Which sent me back to the General Convention archives for this from Denver in 2000 ... Resolution C031 entitled "Recommend Clergy to Engage the Boy Scouts of America on Issues of Sexual Orientation" and including:
Resolved, That the 73rd General Convention recommend that all clergy in charge of congregations
and vestries:
Inform the local Boy Scouts of America council and other organizations of the Episcopal Church's
policy adopted at the 65th General Convention (1976) that "homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoralconcern and care of the Church";
Encourage the Boy Scouts of America to allow membership to youth and adult leaders irrespective
of their sexual orientation;
Strongly encourage individual churches which charter or host scout units to open a dialogue with
the unit leaders, scouts, and their parents regarding discrimination against youth and leaders on
the basis of sexual orientation;
Engage in educational programs within their churches to inform members and others about these
issues; and be it further
Resolved, That the 73rd General Convention recommend the Office of the General Convention send
a copy of this resolution to the National Office of the Boy Scouts of America.
====
That was July 2000. This is January 2013. See also: "The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice."
30 comments:
While I would love to believe that the moral force of TEC and others pushed BSA to this point, it should be obvious that the erosion of financial support from businesses and government agencies was more likely the factor that caused the senior executives to loosen their grip on this policy.
The decades-old myth to which they clung, that gays are a subset of child molesters, didn't exempt them from instances of child sexual abuse. Now they will have to adopt a more mature and rational approach to leading our youth.
While I would love to believe that the moral force of TEC and others pushed BSA to this decision, I am more inclined to believe the erosion of financial support from corporations and governments was the trigger. BSA execs have abandoned their iron grip on this policy, their decades-old myth that gays are a subset of sexual predators having proven to be without merit, over and over again. Even their steadfast ban didn't exempt them from instances of predation. Now, will we see more mature and rational policies bubbling up from the ranks?
Except they are still banning atheists. Is the Episcopal church willing to stand up for non-theists who might want to join? (Note this can include humanistic Jews, non-theistic Buddhists, some Unitarian Universalists, etc.)
Oddly enough I don't think the BSA ever officially said homosexuals were banned because they were a subset of child molesters (though plenty of their supporters did) perhaps knowing that at least in the last 40 years that argument wouldn't fly in the courts. Instead they just said they weren't morally straight which, being a religious argument, is not something the courts get involved in.
Having been registered in the BSA for 30+ years, the last 20 in units sponsored by an Episcopal parish, I thought I'd weigh in.
This is what has been called "local option". Just as a unit can decide not to have female members, it can decide to not have homosexual members.
As far as leaders go, I personally don't care. My unit has had at least one gay leaders that I know of. I'd be fine with having others as long as they understand that they are there to promote the BSA program and not their personal beliefs - and let me assure you that I've taken aside leaders with conservative social and religious beliefs and told them the very same thing.
Gay kids? At the Cub Scout level (ages 6 - 10) I don't anticipate that there'd be much of an issue one way or another. At the Boy Scout level I'd want to sit down with the parents and warn them that I suspect a gay kid would be risking a larger chance of abuse. Not from the leaders - from the other Scouts. We can't watch every kid every minute in camp - especially at night. Don't forget that Scouts sleep together. The older kids I wouldn't worry so much about - they generally have figured things out. But in that range of 11 - 14 I've seen kids do some cruel stuff. It's going to depend on the community, whether it's urban or rural, conservative or liberal. And it doesn't have to be abuse, it can just be a lack of acceptance and inclusion, which in and of itself I've seen really hurt kids.
Do we teach kids not to do that? Of course. Now, tell me how long it takes them to learn it. A kid doesn't internalize the values of the Scout Law and Scout Oath the first time he hears them. It takes a while.
Erp, you are misinformed. Even though the Scout Oath requires people to do their "Duty to God", the BSA interprets the concept of "God" to include non-theistic spiritual beliefs. Non-theists are and have always been eligible to join the BSA. I've had dinner at a Scouting banquet held by a Buddhist temple in Chicago. UU's, no problem. As long as one acknowledges some spiritual power higher than the material plane you are eligible to join. Now, atheists who simply don't believe in any higher power are NOT eligible. Kind of hard to profess a "duty to God" in such a case.
So, Susan, I have a question for you. Presuming that National Council actually adopts this as policy - which is by no means assurred, regardless of the reports I've heard on NBC and elsewhere today - are you willing to consider sponsoring Scouting units at All Saints?
Whether or not All Saints Church would/should sponsor a Boy Scout Troop would be a question for the Rector of All Saints Church. And that would not be me.
I will say that if I was the rector (or vicar) of a congregation and there was energy in the congregation to sponsor an inclusive scouting troop I would be open to the conversation.
I had a talk with the other leaders in our Troop (we are sponsored by an Episcopal parish in the SW Chicago suburbs).
A couple of the leaders were not particularly happy. But no one is saying "I'm taking my kid out and leaving". I put forward the following that everyone - including, in a later conversation, my pastor, seems to agree with:
If someone shows up with their son and want to enroll him and become a leader, fine. But they, or any other leader, needs to understand that the purpose of being a leader is to promote the Scouting program as outlined in the various publications, training courses, etc. They are not there to promote "diversity" or the acceptability or desirability of any particular social or political position. And I assure you that I have given this very same directive to leaders who have espoused conservative views and fundamentalist Christian views. People bring their kids to us to get the Scouting program, not to be indoctrinated in either liberal or conservative political or social philosophies.
We also figure that given that all the kids know we're all married and who our wives or husbands are the same information will end up being known by the kids about any homosexual leader. Fine. I don't expect anyone to be closeted. But none of the heterosexual leaders make any "public displays of affection" in front of the kids - embracing, kissing, etc. I would expect any homosexual leaders to meet the same standards everyone does.
A fair answer.
Giving the matter some time to percolate among the parish, and the time necessary to see if this proposal actually becomes policy, I'd be curious to know what the reaction around All Saints is and whether you see any such energy there.
It has been proposed by supporters of this change that any losses that the BSA may sustain would be countered by people who had heretofore been put off by the B.S.A.'s membership policies and would now consider joining. The opponents hold that the people pushing for this change by and large are special interest groups that have no intention of actually doing any such thing. So the reaction among parishes such as yours interests me.
Ron, do you even know any gay and lesbian people? I really wonder about that from the tone your comments.
From my experience in churches, gay and lesbian couples self-censor much more than straight couples. They're much less likely to show any physical affection, such as hand-holding, much less kissing and erotic embracing (beyond the usual kind of hugs exchanged at the peace).
A number of years ago I was a member of parish where the rector was gay and partnered. The parish leadership complained that, because of self-censorship, he spoke less about gay and lesbian issues than a straight rector would have.
"Ron, do you even know any gay and lesbian people?"
Yup.
"From my experience in churches, gay and lesbian couples self-censor much more than straight couples."
From my experience in churches, straight couples self-censor themselves in churches too. From my experience outside of churches - well, let's just say it doesn't match yours.
I think the largest "special interest group" that wants the BSA to change their policy consists of those of us who recognize the full humanity of every human being.
I don't see how ASC forming a Boy Scout program is relevant. We have so many youth programs now, along with an overworked staff, that it seems unlikely that will become a priority. If, however, there is a demand, we will. If we do not, does that make our support of BSA inclusion somehow invalid?
I support marriage equality but I'm not planning to divorce my wife to marry a man.
I don't know where ronF is hanging out with gay people "outside of churches" but the fear that gay people cannot "meet the same standards everyone does" as BSA leaders is nonsense.
Ron, perhaps things differ geographically.
I live in Los Angeles and, as an exercise nut, spend a great deal of time in our area parks and beaches. I regularly see straight couples making out in those public areas, some to the point of what a friend of mind calls "clothed humping."
Very occasionally (and I do mean very) I will see a walking gay couple holding hands. But I've never seen gay couples doing anything in public remotely approaching the straight couple behavior described above.
Perhaps things are bit wilder and woolier in suburban Chicago that I previously thought.
Ronf,
The BSA Legal web site which is officially sponsored by the BSA had as of 2008 the following on BSA policies:
"Because of its views concerning the duty to God, Boy Scouts of America believes that an atheist or agnostic is not an appropriate role model of the Scout Oath and Law for adolescent boys. Because of Scouting’s methods and beliefs, Scouting does not accept atheists and agnostics as members or adult volunteer leaders."
Admittedly the statement has now gone from the web site.
And from the BSA Declaration of Religious Principles "The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members." This sounds to me as very much a theistic god. I believe all adult members have to sign a statement that they agree with the declaration. Now an atheist could sign it but it would be tantamount to saying they think they and other non-theists aren't capable of being the best kind of citizen. Many will sign (many probably don't even read it) so as to volunteer in a program which despite its avowed discriminatory nature in practice in many individual troops often doesn't.
BTW are you aware of the dispute the Unitarian Universalist Association has with the BSA over the UU religious program on the issue of god and gays and that the UUA religious emblem is no longer recognized by the BSA (there is now a separate UU religious program and emblem that is recognized by the BSA but not by the UUA).
Ronf,
The BSA Legal web site which is officially sponsored by the BSA had as of 2008 the following on BSA policies:
"Because of its views concerning the duty to God, Boy Scouts of America believes that an atheist or agnostic is not an appropriate role model of the Scout Oath and Law for adolescent boys. Because of Scouting’s methods and beliefs, Scouting does not accept atheists and agnostics as members or adult volunteer leaders."
Admittedly the statement has now gone from the web site.
And from the BSA Declaration of Religious Principles "The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members." This sounds to me as very much a theistic god. I believe all adult members have to sign a statement that they agree with the declaration. Now an atheist could sign it but it would be tantamount to saying they think they and other non-theists aren't capable of being the best kind of citizen. Many will sign (many probably don't even read it) so as to volunteer in a program which despite its avowed discriminatory nature in practice in many individual troops often doesn't.
BTW are you aware of the dispute the Unitarian Universalist Association has with the BSA over the UU religious program on the issue of god and gays and that the UUA religious emblem is no longer recognized by the BSA (there is now a separate UU religious program and emblem that is recognized by the BSA but not by the UUA).
"If we do not, does that make our support of BSA inclusion somehow invalid?"
It has nothing to do with your support being valid or invalid. I'm just curious as to what the attitudes in ASC might be given that we've had discussions on this in the past.
"We have so many youth programs now, along with an overworked staff,"
Running a Scouting program would have little to no impact on ASC's staff. The Unit Committee and the unit leaders are all generally parents of the children involved. Sometimes people who have been Scouts in the past might get involved (and it's not unusual for people to stay involved after their child leaves the program). The only impact on ASC's staff would be where "parent of Scout" happens to intersect with "member of ASC's staff". The pastor and/or youth minister would have a meeting or two with Council staff to help organize a startup meeting with concerned parents, but that would be all that would be necessary. After that the Unit Committee and leaders carry the ball with help from a New Unit Commissioner from the local Council. A New Unit Commissioner is an experienced Scouter whose job it is to guide them and help them in the process of being successful in getting the unit going and providing a great program to their Scouts.
"This sounds to me as very much a theistic god."
I understand that this is what it sounds like to you. Nonetheless, it is National policy (not just that of individual units) that non-theistic faiths are included as satisfying the Declaration of Religious Principle. Understand that when I was at that Scouting banquet I accompanied representatives of the local Council who were also there, and that the religious awards authorized for wearing on the BSA uniform includes ones for Buddhism.
I am vaguely aware of the UUA award controversy, but I confess I'm not up to speed on the details. Which I must also confess is kind of ironic given that my own brother retired a couple of years ago from a position as Youth Minister for a UUA congregation.
"I don't see how ASC forming a Boy Scout program is relevant."
I'm just curious. I wouldn't say that what ASC does or does not do is indicative of what similarly-oriented congregations are, but it's one I have contact with so I thought I'd ask.
"We have so many youth programs now, along with an overworked staff,"
Your staff and the load that your current youth programs put on them is actually not much of a factor. Scouting units have a unit committee and a set of leaders, and all of their members tend to be parents of the Scouts, parents of Scouts that have graduated, or alumni of the units that have stuck around in the area. There's really no need for ASCs staff to get involved, past perhaps a meeting with someone from the local Council at the very beginning and then an initial organizational meeting with whatever group of interested parents might get put together. After that the ball will be carried by those parents, plus a New Unit Commissioner - an experienced Scouter who lives in the area who will act as an advisor for the unit (or units) and a communications conduit with them and the local Council.
"I don't know where ronF is hanging out with gay people "outside of churches" but the fear that gay people cannot "meet the same standards everyone does" as BSA leaders is nonsense."
You're right. It is nonsense. That's why I didn't say that they couldn't. Note that the word "cannot" above is NOT in quotes. I said nothing of the kind.
Just to "reset" the record, the rector is the only one who could speak to starting a BSA troop here at ASC ... so speculation about what or why we might do which or when is perhaps a pleasant way to avoid doing whatever is in your "inbox" you don't want to deal with but not exactly productive.
There are also multiple schools of thought on whether this step by the BSA goes far enough ... and an emerging consensus that it does not. Look for an Op-ed by Bishop Gene Robinson coming soon ... and also from Bishop Tom Ely of Vermont ... himself an Eagle Scout who has gone on record saying the "local option" isn't good enough.
And now back to planning the Lenten study series, Holy Week preaching schedule and confirmation presentation on evangelism. (That's what I'm avoiding in MY inbox!)
Hm. So, then, if "local option" isn't good enough, what would you have the BSA do? Tell it's units that if they don't want an applicant to become a leader they have to permit them to register as a leader anyway if they are homosexual? Force parents to take someone on as a leader even if they don't want him or her? And how would this be enforced?
Heck, that gives them a greater privilege than women. The BSA has in the past told it's units that they could not register certain people as leaders (e.g., women could not become Scoutmasters until 1986), but it has NEVER told units that they HAD to register certain people, nor have they ever demanded that a unit justify why they refused to register anyone. How do you propose to change that?
It would be interesting to hear from someone like Bp. Robinson on this topic before the BSA's board acted.
"Just to "reset" the record, the rector is the only one who could speak to starting a BSA troop here at ASC"
Of course. That would be SOP from the BSA's side. The charter to start a unit (Pack, Troop, Crew, Team, or Post) is signed off at the start (and every year afterwards) by either the Institutional Head (in the case of a church, the pastor) or someone directly designated by the IH to be the Chartered Organizational Representative (a position I hold). Believe me, the local Council would not be looking to talk to anyone else. If someone else from the church called - even if they claimed to represent a group of parents - the District Executive for that area's first question would be "What does your pastor think of this?" If the answer was along the lines of "Oh, he doesn't know about this yet" or "She not on board" the matter would drop right there unless the parents got the pastor on board.
OTOH, once the pastor approved, the pastor could be as involved or as hands-off as they wished.
In an interview with CBS, anchor Scott Pelley asked the president if he believed scouting should be open to gays.
"Yes," Obama said simply.
----------
Asked to elaborate, Obama – who last year said he supports the right of same-sex couples to marry – said gays and lesbians should be able to participate in "every institution" that others can.
"My attitude is ... that gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does, in every institution and walk of life," he said.
Political Process 101:
Set the goal post further than you think you can get in order to step back into a compromise you're willing to settle for as the next step in the journey toward the ultimate goal. (AKA in this case as "Liberty and Justice for All.")
Local option is NOT "good enough."
And it is a huge step forward.
AND we're not settling for anything less than the whole enchilada.
Here ends the PoliSci 101 segment of our program.
A nice bit of misdirection, but it doesn't answer my question. Adoption of local option does, in fact, does give homosexuals the same access and opportunity to participate in Scouting that everyone else has. They - like me - would be able to join any unit that will have them, subject to the approval of the sponsoring organization. In fact, they can even start their own unit - just like I've done, twice in fact.
So what, then, represents the "whole enchilada" to you? Specifically, mind you? Not expressed as a vague idealistic concept, but as a specific policy that the BSA would adopt that would put them on the same footing as anyone else?
The "whole enchilada" is ending discrimination against LGBT people.
Period.
Is that specific enough?
Post a Comment