Article: The Boy Scouts

Enjoyed the article about Bou Scouting. With all the grief they endure from the ACLU, such positive articles are great. My father and my husband were Boy Scout leaders. Pur oldest son was a Cub Scout, moved up to Boy Scouts, achieving Order of the Arrow and Eagle Scout. While working for Eagle, he broke his Troop record for badges, with 51. He put off his Eagle Scout until almost 18 years in order to accomplish this. He now in the military and has held scouting postions at every assignment. his oldest son recieved Arrow of Light in Cub Scouts, Order of the Arrow and Eagle Scout, he has also recieved the Vigile honor. In July he will be going to England for the World Jamboree of Boy Scouting. His younger brother has just made Arrow of Light and will move up to Boy Scouts in the Fall. I have another son who made it up to Life Scout but his troop leadership changed and he lost interest and did not finish getting an Eagle. He has a 9 year old in Cub Scouting and is aiming for Arrow of Light. So you can see we have strong feelings about Scouting and the positive effectives it has on our young men and boys. I was sorry that you had to include Michael Moore's name to the list, since he stands for everything scouting is not.

Being a long time Scout/scouter-since 1947- I think I know the organization rather well having been "thru the chairs". There is a dark side in that the BSA openly and notoriously rejects gay young people and potential leaders
systematically. A very large, powerful "religion" contributes financially significantly to the BSA to the point of control of BSA policy. See [url]Scouting for All.org. That being said BSA provides the standard for youth development
programs-it just does not practice what it preaches.

The url for Scouting for All is[url] scoutingforall.org

The post by "musician" notes he has been through the chairs and "knows" the dark side? Only large organizations, such as the one (or ones) he is referring to use that term. Leaders are never meant to start at one point and end at the other. I have been involved as a leader for 17 years and have never seen such use of "the chairs." As for his obvious spin on the story, the ACLU appears to be losing ground on that battle. Congress and the God fearing public are supporting the Scouting movement and it's wholesome approach to teaching leadership and diversity, and to accept and defend what every faith believes, and what every perosn has a right to believe. You may choose to accpet this or join some other organization, you are free to do that. Seems like the Boy Scouts exemplify what this great nation was founded on. The url "musician" notes is based on hatred and a very one-sided opinion with a refusal to allow the Scouting Organization to represent itslef. Sounds like the type of society we have fought to keep free from.

I am an Arrowman since 1969, and an Eagle Scout since 1971. After a long hiatus, I returned to the uniform three years ago, and now serve as a local Scout Commissioner. In this forum, I speak strictly for myself, unless indicated otherwise.

The BSA's alleged position regarding gays is that "homosexual conduct is not compatible with the aims and purposes of Scouting and that a known or avowed homosexual does not present a desirable role model for the youth in the Scouting program." (from the website BSALegal.org) Those who choose to make a public issue of their sexuality among youth, in a manner pre-determined to be a liability, only bring disqualification upon themselves. The indulgence of a few would decimate the ranks, the majority of whom are within their rights to take exception.

Another misunderstood policy is the one concerning belief in God. The ranks of the BSA have included those of many faiths, including Buddhists (who do not believe in a personal God per se), the Latter-Day Saints (whose concept of God diverges markedly from mainstream Christianity), even followers of a spiritual leader named Meher Baba (who claimed during his lifetime to be an incarnation of God). Clearly, the BSA makes no attempt to define the notion of a Higher Power for any of its members, only the requirement to acknowledge that there is one, as understood within the realm of one's own conscience.

I agree that anyone who takes any sort of antagonistic attitude when talking about their own beliefs or sexual orientation is doing a disservice to their scouts. Having said, that I don't think that the Boy Scouts should discriminate against atheists or homosexuals. Of course, they have a right to do that as a private institution, but I don't think that discrimination is the right thing to do.

Specifically, I know of a case of a professional working in a High Adventure program who was fired when it was discovered that he was a homosexual. More than one scout or leader was asked to leave for being an atheist. I just don't feel that that is consistent with overall excellent record the Boy Scouts has with diversity in other areas, such as race, ethnicity, national origin, socio-economic status, or religion in general. I think it would be great if atheists and homosexuals were included in scouting. It sends the right message to the boys about the acceptance of diversity, even when there are people who don't accept certain differences.

I live in Massachusetts where same sex marriages are legal, and are likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future. Many people hate that, but I don't. Why can't the Boy Scouts be on the inclusive side on this issue?

Bill

Bill:

We're dealing with beliefs in this matter, with closely held convictions, not with what we "feel." As such, they are difficult to dismiss in the name of placating those who do not hold those beliefs. They are spelled out in the Scout Oath and Law, and further defined by those responsible for its care. They are, quite simply, what it is to be a Scout.

The question, then, is not why can't the Boy Scouts cannot include atheists, but why an atheist would want to be a Boy Scout.

The BSALegal.org website (which I would urge you to review) details its policy concerning homosexuals, in particular those whose behavior is "known" or "avowed." "'Known' is what is known about you. 'Avowed' is what you say about yourself. 'Known' focuses on cases where someone has engaged in conduct in the community which makes it clear that he or she engages in homosexual conduct. The major cases, however, have been those in which open or 'avowed' homosexuals have come forward to test the policy."

The question here, then, is not why an openly homosexual person cannot be in Scouting, but why they would want to belong to an organization, which states from the offset that their public conduct is immoral.

One would also have to question the motives of anyone who would use children as the backdrop for an ideological battle. Why can't they prove their point somewhere else?

If you think the Boy Scouts are wrong in not allowing homosexuals to join
then you should start a group of campers for homosexuals so they can do what the scouts do.
They are correct in not letting them in as they work with young boys and this is not a role model for youth.

KayTheGirl

“I live in Massachusetts where same sex marriages are legal, and are likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future. Many people hate that, but I don't. Why can't the Boy Scouts be on the inclusive side on this issue?”

The first question I would ask is, “Are there limits, then, to inclusivity?” If not, then we have replaced all other virtues with the single virtue, “tolerance.” Then we need not, by the Scout Law, be “trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly…”; we need only be tolerant, because all behavior, virtuous or not, is equivalent.

I certainly do not believe that, and I am certainly not in favor of that approach. We may differ, of course, on the relative importance of the many and varied virtues, but I think we all need to come to an understanding that tolerance is only one of the many virtues, and that the other virtues are indeed often in conflict with tolerance. I think to brand someone who has heart-felt questions and reservations about tolerance of deviant behaviors, including sexual behaviors, as a “bigot,” or as “practicing discrimination” is counter-productive and unreasonable. Moreover, I feel it is likewise unreasonable and unfair to exert legal pressure upon individuals or groups to compel them to conform their moral viewpoints to the popular cultural shift or movement of the current day and age, simply on the basis of political correctness or doing the alleged “right thing” or “coming into the 21st century.” All have a right to hold their own moral viewpoints.

As we have seen since the Dale decision in 2000, there are homosexuals who publicly identify themselves with their sexual behavior and seek government protection and explicit inclusion based on their sexual behavior. Do we want Boy Scouts or Scout Leaders who publicly identify themselves by their sexual behavior? Is this the kind of discussion we want taking place within the scouting program? My view is that Boy Scouts should be a haven for boys removed from the sexualization of our culture, given that this sexualization is morally questionable, largely destructive and an inappropriate concern for our youth; discussion of matters of sexuality should be left to parents and families. It seems to me that the explicit inclusion of a group publicly promoting its sexual rights is the antithesis of this aim.

My view is that the Boy Scouts has a long tradition of upholding the family and the development of boys in traditional masculine leadership. The basic objectives of the Boy Scouts are character development, citizenship training, and personal fitness. In my view sexuality has never been part of the scouting mission; indeed, much of the objective in the creation of the Boy Scouts in the first place was to provide wholesome outdoor activities that might help divert boys’ attention from sexuality until they are older and seeking marriage. Yet I feel that inclusion of homosexuals would almost invariably necessitate inclusion of sexuality in the scouting program. For instance, the Scouting for All website promotes a “rainbow merit badge” for Webelos Scouts (4th and 5th graders), the requirements for which involve answering 43 questions about homosexuality and atheism. If such is already promoted by Scouting for All, would this not be the very kind of program that would be urged upon the Boy Scouts should its membership policies change?

In my view this would be an unwelcome and unhealthy change for our boys, a change that would make the Boy Scouts something other than scouting as I understand it. I could not be a part of such an organization, nor would I want that for my children or the children of my community.

We will not see in our lifetime any resolutions proposed by the anti-scouting web page "Scouting For All." Alternative lifestyles are not what we call "morally straight" and even though those folks are completely within their rights to practice whatever makes them feel good, The Boy Scouts has just as much right to exclude them.

Let's move on past this discussion. Scouting is the keeper of traditions, not the engine of change. Nothing will change with BSA, and rightfully so, unless/until its major sponsors like the Methodists, The Mormons, the fraternal organizations and all the other churches that sponsor units, decide on a change in their own position on the subject of gays, and I do not see that happening in my lifetime, or that of my son or grand children.

Thank you American Profile for such a fine story.

I loved being a scout when I was young, and I am now happily involved in my son's troop. The American Profile article captured a lot of what is so good about scouting. It does sadden me that some want it to be more like an exclusive country club rather than an inclusive organization dedicated to providing all youth an experience in outdoor citizenship. Perhaps it is possible that some time in the future there will be an inclusive organization that otherwise provides the same experiences as scouting, but at this time there is no true alternative for my son and me. Scouting for All, rather than being an anti-scouting organization, appears to me to be dedicated to fixing a glaring incongruity.

I've heard several mentions of Scouting for All. If Scouting for All is so great, why don't they start their own outdoor organization, rather than badgering BSA to change?

When some families got fed up with the Girl Scouts, rather than suing the Girl Scouts to change and putting up anti-GSUSA websites, those families formed "American Girls".

I think that's a much more constructive approach -- build an organization to fit your personal view, rather than have an entire organization change to fit the views of a few.

The Boy Scouts are the Best!

It's the best because it's the oldest scouting program in America.

It's the best because it's the largest scouting program in America.

It's the best because in every neighborhood in America, there's a program for boys. The Boy Scouts come into the schools and ask every boy to join, and many do!

It's the best because the Boy Scouts uphold values that all Americans can agree with, like being good to people, supporting the community, and living a moral life.

It's the best because any boy can join, no matter what color his skin is, where his parents are from, or how much money his parents make.

It's the best! Who wouldn't want to join!

Except, if you don't believe in God, you can't join. Except if you're a gay father, you can't be a leader. Except if you believe that the boy scouts should be open to atheists and gays, you'll be ostracised and told to start your own scouting group.

It's not right for people in Scouting who have a narrow view of what America is to take over a great institution, put in their own views, and then say that anyone who doesn't like it can leave. We need restore the core values of the Boy Scouts, which does not include bigotry.

Please see my site: http://www.scoutdiveristy.org/

Bill

"We need restore the core values of the Boy Scouts, which does not include bigotry."

The "core values" of the Boy Scouts are summarized in the Scout Oath, which is in no need of restoration, as it has never been suppressed. It is clear that a refresher is in order:

"On my honor, I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake
and morally straight."

I highlighted the parts that may have been missed in this discussion.

Now, if we're going to toss around accusations like "bigotry," at people whom we don't know, and who are under no obligation to change their convictions to suit us, let's at least determine the meaning of that word.

"The act of partiality to one's own group, religion, race, or politics, and the intolerance of those who differ."

So you see, the term could apply just as easily to one point of view, as it could to the contrary. Now, a movement that predates a particular social phenomenon (that is, the acceptance of a "gay" lifestyle) has consistently held to a set of convictions, with some apparent measure of success over the long term. Under what obligation are they to change for a relatively new and relatively untested set of convictions, at the risk of a loss of innocence of an entire age group numbering in the millions?

If you cannot answer that, you are in no position to accuse anyone of anything, for any reason.

Well. at least we are discussing the issue. That is more than most who slide it under the rug have done. I must say some of you sure do telegraph your background well. I thank all who have been participating(of course I am a Progressive!!) The denomination in which I am a Pastor believes "that all may be one" should not be a selective application....God bless all of you.

The answer is that they are under no obligation to change. By the way, your definition of bigotry is correct, and it does apply to the current attitude of the Boys Scouts.

As to why the Boy Scouts should change (which is different than obliged to change), it's because we now know that sexual orientation is not a choice, but is something that people are born with. That puts it in the same category as race. As to whether same sex orientation is "morally straight," that would depend on what you consider moral. Slavery was moral from the time of Moses up until the Civil War. Southern preachers talked of the "Curse of Ham" which showed biblically that blacks were meant to be slaves. I would suggest that the descendants of those preachers now use similar arguments to defend their views on homosexuality.

There is absolutely no evidence whatever that having homosexuals involved with children is harmful. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that children raised by same sex couples are no different from any other children. Gay teachers do just as good a job teaching as straight teachers. Your statement suggests that having a gay person involved in scouting will bring a loss of innocence is completely unfounded. I doubt that you could find a single fact to back up that statement.

The Boys Scouts of America has been hijacked by the conservative religious groups which now provide its major funding. It is the only non-religious national youth program which excludes gays. I would go as far as to say that the Boy Scouts is itself becoming a religious organization, and it is the religion of its major sponsors. If we don't allow diversity in the Boy Scouts, it will sooner or later become shadow of what it was, as it marginalizes itself. That's not because that homosexuals make up any significant part of its membership. It's because many people will not want to be involved with a program prides itself on excluding a minority.

...and, by your own admission, to those who would disagree as well. So we have one set of bigots versus the other. One is unlikely to change for the other. The Boy Scouts should change because they're bigots if they do not. Their opponents should be free to be bigots, for reasons left unanswered.

You then resort to inconclusive science and a sophomoric view of history. Both may "preach to the choir;" neither is persuasive.

To have an inclination towards homosexuality does not require having to act on it. Nor does it require any adult to be identified primarily by the intimate details of his sex life. You would allow children to be the backdrop for such an effort, all the while claiming moral superiority.

You cite studies concerning the safety of boys around homosexual males in comparison to heterosexual males. Presumedly this comfort zone would exist as men wear their sex lives on their sleeves. There are also studies refuting your claims as well. Which is the BSA to believe? One that violates long-held tenets, or disputed studies touted by those who insult them?

Slavery was not "moral until the Civil War." Several countries of Europe had already outlawed it by the early nineteenth century, by which time several Popes had already decried it for centuries before. Even the USA had outlawed it in the early 19th century (a little known fact), but disputes with the states, and an entrenched economy which relied on indentured servitude, made it difficult to enforce. Small wonder that a civil war arose from the controversy, if only in part.

You then claim the BSA has been "hijacked" by conservatives. Who? When? Was there a sudden change of policy, or of the Scout Oath and Law, of which seasoned veterans of Scouting are mysteriously unaware, as they are being led down the garden path by unseen executives in the Southwest? And while some men were able to keep their sexual proclivities quiet at the local level, was it not their public display of such proclivities, that brought their exclusion upon them? Wouldn't the answer to that be found in the legal cases themselves?

Finally, what is so "inclusive" about a policy that would inevitably result in the departure of 20 to 30 percent of the current membership, who have no difficulty with the status quo?

That, and choosing to make an issue of it amongst the children (a matter which opponents of the BSA policy appear unwilling or unable to address)?

This is getting ,well, interesting. At the time the Scout oath was written, "morally straight' had nothing to do with sexual preferences. It had to do with
honesty and clean living. (Do not go there!)Having just returned from a trip to Wood Badge heaven(Gilwell), I found that the US is the ONLY Scouting program in the world that even gives the issue an audience. And yes US Scouting is controlled by people and organizations at this time who are less than progressive. Their money and power talk. This has not always been true.
We all have a stake(no pun intended-religious or otherwise) in this...our youth.
It is sad that we are-BSA-such an excluding organization...almost like the Church.MM

Also the largest in terms of youth membership, and among those which has stayed closest to the original concept of advancement (as many associations, even the UK, have long dispensed with Tenderfoot/Second Class/First Class and so on).

This can be verified, which is more than can be said for most of what you have written.