As anticipated, and at long last, the Boy Scouts of America have voted to allow openly gay men and lesbians to be adult employees and volunteer leaders. As the AP notes, however:
Several denominations that collectively sponsor close to half of all Scout units—including the Roman Catholic church, the Mormon church and the Southern Baptist Convention—have been apprehensive about ending the ban on gay adults.
The Boy Scouts of America’s top leaders have pledged to defend the right of any church-sponsored units to continue excluding gays as adult volunteers. But that assurance has not satisfied some conservative church leaders.
“It’s hard for me to believe, in the long term, that the Boy Scouts will allow religious groups to have the freedom to choose their own leaders,” said the Rev. Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. “In recent years I have seen a definite cooling on the part of Baptist churches toward the Scouts,” Moore said. “This will probably bring that cooling to a freeze.”
While conservative religious leaders aren’t happy, LGBT activists aren’t overjoyed, either:
Stuart Upton, a lawyer for the LGBT-rights group Lambda Legal, questioned whether the BSA’s new policy to let church-sponsored units continue to exclude gay adults would be sustainable. “There will be a period of time where they’ll have some legal protection,” Upton said. “But that doesn’t mean the lawsuits won’t keep coming. … They will become increasingly marginalized from the direction society is going.”
Moreover, in a released statement headlined “Local Exemptions Will Allow Discrimination to Continue,” Chad Griffen, president of the Human Rights Campaign, lamented that “including an exemption for troops sponsored by religious organizations undermines and diminishes the historic nature of today’s decision.”
The conventional wisdom goes that if activists on the right and left are both unhappy, then it’s probably an appropriate, centrist solution. And that may be true here. Church-sponsored BSA troops are somewhat unique in that the Boy Scouts are not a self-defined religious organization, but troops are highly identified with, and reflect the characteristics of, their local sponsors.
It’s unclear how future lawsuits will turn out, but the public is unlikely to support LGBT activists on this one (polls show a majority favor religious exemptions from anti-discrimination law, even among those who support marriage equality).
More. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released a statement saying “the admission of openly gay leaders is inconsistent with the doctrines of the Church and what have traditionally been the values of the Boy Scouts of America,” and that “When the leadership of the Church resumes its regular schedule of meetings in August, the century-long association with Scouting will need to be examined.”
Given that troops sponsored by the Mormon church will have a religious exemption allowing them to exclude gay adults, the response seems excessively churlish and suggests that the Mormons believe all scout troops must abide by Mormon values. That’s as polarizing, and totalistic, as the progressives who believe in no exemptions for religious organizations that sponsor troops.
Furthermore. This AP story reports that the Mormons may be looking for an opportunity to form their own worldwide scouting movement for boys, completely under church control. Similarly, the LDS does not sponsor Girl Scout troops and instead oversees its own Young Women’s program.
That’s a loss for Mormon youth, as one of the great benefits of scouting is the way it brings young people into contact with others from diverse backgrounds.
Also, via the Washington Post, Why Mormons are so devastated by the Boy Scout vote on gay leaders.
21 Comments for “Boy Scouts and Religious Freedom Exemption: Battle Awaits”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
As anticipated, and at long last, the Boy Scouts of America have voted to allow openly gay men and lesbians to be adult employees and volunteer leaders.
The BSA is a private organization. The policies it adopts from time to time are entirely its own business. Not so with government policies and government-sanctioned discrimination.
Church-sponsored BSA troops are somewhat unique, in that the Boy Scouts are not a self-defined religious organization, but troops are highly identified with, and reflect the characteristics of, their local sponsors.
Church-sponsored BSA troops are the norm, not “somewhat unique”. BSA claims about 2.4 million members. Of those, 1.6 million (or 2/3) belong to troops that are church-sponsored. The remaining third of BSA troops are sponsored by PTA’s and other parent groups, private schools, and community groups of one sort or another.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Yes, the Boy Scouts of America is a private club, so they get to sort this out for themselves (which dose not preclude critics and complaints). I think that when the Boy Scouts of America dropped the ban on Scouts, a new, Christian based Scouting-type group was formed.
I suspect that VERY few Scouts or Scoutmasters will actually come out in certain parts of the nation. Especially, in more “red” communities, where it will likely continue to be something along of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
In large, more “blue” and “purple” communities, I suspect that a handful of Scouts and Scoutmasters will come out, but it probably will not actually be a surprise to most of the folks involved in local Scouting.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
The Boy Scouts of America is a private, voluntary organization that provides temporary services to youth. The leadership of the group gets to decide who can be Scouts and who can be Scoutmasters.
A leadership of a church, temple, mosque or synagogue gets to decide (within its own walls) who can be a member, who can be a priest or a cleric, and how they want to deal with marriage and divorce among its members.
The challenge is that in protecting First Amendment rights (such as religious freedom) cannot turn into a situation where (a) obedience to any law becomes optional and (b) (in particular) we cannot have a situation where equal opportunity/civil rights laws cease to exist.
Lets have a serious conversation about how to protect religious freedom and civil rights!
posted by another steve on
I took “somewhat unique” to mean different from either purely secular or purely religious. Tom, you go out of your way to criticize something, anything, more often trivial than substantive. Hope you find that therapeutic, at least.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Oh, BS, Steve. But I can be certain that none of the so-called “libertarians” commenting on IGF is going to engage in a substantive discussion when an issue is raised. Dead silence.
posted by Lori Heine on
Well, this “so-called libertarian” is always up for a substantive discussion. I think the matter should be decided on the basis of whether a “private organization” receives public funding.
Any so-called private organization hooked up to Uncle Sugar should be prohibited from discriminating. We all pay taxes to support them. An organization that is truly private, because it stands on its own, should be exempted from anti-discrimination laws.
This is, indeed, a very consistently libertarian way of viewing the issue. Libertarians who march to the battlements every time a supposedly private organization claims an exemption on the basis of “religious freedom” are being inconsistent as far as their own principles are concerned.
The only way to unhook supplicants from Uncle Sugar is to balance privileges with responsibilities. And that unhooking is supposedly a task libertarians want to accomplish.
posted by Wilberforce on
I like the double standard of this.
It’s all important for a private group to make a buck, and they should also have the power to choose who they won’t serve.
They can use publicly funded roads and utilities and police protection and commerce laws and financial bailouts. Their right to make a buck trumps all other concerns, including the basic decency of non-discrimination.
It’s another example of the manic selfishness of republicans over riding all other issues.
posted by Lori Heine on
I’m not talking about using roads, utilities or police. I’m talking about the Santa Claus-size bag of special favors, tax breaks, protections and goodies that big corporations and many “private” organizations receive–which is why they’re so big (and so much more prosperous than everybody else) in the first place. But I understand your logic.
As a libertarian, I just want these gigantic and voracious entities to play by the same rules as everybody else. I want a level playing field. If, for example, another organization for youth starts up–one that does not discriminate in any way against LGBT’s, people of color, etc.–it should no longer be blocked from being able to compete with the Boy Scouts, strangled in government red tape, etc.
The Boy Scouts have been beneficiaries of a whole lot of government largesse. They have been given every advantage over any other organization that might want to start up. There’s nothing “American” about that. Not unless America really is a rapacious, corporate-run empire instead of the republic it was supposed to be.
As a taxpayer, I don’t want to fund bigots. I don’t want to fund them privately or “publicly.” If they can’t make it on their own, but require my support as a taxpayer, then the piper should call the tune.
Turning the national discussion down this path would open up a huge and very messy can of worms. It’s why the bloggers at IGF, and every other Republican and “conservative,” want to avoid it. I gleefully anticipate it–because it will indeed happen.
posted by Jorge on
“Uncle Sugar” indeed. The government rewards people who suit its moral values: tax breaks for people who get married and for organizations that it believes provide a public service without obtaining a profit. That’s government speech in one telling, the will of the people in another.
The provision of public services based on morality judgments is a violation of the Equal Protection provision of the 14th Amendment. There are certain government actions for which one’s social or political viewpoints, one’s preferred career path, and whether one has children, are irrelevant, and simply none of the government’s business. The government should not send police or build roads only in black neighborhoods that don’t like the police and don’t believe in discriminating against gays.
posted by Jon on
I agree. Receive federal or state funding, then require NO discrimination.
posted by Houndentenor on
The national organization no longer forbids gay scout leaders. It’s not requiring them. Local organizations can still make their own decision. So for the LDS church it’s not enough that they don’t have to allow gay scout leaders. Oh no. They need to ban them altogether or they’re taking their toys and going home. If that’s not the definition of bigotry I don’t know what is.
posted by Jorge on
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released a statement saying “the admission of openly gay leaders is inconsistent with the doctrines of the Church and what have traditionally been the values of the Boy Scouts of America,” and that “When the leadership of the Church resumes its regular schedule of meetings in August, the century-long association with Scouting will need to be examined.”
There are surprises within surprises. The religious behemoth that was most accepting of lifting the ban regarding children is narrowly the most rejecting of lifting it regarding adults.
Did something happen in their church that our Gay News missed? Hmm, actually I think we should look at the other two big churches. The Southern Baptist Convention’s churches already acted. Some of them chose to separate. The Catholic Church has also already acted–on gay marriage. The current Pope is said to take a moderating tone regarding ministering to gay persons. With the recent Supreme Court case on gay marriage, in at least one church I went to, the pastor was content to critique against the decision and say that religious persecution is part of the Catholic experience…. Not quite what I meant, but that’s the reason the Church tends to keep its mouth shut.
So that’s one thing that’s going on. I also think it’s likely that the Latter Day Saints’ reaction is collateral damage from the swift and surprising speed with which this decision came about. The change regarding gay youth took decades to occur, and was deliberated over many months. More months were spent discussing the lifting of the scouting ban and courting the various religions than have elapsed since Robert Gates’s first statement on this matter. Thus this series of votes was more reckless.
I find former secretary Gates’s reasoning to be a little off kilter. How can there be the threat of continued boycotts after the BSA lifted the anti-gay ban? How can lawsuits be a threat when there is a precedent in BSA’s favor–from its own lawsuit!–and anti-discrimination employment law consistently fails?
The promise to support church’s rights to determine the membership of their own youth groups is silly. This is already protected by the Constitution. Fairly recent Supreme Court decisions on the First Amendment give easy social (if only arguably legal) principles to defend.
Moreover, in a released statement headlined “Local Exemptions Will Allow Discrimination to Continue,” Chad Griffen, president of the Human Rights Campaign, lamented that “including an exemption for troops sponsored by religious organizations undermines and diminishes the historic nature of today’s decision.”
I think this type of reaction is just another sad example at how some people fit the role of the snake in the fable of the girl and the rattlesnake to a T.
posted by Jorge on
Furthermore. This AP story reports that the Mormons may be looking for an opportunity to form their own worldwide scouting movement, completely under church control.
Echoes of World Vision, but BSA’s demographics can weather a mass exodus in the short run.
In the long run, I think it is unlikely they will sustain themselves without the energy of churches. BSA will endure if history is written so that this becomes a moral decision. If the rationale becomes one of pragmatism, it will not do as well.
Although, really, in the grand scheme of things, there is no reason for an organization devoted to good works should have worldly success.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
That’s a loss for Mormon youth, as one of the great benefits of scouting is the way it brings young people into contact with others from diverse backgrounds.
At least some Mormons seem to have a different perspective: “I have faith in our leaders, I’m sure they already have piles of ideas that will benefit our youth and their leaders all over the world. Scouting provided a valuable program to the church for many years and if they choose to continue with scouting, I’ll continue to support it. But I’d love to see the church create something new; we can do better.” (emphasis mine).
posted by Houndentenor on
Meanwhile in Texas…
http://www.khou.com/story/news/local/texas/2015/07/31/texas-refuses-to-issue-same-sex-couples-death-certificates/30924943/
So much for Republicans backing down on the gay marriage issue once the Supreme Court ruled.
posted by Mike in Houston on
The real next battle in the religious liberty right to discriminate against LGBT people is gearing up here in Houston – now that the TX Supreme Court decided that forged signatures and flawed petition pages are irrelevant and HERO will be on the ballot this November.
Looking forward to Stephen’s homocon support (Duggar-esq robocalls?) for the anti-LGBT forces that say transgender people aren’t entitled to use a public restroom without a strip search & gay people aren’t entitled to rent or buy housing … because, you know, Jesus.
But seriously, the religious right is making Houston a test case for not only turning around public accommodation protections for LGBT people but creating the roadmap for overturning marriage equality.
posted by Houndentenor on
How is the polling on the repeal? Of course all the focus from the religious right is over trans people using the restrooms. They have no shame. They don’t dare just focus on working with gay people because most people don’t have a problem with that any more. I’m sure there’s apprehension about this in Houston (I’m a former Houstonian but don’t live there any more) because of how badly this went the last time there was a repeal attempt of a nondiscrimination ordinance, but I think this time they aren’t going to have nearly enough votes. Now if it included the burbs, yes, but the city itself? I don’t think so. At least I hope not.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Sorry for the delay in reply… here’s the situation:
1. City Council (today) voted against repealing HERO.
2. Per the SCOTX writ of mandamus, Council was then required to place the issue before the voters this November.
Yesterday & today, a great deal of discussion about the ballot language — the anti-HERO lawyer wanted the city to have language be YES = Keep it; NO = repeal it… intimating that they would sue (again) if they didn’t get their language. In the end, the Council voted to use the same language as the petition drive:
A Yes vote is for repeal. A No vote is to keep HERO.
(Testimony yesterday included the Houston Sports Authority warning that if HERO loses, Houston will likely lose the NCAA Final Four in 2016 and the Super Bowl in 2017.)
A big push will be launched for the pro-HERO effort tomorrow. The anti-HERO folks will be holding a church rally against HERO and marriage equality next Tuesday.
The pastors council has also sued the city for damages and violations of “religious liberty” for having the temerity to legally subpoena them as part of their lawsuit’s discovery process… it’s clearly a nuisance suit and will go nowhere, but it makes for good fundraising with the Sweet Cakes crowd.
posted by Jorge on
Looking forward to Stephen’s homocon support (Duggar-esq robocalls?) for the anti-LGBT forces that say transgender people aren’t entitled to use a public restroom without a strip search & gay people aren’t entitled to rent or buy housing … because, you know, Jesus.
You mean Jesus, Mary, Joseph. Why shouldn’t men use restrooms for men and women use restrooms for women? Isn’t it obvious enough who’s who without making a law that puts people under a microscope for making reasonable assumptions?
It’s not? Well then why don’t the people in Houston do the mature thing and just deal with it as it comes, without having a law that allows people to file lawsuits over failed bathroom negotiations?
Write a law that allows people to sue over refusal to provide service, and ban lawsuits over good faith failures to provide service.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
BRILLIANT! When a Transgender person pees/craps in his or her pants, because they were denied access to a W.C., I am sure that the possibility of a lawsuit will certainly make them fell better.
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
1. It looks like the headline is a bit deceptive. Local troops affiliated with a church will still be able to exclude gay Scout leaders/volunters.
2. When leadership of the BSA opted to end the ban on gay youth, a seperate officially Christian youth group was created.