Replies

Yes, and there are some pretty liberal Scouters who'd love to get some sort of local-option going that would flank and bypass the BSA leadership in Texas, settling the issue de facto in favor of the James Dales, notwithstanding the BSA's recent SCOTUS victory.

After all, outcomes are what count, right?

Not sure what you're talking about in that last sentence. I'm going to presume that what you're talking about is that you suspect that some people in the Scouting movement figure that "the ends justifies the means", and so they'll try any way to do an end run around the rules that National has promulgated.

However, National's own processes aren't exactly a model of transparency. What religions are represented on the Relationships Committee? Who are the members, and how are they chosen, and how many votes does each one get? Good luck getting answers to those questions out of Irving. Lots of people in Scouting feel that they have been left out of the process, and that conservative elements in Irving took their own "the ends justifies the means" attitude.

Who does Scouting belong to? A couple of hundred professionals in Irving? The National Executive Board, chosen by who knows what process and criteria? The sponsoring organizations nationwide? Their representatives at National, again chosen by who knows what process and criteria? Or the 6+ Million members of Packs, Troops, Crews, Ships, Teams, and LFL groups? But then, if the latter, you can't just have mob governance.

I am not arguing for moral relativism. There must be standards, and "Trustworthy, Loyal, ...." and "Physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight" sound pretty good to me. But the Scout Oath and Scout Law, like Scripture, are subject to interpretation; and unlike Scripture, can't claim Divine authorship and inspiration. The leadership in Texas can't arrogate to themselves the authority to interpret the SO and SL without letting the rank and file in on how that interpretation was reached.

The leadership in Texas isn't exactly seen as responsive by the rank and file on many matters, not just this. They can just as fairly be accused of "the ends justifies the means" as anyone.

Actually, the most interesting case in all of this is what the Minuteman Council (Boston) is doing. Basically, they seem to be pushing Irving to see just who gets to define what "avowed" means (as in "avowed homosexuals are not suitable role models for children"). National has, since the beginning of the BSA, always allowed local Councils some latitude in interpreting policies to fit local circumstances. The amount of latitude has depended on the policy. Health and safety and membership criteria have usually had the least flexibility.

Remember, the BSA hasn't banned homosexuals outright. They've banned "avowed" homosexuals, and have yet to define what "avowed" means. The BSA knows very well and has stated publicly that it has gay and lesbian members, and specifically has avoided trying to hunt them down; "Don't ask, don't tell" has been the model, and they do a better job of it than the military does. But it varies. In some councils, rumors are enough to get the staff checking you out. In others, you'd have to lead the Gay Pride parade down Main Street. Is National going to set standards? What will National do if another James Dale comes up and this time is supported by the local Council? Stay tuned.