"WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE BOY SCOUTS' DISCRIMINATION"
Rev. Roger Bertschausen
Fox Valley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship
2600 E. Philip Ln.
P.O. Box 1791
Appleton, WI 54912-1791
(920) 731-0849
Website: http://fvuuf.org

November 12, 2000


Reading: by Frank Edward Allen, reprinted in the newsletter of the Appleton/Fox Cities chapter of PFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), November 2000

A few weeks ago, I surrendered my Eagle Scout medal and asked for removal of my name from the Eagle Award Registry...

I have cherished the honor of being an Eagle. For nearly 40 years, my Eagle medal has had a prominent perch at home, reminding me constantly of so many happy, profound, character-shaping experiences. For all that time, the spirit represented by this medal has nourished my belief in unselfish service to neighbors and strangers, to community and country. For all that time, I have considered Scouting remarkably effective in helping adolescent males become good men. But now, Scouting has lost its moral compass. Current leaders of the BSA pervert the meaning of morally straight in the Scout Oath. They wrongly equate morally straight with having a straight or heterosexual orientation. I reject this false equation and the official Boy Scout policy of hostility toward men and boys who are gay. My own orientation is heterosexual. I am straight, but I refuse to be narrow...

When a fire destroyed our church, my eldest son, Zachary, helped restore it by designing safe playground toys and then gathering a crew to build them. That effort was his Eagle Scout project. As a youth, he also worked in soup kitchens, promoted a recycling network in his township and volunteered for organizations that ease suffering among Amish children with rare genetic disorders. Zack graduated from high school with high honors. At Stanford University, he helped bewildered young people strengthen their sense of self-worth and graduated Phi Beta Kappa. Now he manages a growing organization in the non-profit world. Zack surrendered his Eagle Scout Award, too. He is gay, and he sees no place for discrimination or prejudice among the ideals of the Boy Scouts of America. I stand up for him, now and always. He is a fine person, a man of character and empathy. Character and empathy are what matter. Being gay or straight is not a measure of a person's worth...

The Supreme Court of the United States upholds the legal right of the Boy Scouts of America to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. But a legal right isn't always a moral imperative. The Supreme Court protects the legal right of free speech for the Ku Klux Klan, but such protection does not constitute moral approval of the KKK's hateful discrimination...For almost a century, the Scout Law has inspired American boys and young men to develop good moral character. But how does discrimination against boys and men who are gay uphold the Scout Law? What is loyal or helpful or friendly or courteous or kind or brave about prejudice? How does the teaching of discrimination and prejudice help boys and young men become trustworthy? How does it help them develop a sense of fairness and justice? Finally, how does the practice of discrimination and prejudice show reverence? Aren't all children God's children? Didn't Jesus teach that we should love and respect our neighbors and treat them as we would want to be treated? Would Jesus want to be a Scoutmaster today?

At the heart of ethics is discernment. When facing an ethical choice, we must use our hearts and wisdom from previous experience and especially our minds to discern what the best course of action will be. Many, maybe most ethical decisions have layers and layers of complexity. Different aspects of the choice facing us point to particular actions while other aspects point against these same actions. Right and wrong usually is not black and white.

Gandhi suggested that ultimately all ethical choices are like this: more gray than black and white. As human beings, we never know for absolutely sure that the ethical choice we discern to be the right choice really is. This is a fundamental yet often ignored reason Gandhi preached a politics of non-violence: he could not physically attack someone in support of an ethical position that might be wrong. Even as he felt so passionately about Indian independence to risk his life over and over again, he always remembered that he could be mistaken. He always remembered the possibility that the British just might be right. How can you attack and perhaps kill somebody to promote a cause that might not be right?

A central question in the discernment process is: What is right? Given what I know about the ethical question and my own values and morals, what is the right thing to do? A second central question is: What is good? What contributes to the common good? In terms many Unitarian Universalists find meaningful, you could put this second question like this: What contributes to the well-being of the interdependent web of all life?

So we have two central questions in ethical discernment: What is the right thing to do? and What is the good thing to do? Sometimes the answers to these two questions are the same; other times they are not the same, adding still more layers of complexity to the ethical decision we face.

It's hard this week not to think about the presidential election. These two questions were part of each voter's ethical decision of whom to support. Certainly many voters contemplating support for Ralph Nader asked themselves these two questions and worked through their sometimes conflicting answers. Given their values and morals, they supported Nader. But given the likely reality that Nader as a third party candidate had no chance of winning, the question of the common good may have yielded a different answer. Was it better for the common good to cast a vote for Bush or Gore because one's vote might be decisive in which of them won? Or was it better to vote one's conscience regardless of the impact a vote for Nader might have on whether Gore or Bush won. A voter in this situation had to discern which question (and answer) was more compelling.

I believe the current situation with the muddled election results produces an ethical quandry as well. To me the right thing to do is clear: make sure every vote gets counted correctly and every person gets to cast a vote that counts. This means that the right thing to do in Palm Beach County is to have a new vote with a clear ballot so everyone in the county has the opportunity to cast a vote that will count.

But I believe this is not the good course of action. In the absence of any evidence of fraud, I believe we must accept the mistakes made in Palm Beach County--and the mistakes that would inevitably turn up in states Gore narrowly won such as Wisconsin. Our American system calls for fair, not perfect elections. A long, drawn out legal fight with every electoral imperfection challenged is not good for our country. It will, as we've already seen, bring out more bitterness and enmity in our already divided society.

As I contemplate this ethical question--particularly the disputed ballot in Palm Beach County--I believe the good action outweighs the right action. There should not be a revote in Palm Beach County. We should wait to declare a winner until all the ballots have been counted in Florida--including manually counted if that is what needs to be done to get the most accurate count. Given how close the vote is, we should also wait until all of the absentee votes are counted before a winner is declared. Then the result should be accepted. This means that the Bush team should stop acting like he's the President-elect, and even more importantly, the Gore team should stop threatening legal challenges to the Palm Beach County and other alleged irregularities. We all need to wait until the Florida election authorities certify a definitive winner, and then accept the result and move on. This course of action will promote the common good, in spite of the injustice that will be done Palm Beach County voters who messed up their confusing ballots.

These same two questions--what is right and what is good--are questions to contemplate as we each consider how best to respond to the Boy Scouts of America's admitted discrimination against gays and lesbians. As is true in contemplating any ethical choice, it is good to begin by gathering information on the choice. So let me start with some background.

The first thing to mention is that the Boy Scouts discrimination goes beyond gays and lesbians to include people who don't necessarily hold traditional beliefs about God. Unitarian Universalist boys among others face this discrimination. As Unitarian Universalists, we don't share a common belief in God. Freedom of individual conscience is the foundation of our faith, dating back at least to the great edict of religious freedom issued by the Unitarian king of Transylvania in 1568. Because of this foundation of freedom, adult and young Unitarian Universalists hold a wide variety of views about the existence and nature of God. Many UU's of all ages--both in this Fellowship and across our continent--do not believe in God. Atheism is a proud and significant part of our heritage, and though many UU's do believe in God, all of us defend the right of each person to decide for him or herself this central religious question. Walking together in our liberal faith but not always believing the same thing, we are a free church. This is the core of our liberal faith.

In May 1998, the Boy Scouts of America ordered the Unitarian Universalist Association to stop conferring its "Religion in Life" award to Unitarian Universalist Boy Scouts. The BSA specifically objected to the line in the Unitarian Universalist Association's Religion in Life manual which referred to the "trouble that some Unitarian Universalists may have regarding the duty to God." This line in the manual acknowledged that Unitarian Universalists hold a diversity of beliefs about the existence of God and the nature of God. The BSA deemed this diversity--at the heart of our liberal faith--unacceptable. The same letter to the UU Association complained that our Association disapproved of the Boy Scouts' membership policy relating to homosexuals. But make no mistake: the central reason for the BSA's action was our theological stance.

Our Unitarian Universalist Association worked with the Boy Scouts to develop a new Religion in Life manual that would contain nothing objectionable to the BSA. Both parties agreed to a text in September 1998. In May 1999 the BSA backed out of its agreement and rescinded its decision to reinstate recognition of the Religion in Life award for Unitarian Universalist Boy Scouts. The BSA did so because it found separate materials the UU Association made available to Scouts receiving the Religion in Life award to be objectionable. A year-and-a-half later, Boy Scouts who are Unitarian Universalist still cannot receive a Boy Scout sanctioned Religion in Life award. Our Fellowship has several boys involved in Boy Scouts. Because of their UU faith, these boys cannot be full participants in Boy Scouts.

The Boy Scouts of America's discrimination against gays and lesbians is better known. Last spring, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the BSA has the first amendment right to bar gay and lesbian adults from serving as scoutmasters. While this official BSA policy of discrimination against gays and lesbians may not be felt in every troop, I believe the value judgement behind it filters into many Boy Scouts' experience. Scouts learn that gay people are immoral, unwelcome and deserve discrimination.

Discrimination on the basis of religion and sexual orientation is wrong. This is how I answer the first question of ethical discernment: the Boy Scout policies against atheists and gays and lesbians are wrong. They give the message to Scouts that it's okay, maybe even praiseworthy to discriminate against certain individuals. Imagine the message this sends to Scouts who might be gay. Imagine the message this sends to Scouts who are Unitarian Universalist. It tells them that they don't belong in the Scouts. It tells them are somehow unclean and immoral.

My son was in Scouts until my wife and I pulled him out because of our disagreement over the Boy Scouts policy and practice of discrimination. What if he stayed in Scouts and, as he grows into a young man, discovers he is gay? What would the Boy Scout discrimination say to him about his value and worth as a gay person? What would it do to his self-esteem? And if he's straight, what would that policy teach him about accepting people different from himself? What would the Boy Scouts discrimination against Unitarian Universalists say to him about the validity and worth of his faith, particularly if he comes to believe God doesn't exist?

Our local United Way has a program called United with Youth. This program teaches that self-esteem and equality and social justice are some of the developmental assets our youth need to grow up to be healthy adults. The United with Youth program names "valuing diversity" as a positive attitude and behavior exhibited by healthy youth. The Boy Scouts of America through its discrimination works against these assets and values. Rather than enhancing the common good by helping boys grow up to be healthy adults, the Boy Scouts of America now works against the common good by sowing the destructive seeds of prejudice. Its official policy of discrimination on the basis of religion and sexual orientation erodes the common good.

So here's my answer to the second question of ethical discernment. The Boy Scouts' discriminatory practices and policies are neither right nor good. They fail on both counts.

Perhaps this comes down to competing visions of the United States of America. I believe our country is great because of its diversity, not in spite of it. I believe at the core of our great country's heritage is the belief that all people are created equal. I believe that we need to build bridges to each other crossing the differences that divide us. We need to build bridges of love and acceptance and friendship, not moats that separate us and promote intolerance and even hatred.[1]

The Boy Scouts of America is not a totally evil organization. They have done and continue to do good in our community. Just consider all the food they collected a few weeks ago for our local food pantries. But their policy of discrimination so flies in the face of what is best about our country and works so profoundly against the common good by attacking self-esteem and the value of equality that I feel called to speak out against the policy. And I feel called to speak out against the organization that continues to embrace discrimination so enthusiastically and stubbornly.

A few weeks ago I had the privilege to share my perspective with the United Way Fox Cities' Executive Committee which is examining its position on funding the Boy Scouts. Our local United Way currently funds the Boy Scouts to the tune of $186,250. I urged the United Way to cut this funding. I believe this is the right and the good thing to do--even though it might jeopardize the United Way's ability to fund other worthwhile programs in the Fox Cities and harm the good aspects of the Boy Scouts' program. Put simply, the United Way should not be in the business of supporting an organization that blatantly discriminates on the basis of religion and sexual orientation. I also plan to join those who are asking our public schools if giving space and support to an organization that intentionally discriminates is appropriate.

If you feel strongly about this issue, I hope you will let your voice be heard, too. Contact the United Way. Contact the schools. After contemplating this ethical issue and coming to your own discernment, act.

I say this to all of you--whether you agree with me or not. The way of our liberal religion tells us that the minister's view is not authoritative, that each one of us has the freedom and the responsibility to come to our own ethical conclusions. I know there are people here today who disagree with my answer to one or both of the ethical questions I raise about the Boy Scouts. I encourage you to act and speak as well.

The Unitarian Universalist Morris Dees was in town a few weeks ago sharing a powerful message of tolerance. Dees and Rosa Parks, the brave African American woman who with Martin Luther King, Jr., helped launch the civil rights movement, are co-chairing the National Campaign for Tolerance. They are hoping to get millions of Americans to sign a Declaration of Tolerance. Copies of this Declaration are available on the shelf across from the bathrooms. I invite you to take a copy and consider signing it. If you choose to sign it, there is an address at the bottom of the Declaration to which you can send your signed copy.

Here are the words of the Declaration of Tolerance:
Tolerance is a personal decision that comes from a belief that every person is a treasure. I believe that America's diversity is its strength. I also recognize that ignorance, insensitivity and bigotry can turn that diversity into a source of prejudice and discrimination.
To help keep diversity a well-spring of strength and make America a better place for all, I pledge to have respect for people whose abilities, beliefs, culture, race, sexual identity or other characteristics are different from my own.
To fulfill this pledge, I will...

I have taken this Pledge of Tolerance. My public response to the Boy Scouts' discrimination is one way I am trying my best to express the values of the Pledge of Tolerance in my concrete words and actions. Putting your values into concrete words and actions is the great challenge of ethics.

Copyright 2000 by Roger B. Bertschausen. All rights reserved.

[1] I am indebted in this paragraph to the ideas of Morris Dees expressed in the public address he recently gave at Appleton West High School.