The Boy Scout Membership Issue

You may recall that not long ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in favor of Boy Scouts of America's right to have its own membership policy regarding openly gay homosexuals (basically "don't ask, don't tell," as had been in the military).  But apparently, 2 CEOs sitting on the BSA national board have recently been (along with gay activists) pushing to change that policy from within.  Over the past few weeks, BSA-registered adults & parents of registered boys have been sent a survey on their feelings regarding various real-life scenarios pertaining to the current policy.  

For more on the survey, you can Google "Voice of the Scout."  From a Scouting Magazine blog describing the survey (http://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2013/03/14/voice-of-the-scout-membership-policy-survey-questions-give-scouters-parents-a-chance-to-be-heard/) "If you are a current member and you have not received a survey, you may visit this link to register your member ID number and receive a link for the survey after your information has been verified. Parents of Scouts can also use this link to get a survey. You should use your child’s ID and indicate you are a parent and input your own demographic information."

After survey results have been compiled, the BSA national board will come out on April 23 with a resolution (either no policy change, or some change, e.g., let each chartering organization decide).  Then May 23 at the national annual meeting in Texas, about 1,500-2,000 voting members (must be present) will vote on the resolution.  Voting members include the 72-member national board (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Executive_Board_of_the_Boy_Scouts_of_America/), with proportional representation from the LDS Church -- the largest sponsor of troops (17%), including Pres. Monson, the longest-tenured board member.  Also voting will be at least a couple non-professionals from each council -- the council president & commissioner, and one more representative for every 5,000 registered Scouts in the council -- the L.A. Area Council would have 3 of those.  

The LDS Church is observing its 100th year of Scouting this year, and I have personally been in Scouting over half that time -- Cub, Eagle Scout, Scoutmaster, Commissioner, etc.  There has been no LDS Church stand or position on the issue to this point, because there has been no definite proposal or resolution by BSA.  "The Church isn't into the speculative business."  At some point (after April 23 or May 23) -- at least if a change passes -- we might expect the First Presidency to make a Church policy statement.  Brad Allen, speaking at our recent multi-stake Little Philmont training day, did note that recently Scouts Canada did open their program to open homosexuals, and the Church did not withdraw LDS Scouts from their program.  Presumably it was a non-uniform policy where each chartering organization could decide its own policy, which is the likely proposal that will be voted on here.  When asked if the Church has any fallback option, should they decide to withdraw, he also noted that in countries where there is no Scouting program, the Duty to God program is a substitute.  But other churches (e.g., the Southern Baptists) are already threatening to pull out of Scouting if there's a change.  I understand some 70% of sponsoring organizations are churches. Others are organizing:

Boy Scouts Members Form National Coalition to Retain Gay Policy

By Anugrah Kumar , Christian Post Contributor

March 23, 2013|11:23 am

http://www.christianpost.com/news/boy-scouts-members-form-national-coalition-to-retain-gay-policy-92472/

My Letter to BSA (the L.A. Area Council voting members)

Below is a message I sent to our Council "Big Three" -- at least 2 of whom will be voting on behalf of the Council at the National meeting on membership policy in May.  In addition to the online survey results, and information meetings this past week, they are considering inputs by email.  At the information meeting I attended March 23, I found myself & 1 Catholic the only ones out of 11 at our table (there were 3 other similar tables) supporting the current policy.  It was an interesting and lively experience as we discussed one by one the survey questions.  I seemed to be the most outspoken person at the table that included a lawyer and a minister, and the opponents seemed to have little rational argument -- basically just the desire to be compassionate & inclusive, damn the consequences.

"I just wanted to share some additional thoughts I’ve had since the information meeting yesterday.  There I shared concerns of inter-troop interactions if there is no uniform policy, etc.

Scouting goes to great lengths in the area of youth protection because there have been problems in the past, including both heterosexual & homosexual issues.  The policy includes no females in tents with males, unless married -- a policy with heterosexuals in mind.  To avoid the same types of sexual activity problems, one would expect then that if the membership policy were changed, consistency would demand a policy of no homosexual males in the same tent with other males (hetero- or homosexual).  Which would mean that they could not share a tent. 

Why, then, now make a giant step back from current youth protection standards by relaxing the homosexual side of that? Is that discriminatory against heterosexuals?  Or does that assume that the sexual drives in homosexuals especially at the age of high hormones and incomplete mental development is less than in heterosexuals, especially among males? 

That is not to say that every homosexual is going to be sexually active in a troop.  But neither does it take that assumption regarding heterosexuals to institute all the youth protection measures Scouting already has.

But based on experience, it seems to be playing Russian roulette with youth protection (not only in the shared tent scenario) and is bound to create more problems than it solves.  There are prices for people making compassion and inclusion the overriding criteria.  We can be compassionate also for the future and past victims by using sense now.  And homosexuals can be considerate of the standards that the majority of (religious) Scouting chartering organizations embrace.  And it doesn’t mean we can’t still be considerate, kind and compassionate towards homosexuals otherwise, or that they can’t form their own organization with their own standards, rather than transform another.  Or that we can’t reach out to many other boys who can benefit from Scouting. 

If we relax this standard, where does it stop?  Which other standards are next as we try to be compassionate and inclusive and allow units to pick and choose which ones they will take as if at a buffet?  “Duty to God” is already a problem with open/vocal atheists, etc., trying to change that standard.  Do we cave to that to accommodate them, also?  Do we abandon the “duty to country” loyalty?  Some in Islam feel their beliefs justify lying for the sake of jihad, which calls into question “trustworthy” in the Scout law.  Because we cannot agree completely on all aspects of what constitutes “morally straight,” do we open it up completely, or at least maintain the currently common core? 

What kind of example does this set for our youth when we encourage them to maintain their other standards in the face of peer pressure, when their adult leaders give in to their peer/PR pressure in society to compromise one of the current standards of Scouting?  What kind of principles, values and standards are they that can be bought and intimidated by corporations and activists? 

If the policy changes, there will be instances where boys and adults will take advantage of the policy and victimize unsuspecting/defenseless Scouts, and there will be scandals, lawsuits and outcries like we’ve seen with the Catholic Church.  I predict that if the current policy is changed, the day will soon come that the decision will be regretted, because the results will be far worse than the overly-touted fears of funding drying up, or being harangued by gay activists.  As the scripture says, “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind....”  (Hosea 8:7)

And if the majority (or even a significant fraction) of current Scouts and leaders leave Scouting as a result of a change because their chartering organizations that are churches disagree with the decision, what kind of Scouting is left?  It may be well-funded (and not attacked by gay activists) but not worth funding.   Which is more destructive to Scouting?  You be the judges, and live with the consequences.  Who are the true owners and trustees of Scouting -- those who uphold its values or those who do not?

And even in the worst case scenario, if Scouting is to die, at least let it die not in shame, but in honor and as a shining light, holding true to its founders and founding principles and values.  It needs its values more than certain levels of funding.  And those who hold true to those values will likely be willing to sacrifice more, and do without to maintain something of value.