR me (I'm no longer a leader, but I left because of a shift in employment, and not for moral or political reasons).
The reality is that most scouting units are chartered by private groups, government employee groups, and private businesses that have no real incentive to keep gays out. The only groups that would do so in any real numbers are the units chartered directly by the churches, and church-chartered groups are generally not inclusive to ANYONE who isn't already a member of their church.
It isn't a perfect solution, but as far as compromises go, it's a pretty good one.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)Not fine at all.
Friggin Mormon church just can't do the right thing.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)Nobody is saying "this is all we should do". I would eventually like to see Scouting opened to everyone (including atheists), but this would be a very good first step and would open the majority of the organization to gays.
Second, you need to remember how Scouting is structured. The BSA works similar to a franchise operation, where every scouting unit "belongs" to its chartering organization. The chartering organization creates the scouting unit, funds the scouting unit, and often provides leaders and assistance in its operation. In essence, the chartering organization "owns" the scouting unit.
The problem here is simple. Groups like the LDS church have threatened to defect en masse from scouting if they are forced to allow gay leaders into their scouting units (which are 100% funded by their church and where most of the scout leaders are appointed by their church leadership). Financially, the overnight exodus of nearly 30% of their scouting units would bankrupt the BSA and make the entire discussion moot.
That's why this is a good first step and compromise. It allows the majority of scouting units to open their doors to a group that they never wanted to exclude in the first place, while allowing the fundie groups to keep on doing whatever it is they're doing (and in all honesty...what gay person would want to be in a fundie church-run scouting unit anyway?) It also allows the BSA to remain financially solvent and would allow them to recruit MORE non-fundie members and units. By doing THAT, the fundie money becomes less relevant. Once the BSA isn't financially dependent on the Mormon units anymore, the policy can be expanded and the BSA can tell the Mormons to open up or hit the road, without risking the existence of the remainder of the organization.
There is no perfect solution here. Only a series of imperfect solutions that may eventually lead to something we're all happy with.
Stargazer09
(2,132 posts)I really appreciate the way you explained this.
I agree that this is a step in the right direction. It's not perfect, but honestly, we can't expect to completely change an organization like this overnight.
Gothmog
(145,186 posts)This is a good explanation of the BSA structure. Putting these decisions into the hands of the chartering organizations would be a good step going forward
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)80% of scouting units in Arizona are either Catholic or Mormon run.
So Gay Scouts in Arizona don't stand a chance.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Prop. 8...in California, not even Utah.
They're a skeezy bunch.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)These delightful folks also baptise holocaust victims and countless others after their death, say they will stop the practice, and continue doing it. The religion also preaches it's OK to lie to achieve their ends.
As I said, delightful folks.
TrogL
(32,822 posts)I haven't been comfortable with church groups sponsoring scouting organizations for exactly this reason - the perfect excuse to bully outsiders and proselytize.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)If the only scouting unit in a town is one supported by a bigoted, proselytizing church, that says more about the town than it does the BSA. Church-chartered groups exist to further the goals of those churches, and are usually only attended by their members.
Besides, I'd argue that it's improbable that any town is going to be so far right that a fundie unit is the only one capable of surviving. If you're in a town where the only unit is chartered by a church, then find someone else willing to charter one and start a competing unit (if church charters were banned, you'd have to find a new chartering organization anyway). Scout units are ultimately PARENT driven and PARENT run. I'd bet that, in your hypothetical town, there would be a LOT of kids who would LOVE to join scouts, but whose parents don't want them exposed to the towns one-and-only bigoted unit. My kids units don't have a single bit of religious oversight...they were created by parents, and have been run exclusively by parents for decades. That's how the program works. Kids join it, parents run it. Ultimately, the chartering organization is only required to sign some paperwork (as I said, my boys units are chartered by a law enforcement agency, so neither one recieves funds from their charter...operating funds come from parents and fundraisers).
If nobody else in town cares enough to charter a competing unit, and if you can't find enough new scouts in town to populate a new unit, and if all of the existing scouts in town are just fine attending a bigoted evangelical church, then a rule allowing gay leaders isn't going to make much of a difference...that town has some deep, deep issues that go WAY beyond anything the BSA has done.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)So gay youth in those areas should what, just hang themselves?
Maybe you would be happy with the KKK running a few scouting organizations?
How about the Steubenville football coach running one?
Xithras
(16,191 posts)The BSA doesn't run the scouting units. Never has, never will.
If a town is so far right that it's incapable of supporting a scouting unit that ISN'T operated by fundies, then there isn't a BSA policy in the world that's going to make it gay friendly. The conversation begins and ends with the fact that the scouting units are run primarily by the PARENTS of the boys involved in it. If the parents are all fundie nuts, and the BSA bans fundie nuts, then the unit simply ceases to exist.
What you're suggesting isn't a scouting problem, it's a societal problem.
FWIW, if the BSA would eliminate it's prohibition on gay scouts, it actually WOULD open up a possibility for gay youth who have the misfortune of living in a hard-right, fundie area incapable of supporting any inclusive scouting units. The BSA has operated something called the Lone Scout Program for nearly 100 years. The Lone Scout Program allows individual boys, or even groups who are simply too small to form a "real" unit, to participate in scouting without being attached to a proper unit. It was created for boys who travel a lot, or who live in very isolated areas, but can generally be used by any boy who can't participate in a regular scouting unit for any reason. It's currently not available to homosexual youth because of their membership prohibitions, but that would presumably change if the prohibition was lifted.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)No one thing will change society - but a concerted effort from all to make people understand that bigotry and hatred is unacceptable at ANY level.
I am not willing to simply write off someone because they are in a deep red area.
BSA should state - either allow gays in ALL units, or you are no longer Boy Scouts.
So yes, if a unit is operated by fundie nuts, it needs to be eliminated.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)Maybe you haven't read enough of my posts over the years to know this, but I help put the B in LGBT, so I'm not trying to exuse anything of the sort (a fact that pretty much every parent affiliated with my sons units was aware of, and that none of them had a problem with, FWIW). The goal is ABSOLUTELY to get to the point where bigots are rejected from scouting, but that's not going to happen over night. You don't win a war with a single battle, and you don't change an organization the size of the BSA with one rule modification. There's no way to do that, right now, without completely restructuring the way scouting operates. That may happen eventually, but it will take many years.
Your suggestion would simply end the existence of the BSA.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Then it wasn't worth saving.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)You see no value in the BSA, and don't see any loss in its destruction.
I believe that the BSA provides something of value to our youth, and think that our society would be much better off by reforming and modernizing it. It CAN be modernized, and I have no doubt that it can be operated inclusively, but that's not something that's going to happen overnight. So long as there is progress toward that goal, I'm happy to keep working on it.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)
iandhr
(6,852 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Lesmoderesstupides
(156 posts)I think this is motivated by $$$$$'s and a number of public orgs have been cutting funding to BSA the last few years.
Guess the bigots wil need to pony up more money if they want the BSA to continue to discriminate.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)The BSA's religious requirement basically boils down to "You have to believe in some sort of higher power that defines right and wrong". The FSM meets that requirement.
Lesmoderesstupides
(156 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)I think that's more regional.
mwooldri
(10,303 posts)You can blame Baden Powell for that one. Progress is being made on this part too. UK Scouts have put in place non-discrimination based on gender and sexual status for quite some time now. The UK organisation is working on whether non-theists (atheists and agnostics) should be permitted full membership, afaik a decision has yet to be reached.
Gore1FL
(21,130 posts)I went to Wood Badge. I was on training staff. No one ever questioned my beliefs.
I admit I felt pressured as a training participant to go to a few services. I never went once I was on staff.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)To me, it's the same as attending mass. No matter how liberal your own particular priest and parish (or whatever they call them), if your butt is in a pew you're supporting the Pope, the Vatican and their miserable policies.
Gore1FL
(21,130 posts)Me remaining a citizen didn't strengthen them. It allowed me to be an influence from within. Same with Scouting, which, ultimately, has a program with a pretty liberal agenda when you get right down to it.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Not a fan of that organization ...
Gore1FL
(21,130 posts)I knew people that were that way, don't get me wrong. What you describe wasn't my experience when dealing with the vast majority or the adults I encountered.
I loved my scouting experience as a liberal youth. I loved it as a liberal atheist adult. The founder of the organization, Robert Baden-Powell is rumored to have been gay. He specifically ranted about how people kept trying to out religion into a program that was designed instead to get people to practice moral behavior. (It's covered pages 9-12 in Aids to Scoutmastership). In scouting, I got to teach kids the importance of working with others, respecting the environment, doing things for someone with no expectation of reward. I watched as 11-year-old wild kids turned into young leaders as they developed hobbies, skills, and responsibility (Many of these are not typical conservative notions). The program, when separated from the unenforceable policies, is quite spectacular.
I don't like how the LDS has taken over the organization and how it has forced it's agenda. Fortunately, a national organization that relies on volunteers can't really push or enforce policies as much as it pretends. That's why it is important for people whose values are more like yours and mine to take part in order to create a safe-haven for those who would otherwise be excluded. It's one of the best youth programs in the world. Our country's version of it has assholes serving as powerless (albeit visible) figureheads. Don't hate the worldwide organization over that!
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)
longship
(40,416 posts)But atheists are still not welcome.
BSA membership controversies (Wiki)
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Whicxh "other organizations"?? 
Gothmog
(145,186 posts)United Way in some communities have ceased supporting the boy scouts. My temple is sort of ignoring the official BSA policy by taking a very liberal view of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy by making sure that no leader does anything stupid such as wearing their uniform to a gay pride event. The local council leaders are happy to leave us and the other Jewish troop alone because between both temples, we have a number of members on the board of directors of the United Way and the other groups who sometimes provide funding to scouting. My committee chair and I have met with the leadership of the local council and they made it clear to us that they do not want a fight.
Again, my district has a decent number of district leaders who are gay and no one cares.
I have stayed involved in scouting even though my son aged out a long time ago. I strongly believe that we can may changes from within. The proposed chartered organization compromise is something that we and other troops have raised in the past. It is not perfect but it would be a step in the right direction
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)I want to know who so I can boycott them or key their CEO's cars or something.
Gothmog
(145,186 posts)The funding that the BSA is losing in some councils from the United Way should make up from any lost of funding. The LDS troops would still be allowed to discriminate but that is not going to change until that religion changes its policies on gays. This compromise allows LDS troops to stay involved and to maintain their discriminatory practices while other chartering organizations can adopt more enlightened policies.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Someone should try and start an atheist troop. Or maybe a Pastafarian one. 
Gothmog
(145,186 posts)My troop, pack and explorer unit are chartered by my temple which is a Reformed Jewish congregation. While we are chartered by a Jewish Congregation, we have non-Jewish scouts in the troop and the pack as well as Jewish scouts who are from other temples or synagogues. Many troops are chartered by religious institutions and some troops restrict their membership to members of their organization. LDS units tend to restrict their members to members of the LDS faith in part because these churches use the Boy Scouts as their main male youth program.
I would also point out that there is a split among Jewish units. The Reformed congregations are the ones fighting the current BSA policy while the Orthodox and Conservative congregations have no trouble with the BSA's policy. There have been some heated discussions on this issue among the National Jewish Committee on Scouting with troops chartered by the Reformed Congregation being in the minority.
Anyone can charter a Unit subject to BSA approval. The trouble would be in recruiting sufficient members to be a viable unit.
Gothmog
(145,186 posts)Right now, most large councils operate on a "don't ask, don't tell" policy where so long as you do not wear your scout uniform to a gay pride event, the national policy is not enforced. The Dale case involved a young leader who wore his uniform to a gay pride event and forced the BSA to act.
Many Districts have leaders who everyone knows are gay. I am told that there are 8 or so leaders in my local district who are gay including several who trained me a decade or so ago. No one cares about these leaders being gay.
The proposed compromise is designed to answer some concerns from the LDS units. LDS may make up less than 5% of the population but LDS chartered units account for 15% to 25% of the units chartered in all of scouting. It sounds like the proposed policy will allow chartering organizations (in my case my reformed Jewish congregation) to make up their own minds as to the qualifications of their leaders and members. My unit has made it clear that we will ignore and not ask about the sexual orientation of any leaders and so we are in technical compliance with the national policy. The local and council leaders are happy with this approach in that no one wants a fight (my temple has a number of members who are on the board of the local United Way board).
A large number of leaders have been working from within the BSA to change the current policy and this change will be acceptable to many leaders in that it will make things easier.
BTW, the Dale case could have been decided on different grounds in that the BSA rules are clear than no one is suppose to wear their uniform to any political event. That rule will remain in place even under these changes.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)What the hell?
We are supposed to settle for less than full equality?
Either the Scouts go full equality nationally, or they should be shut down.
Discrimination of any type is never acceptable.
no_hypocrisy
(46,095 posts)
NYC Liberal
(20,135 posts)and said anyone would be welcomed. We also didn't do any of the religious stuff.
Gothmog
(145,186 posts)I remember reading on a scouting blog that one of the New York Councils opening stated that they were ignoring the National policy on this issue. There are other councils who have made similar statements. For example the largest council in two states are ignoring the national policy http://www.startribune.com/local/west/162817346.html?refer=y and http://www.ct.com/news/advocates/latest-news/nm-ht34ncboyscouts-20120814,0,6853848.story I am not sure if National has tried to disciplined these councils.
My local council is one of the largest in the country (Sam Houston Area Council) and here the unofficial policy is a very liberal "don't ask, don't tell" policy where you will only get into trouble if you wear your scouting uniform to a gay pride event (such an action would also be in violation of the rule that you can not wear a scouting uniform to any political event). My troop committee chair and I have met with council leadership and were assured that they did not want to get into a fight on this issue.
One reason for the change in the National policy appears to be in part trying to keep control of this issue without disbanding several large councils.
brooklynite
(94,535 posts)...we have to draw the line somewhere.
William769
(55,146 posts)They pulled this stunt last summer also.
When it's written in stone, I will believe it.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)They make it clear up front that they don't discriminate based on religion or sexual orientation, and are co-ed to boot.
The discrimination going on in American scouting as policy at the national level is stunning by comparison. I don't get why it'd be so important to them, especially since ours seem not to have collapsed into whatever people fear will happen when an organization uses terms like "LGBT2Q" without venom in their voice.
Gothmog
(145,186 posts)Most of the Boy Scouting organizations in other nations reject the BSA policy. The UK Scouting organization started accepting homosexual leaders a long time ago http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/uksa-media.html I really love the response of the Swedish scouting organization on this issue http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/uksa-media.html
It is the position of the Swedish Guide an Scout Association that no member should be expelled or discriminated because of his/her sexual preferences and it is with sadness in our hearts we note that the Boy Scouts of America does not share our values in this respect. The Swedish Guide and Scout Association, however, recognize the sovereignty of all National Scout Associations and we respect that the Boy Scouts of America has the right to have its own opinion. Still, the General Assembly decided unanimously, to express its differing position on homosexuals in Guiding and Scouting. Expelling, or in other way discriminating a person because of his/her sexual preferences is, in our belief, not a way of showing understanding, friendship and tolerance.
The Swedish Guide and Scout Association believes that through an openhearted discussion National Scout Associations are brought closer together. Therefore we are hoping that the Boy Scouts of America takes the opportunity to express its official position in homosexuals in Scouting and the Boy Scouts of America, by this letter will again reconsider its position in homosexuals in Scouting.
Gore1FL
(21,130 posts)This is the simple breakdown:
The LDS made the BSA their youth program a few decades ago. They got their hooks in and started making demands. Policies began changing and it put the BSA in an awkward position:
* Move into the 21st century and pretty much lose a big chunk of existing membership all at once with the exit of the LDS membership, or
* Slowly bleed to death as more and more of society rejects their backwards policies.
They chose the 2nd option twice, but the recent backlash has shown it isn't sustainable. (I am not sure such policies are sustainable in the LDS church, either. That is another topic for another day.) It also demonstrated how much of their own membership rejected the policy.
d_r
(6,907 posts)I have a "scouting for everyone" patch on my uniform
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)Local units can decide what they want to do. And given a lot of Boy Scout troops are church based, I see a lot of churches just pulling the program altogether. Schools too, if they don't want to hassle with people who don't want gays as scouts.
Punting the question back to the units instead of making a decision from the top is a huge cop-out, IMO.
Gothmog
(145,186 posts)I was on the board of my temple when we had a fight over this issue. The compromise was that the troop and the pack would take a very liberal view of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and only enforce the rule if someone wore their scout uniform to a gay pride event. As far as my Temple was concerned no one should tell us who our leaders should be. BTW, two of the last three presidents of my Temple have been gay and they have had no problem with how the Troop and Pack have been operated.
By the same token, it would be difficult to tell a LDS unit that it had to accept gay scouts and gay leaders. That church should establish ist own qualifications for its leadership. The Dale opinion from the SCOTUS basically states that freedom of association means that each group should be allowed to establish its own membership standards and no one should force a church or other private association to accept someone as a member if that member does not meet the membership criterion for such organization. While I dislike the results of the SCOTUS decision, I basically agree that the First Amendment association clause must allow groups to set their own membership standards.
The proposed BSA policy extends the Dale ruling down to the individual chartering units and that is a good first step. To go beyond this, one would have to redefine or change the current interpretation of the First Amendment association clause.
panzerfaust
(2,818 posts)
What is it that conservatives conserve?
Occulus
(20,599 posts)I will never trust or respect the BSA. It is dead to me and membership in it is a negative as far as I'm concerned.
CRK7376
(2,199 posts)brother of an Eagle Scout and father of two Eagle Scouts is thrilled to see BSA change its policy. We need to be inclusive and most local units that I have worked with over the past 40 years have been. It's just taken BSA a long time to catch up with the rest of us that don't really care about the religious choices or sexual persuasion of our members. Many of us just want to bring high quality programs, leadership training and a love of the outdoors to as many young men as possible.
Gore1FL
(21,130 posts)brother of two Eagle Scouts, and a father of one Eagle Scout, agrees.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)(other than being a supporter of LGBT rights) but if I did, this would be a deal breaker:
The new policy, now under discussion, would eliminate the ban from the national organization’s rules, leaving local sponsoring organizations free to decide for themselves whether to admit gay scouts. So the discrimination can continue regionally. Screw that.
marshall
(6,665 posts)I'm not sure if the powers that be know that he was born female, and the man himself has no problems with it, so I figured I'd let my son join.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)...saying how they are taking their kids out of the scouts now.
What a bunch of whiners.
