Debate about gay members unlikely to end well for Scouts
Yesterday was Scout Sunday in the United Methodist churches that sponsor more than 11,000 Boy Scout troops and Cub Scout packs. That figure ranks the Methodists second among all sponsors of Scout units, right behind the Mormons and ahead of the Catholics.
Together, those three churches essentially own the franchise for nearly half of all Scout units, serving two in five boys in the program nationwide. Including all other faith-based organizations, both figures rise to roughly two-thirds.
That’s about half of what you need to know to understand the difficulty the Boy Scouts of America faces as it deals with calls to admit gay youth and adults after 103 years of disallowing them.
The other half is that pressure put on the BSA by secular groups, such as businesses and large non-profits, comes largely in the form of financial contributions they withhold from the organization until it meets their core conviction that excluding gays is wrong.
Which runs counter to a core conviction for many of the BSA’s largest religious sponsors that homosexuality is a sin.
It’s no surprise, then, that the Scouts’ board members decided Wednesday to wait until May to decide whether to keep the ban or lift it completely or in part, by allowing local Scout groups to decide whether to admit gays.
No one should expect their decision, whatever it is and whenever it comes, to resolve this conflict of convictions. Or to portend a bright long-term future for the BSA.
It would not last long as an organization that allowed some local units’ policies to, in the eyes of other local units’ sponsors, violate the Scout Oath’s dictum to keep oneself “morally straight.” A house divided against itself will not stand.
Its secular donors and ex-donors make clear the BSA will continue to lose critical funding if it keeps the ban. Its dominant cohort of religious sponsors make it equally plain they will not countenance ending the ban.
Anyone who understands the vital role played by Scouting’s sponsoring organizations – as I do, having spent 11 years as a Cub Scout and then Boy Scout, eventually serving in a multi-state, regional role — knows the threat the religious groups issued is an existential one for the BSA.
The charters for the troops they sponsor are up for renewal every December, so the fall could be both severe and swift. The churches could render the BSA a shell of its current self, if not dead, as soon as next year if they stopped sponsoring Scout units.
So, many of us wonder if those seeking change are ignorant of the BSA’s structure, naive about the likely fallout, or just less interested in its fate than their agenda.
All the more so, because most disputes about the ban — like almost all fights within the BSA, frankly — center on adults who used to be Scouts or adults who want to be Scout leaders. That is, they chiefly center on “adults,” not “boys.”
It would be far simpler if the debate were only about the boys: only about who learns how to tie knots and how not to burn eggs over a campfire. There has long been a de facto “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for youths in Scouting. Simply making that official might assuage faith groups’ concerns while expanding access for boys.
But it wouldn’t comfort those who demand a complete change, those who know national treasures make good trophies, and those who would prefer the BSA serve no one if it won’t include them.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
229 comments Add your comment
Buzzy
February 11th, 2013
12:51 pm
Some posters here act like the secularists are just outsiders. No, that is not the case. There are Scouts and Scout families who also want the rules changed.
What’s wrong with the compromise? Let each troop, or district etc. decide for themselves whether to permit gays. That’s what was on the table at the last board meeting.
Finally, this is a non-issue for most people below 35. This is really just an issue for old white men and women to argue at this point, the rest of society is ready to move on.
Politico
February 11th, 2013
12:52 pm
Buzzy
To a degree I’m with you on the age issue, but it is more than just whites, but nice try.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
February 11th, 2013
12:53 pm
Yet in Jesus’s own time, groups emerged which perverted the promise of Grace to further their own worldly goals of power and control.
Obviously I’m not qualified to judge anyone but myself, but you sure don’t come across on the blog as the Man of God that you proclaim yourself to be.
You’re singing my song, breckenridge. The craziest part about the fundamentalists is that they don’t see the value in keeping church and state separate.
The Zen answer to what to do next is that real truth is in everyday life. This may well be so: in a universe where knowledge defeats us, what can we do but be what we are?
Keep going, bruno, I’m interested to see where your version of the Bible leads us.
And for the sharia law morons in the blog sneering section, you cowards are the ones that fight Christianity and appease islam. The day that my preacher amputes someones hand, or starts raping little boys while stoning homosexuals, I’ll be the first to stop him. Unlike you.
indigo
February 11th, 2013
12:54 pm
Bruno – 12:36
Godel’s theorems are of mathematical logic and can hardly apply to any sort of Religious philosophy.
The “from the article” piece is essentially metaphysics, which is as barren of being proven as Christianity.
bluecoat
February 11th, 2013
12:54 pm
to become as little children to be born again(converted)
TBone
February 11th, 2013
12:55 pm
Hasn’t the Supreme Court confirmed the scout’s policy on this matter? If you (Tiberius) are such a staunch constitutionalist you should respect the court’s decision. No one is advocating segregation or discrimination but rather let this private organization operate the way it sees fit. Someone will always have their panties in wad.
Bruno
February 11th, 2013
12:57 pm
Social organizations exist to promote their values. If the values are “bent” into a circle, then what is the point of the organization. It is like the Supremes ruling that the Baptist Student Union had to consider candidates for office that were not Baptist, or Protestants, or even believers. I believed the case involved Vanderbilt University. These organizations then had to move off campus, and their value has become lessened.
Rafe–Completely private organizations are most certainly free to discriminate. E.g. I belong to some professional organizations in which you have to have a certain degree or state license to join. The problem occurs when public funds or facilities are used. I haven’t seen anyone definitively say whether the Boy Scouts qualify as a totally private organization, but here is a link which calls that into question:
http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/bsa.html
Personally, I think we need to end the tax-free status of all private groups, especially churches. I can’t tell you how many phony “ministers” I’ve met over the years who use their tax-free status to cheat the system.
indigo
February 11th, 2013
12:57 pm
Aesop – 12:53
You’re supposed to “love thy neighbor as thyself”. Calling people “morons” just is soooooo UNCHRISTIAN.
You had better call your fundamentalist pastor over for prayer and counseling. Together, you two can knell, hold hands, and pray for your forgiveness.
Politico
February 11th, 2013
12:59 pm
TBone
psst: Let you on a little secret. It is the BSA that is going to allow the local troops to decide. This is not in the courts.
Take it up with the BSA if you do not like their decision.
Rafe Hollister
February 11th, 2013
12:59 pm
Politico
Yes, cuts both ways, they can’t complain about loss of contributions. People should feel free to only support organizations and people they agree with, that is what I do.
Tib
Tradional family values. Mom and Pop, brothers and sisters, working together, respecting each other, to build a strong family and a successful man. Could work with a non tradional family as well, but that is not what they organized around, and if they want to change to include that, great, but the choice should not be forced on them by government, society, contributors, etc. Those people should form another better scouting organiztion if BSA doesn’t want to change their values.
Peadawg
February 11th, 2013
1:01 pm
“Hasn’t the Supreme Court confirmed the scout’s policy on this matter? ”
Again, yes they have. But donors have the right to withdraw funding also.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
February 11th, 2013
1:02 pm
“you cowards are the ones that fight Christianity and appease islam.”
I just ignore all religions.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
February 11th, 2013
1:03 pm
“If you (Tiberius) are such a staunch constitutionalist you should respect the court’s decision.”
This isn’t a government issue, TBone. It is the private organization’s issue. Pay attention, please.
Edward
February 11th, 2013
1:05 pm
BTW, there is no outside group instigating this issue with the BSA. For the most part, gay groups don’t give a rat’s ass about the BSA anymore, as long as PUBLIC money isn’t spent on them. This is a decision by the BSA themselves due to pressure from THE INSIDE, from their own TROOPS who are tired of the exclusionary rules. Isn’t this what conservatives have wanted, that organizations be able to decide for themselves? Just like with “states rights”, conservatives prove to be the biggest hypocrites on the planet.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
February 11th, 2013
1:08 pm
Edward, maybe if you used the term “religious right” you might be more accurate.
I am a fiscal conservative and a small government conservative, but I am a social liberal. I would suspect Bruno would also not wished to be lumped into a generic “conservative” label as well.
md
February 11th, 2013
1:09 pm
“In all liklehood, you will never mature to the point of realizing The Bible is nothing but expty words if it is not capable of being tested by experiment.”
Might be the pot calling the kettle black……one needs to understand that all beliefs are just that, beliefs. And just because we currently (operative word) can not test a theory does not equate to the existence of the possibility.
I’ve said it many times before when it comes to religion, it is a belief system, but I would suggest folks read up on the “science” (what we think we know as of today) surrounding the Shroud of Turin and one will always leave open the possibility that one is wrong.
As for the Shroud, it is said that even with today’s advanced technology the Shroud can not be duplicated……..explain that and one may have a better understanding of “possibilities”.
Bruno
February 11th, 2013
1:12 pm
The “from the article” piece is essentially metaphysics, which is as barren of being proven as Christianity.
Actually, no, indigo. If you wish to pigeonhole the quotes, they fall more into the area of epistemology, which is the branch of philosophy which deals with how we “know” things. And though you may be quick to sweep such considerations under the rug, understanding how we “know” things relates directly to the veracity of our knowledge.
In particular, Godel demonstrated that all self-referential statements have a built-in logical pitfall. Which is why I attempted to goad MiltonMan and Aesop into declaring that they know that their own place in heaven is assured based upon their own judgment of themselves.
Per the considerations of what constitutes a system (more technically a “closed system”), that is fundamental to applying the Second Law of Thermodynamics correctly. If you study the issue more deeply, you will realize that the SLOT is fundamentally flawed in that it predicts an amorphous Universe, which is the exact opposite of the Universe we live in.
The bottom line is that we have fooled ourselves into thinking that knowledge, particularly “scientific” knowledge, is somehow objective, and thus independent of the observer. The real truth is that “knowledge” is really “human knowledge”, and can only be expressed in symbolic (human) terms.
I admire your curiosity, but it appears you need to dig a little deeper before you can make such a generalization. In other words, the “objective” knowledge you seem to rely upon is anything but.
Bruno
February 11th, 2013
1:23 pm
one needs to understand that all beliefs are just that, beliefs. And just because we currently (operative word) can not test a theory does not equate to the existence of the possibility.
md–At the root of every body of “knowledge”, including “scientific knowledge”, lies a whole set of unspoken assumptions. Extremely intelligent folks get a glimmer of that now and again, but your average rube doesn’t. And, not so coincidentally, it is the rubes who express great certainty in their “knowledge”. In particular, the Bible thumpers seem to have great certainty about their wild claims.
In my case, I was lucky enough to go to a college in which the unspoken assumptions were never ignored. On every test, you had to state the assumptions which the equations were built on, or you received no credit.
bluecoat
February 11th, 2013
1:25 pm
Where is Will Jones he needs come talk to Bruno.
Aquagirl
February 11th, 2013
1:26 pm
but the choice should not be forced on them by government, society, contributors, etc.
No one is forcing the Scouts to do anything. The Scouts are entitled to exclude gays if they want. They have freedom of association.
Claiming freedom of association for yourself but defining other people’s non-participation as “force” against you is unabashed hypocrisy.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
February 11th, 2013
1:28 pm
As for the Shroud, it is said that even with today’s advanced technology the Shroud can not be duplicated……..explain that and one may have a better understanding of “possibilities”.
md – Not to mention, how did all this come into existence? Did it all just pop out of the tv set? There is Something responsible for Creating this, there has to be. You can go off and stare at the atoms all day, or you wake up. Your choice.
Which is why I attempted to goad MiltonMan and Aesop into declaring that they know that their own place in heaven is assured based upon their own judgment of themselves.
Yes, bruno, Jesus instructed us to be quite with all the God talk.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
February 11th, 2013
1:32 pm
And, not so coincidentally, it is the rubes who express great certainty in their “knowledge”.
Excuse me, but what exactly is bruno doing as he speaks? Did we discover a parallel universe in our extensive travels and now live in it?
Bruno
February 11th, 2013
1:33 pm
Not to mention, how did all this come into existence?
Well, Aesop, we’re finally back on common ground. The fancy term for “something out of nothing” is ex nihilo, which is pretty much the scenario described in the Bible, although it is presupposed that God pre-dates the Universe that we know. If you dig deep enough into theoretical Physics, they’re pushing the same idea, just a little more dressed up.
Enjoyed busting your stones today.
Del
February 11th, 2013
1:36 pm
I really have other things to do and shouldn’t give in to the temptation of getting deep into this discourse but some of these comments disgust me due to the hypocritical lack of tolerance from some on the left. First of all it’s a fact in spite of disagreement from some that Christianity is woven into the fabric of this nation from its birth. There is a large segment in our society who believe in God and that the word of God exists in the Holy Bible. If you’ve read both the Old and New Testaments in the Bible you know it’s made very clear that God views homosexual practice as a sin. Now you can call such people of which I’m one fundementalists, neandrothals, bigots, homophobes or whatever else you wish, however, when you do so, you yourself become a bigot as well as a hypocrite. You become both a bigot and a hypocrite because on one hand it’s bigotry to be intolerant of beliefs that have existed in this country from our very beginning. You’re a hypocrite because you call others intolerant and bigoted when you engage in that practice yourselves. In addition to those who believe in Christianity and the Holy Bible you have many in our society who may not be believers but none the less view homosexual behavior as a deviant sexual perversion and cringe at the thought of their children being indoctrinated by teachers in the classroom teaching them to accept behaviors that they as parents view as sexual perversions. Now we all know that some public school systems have taught students even at the elementary level subjects pertaining to alternative sexuality. It should be understandable why many would be concerned that similar teachings could occur within the BSA should it allow openly homosexual adults to become directly involved with their children or worse yet have their children molested by a homosexual pedophile. Once again as I posted earlier I don’t understand why anyone who has same sex attractions but still has a healthy motivation to work with youth needs to have their sexual orientation made known. Maybe the BSA asks that question in the application but if not, why not follow a DADT policy and so long as no individual steps over the line and discusses their sexual orientation and as long as it’s kept it private there shouldn’t be a problem.
md
February 11th, 2013
1:48 pm
“At the root of every body of “knowledge”, including “scientific knowledge”, lies a whole set of unspoken assumptions.”
Which is probably my biggest beef with “man made global warming”. Knowing that a model is used and the “numbers” for the earth’s first 4 billion years are assumed……..
md
February 11th, 2013
1:52 pm
“Not to mention, how did all this come into existence? Did it all just pop out of the tv set? There is Something responsible for Creating this, there has to be. You can go off and stare at the atoms all day, or you wake up. Your choice.”
Well, that is a never ending circle discussion and always will be in an infinite universe.
If “God” created everything, where did he/she/it come from?
I think life just is…………..and it’s forever infinite.
Dusty
February 11th, 2013
1:58 pm
Well, as usual, we have the ones who so proudly abhor the idea of a religious association with a church. Not that they have been in one lately unless someone got married there. But they are above such plebian worship centers.
Fine, my friends, go your way. I hope you are happy and thankful to someone.In the meantime. Don’t forget what lies at the heart of most churches, i .e. Love one another and that is what happens. Christians believe that. Christ showed us how.by the perfect example. .
Bruno
February 11th, 2013
2:01 pm
Don’t forget what lies at the heart of most churches, i .e. Love one another and that is what happens.
If that’s what it was all about, Dusty, I wouldn’t have a word to say in opposition.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
February 11th, 2013
11:23 pm
Jefferson: The times they are a changing.
——————–
Yep. People used to work for a living, and minded their own damn business.