The BSA Funding Hornet’s Nest

Earlier today I posted a Scouting-related tweet that provoked drew a strong reaction from several people. Here’s the tweet:

Intel Corporation: Pull your financial support until the Boy Scouts pull their anti-gay policy http://www.change.org/petitions/intel-corporation-pull-your-financial-support-until-the-boy-scouts-pull-their-anti-gay-policy … via @change

I was asked if I thought that it was better for Scouting to lose funds. I was asked how doing this would help the boys in Scouting. I was told that it was abusive and manipulative to use funding to try to effect change in Scouting’s policies over what is a relatively minor matter.

I am a former Boy Scout, my son is a Boy Scout, I have just been registered as an adult Scouter, and my daughter is looking at joining a Venture crew sometime in the next year. I think that Scouting is a fantastic youth program. So how can I support Scouts while calling for Intel to defund them?

I have two main reasons to support the petition to Intel.

Reason 1: Choices have consequences

The value of Scouting isn’t just the outdoor skills and learning how to handle yourself in the wilderness; it’s in the character formation that goes along with the outdoor program. Scouting teaches principles and duty. Scouting youth often drop out when they hit a certain age because of the peer pressure they’re getting by being different, by standing up for their beliefs and values. The kids who stay in Scouting learn that making a stand comes with consequences. It is precisely this kind of character formation that many former Scouts go on to say is the most valuable lesson they learn from Scouting.

The national Scouting organization has now said multiple times that they see having gay Scouts and Scouters as somehow being incompatible with Scouting ideals. Intel and the other companies identified in this article by Andy Birkey on The American Independent (linked to from the petition, BTW) have made their policies on charitable donations crystal clear. These policies are not new. These companies need to make sure their house is in order by verifying that their giving is in line with their policies (as the ones in orange have done). However, Scouting has a responsibility here too. By continuing to accept money from organizations such as Intel in violation of their stated donation guidelines, I believe that Scouting is sending the message that money is more important than principles. I’ve heard a lot of justification for accepting the money, but when it comes right down to it, taking donations from these companies when you don’t comply with their guidelines is hypocrisy, plain and simple. I think Scouting is better than that.

Whether I agree with the national organization’s stance on gay Scouts/Scouters or not, I think the unwritten message is doing more harm in the long run that the immediate defunding would do. I’m confident that should Scouting actually have the courage to turn down this money, alternate funding sources would quickly emerge in today’s polarized climate. Look at the Chik-Fil-A protests and responses if you doubt me. So no, I’m not worried that there would be long-term financial damage to Scouting.

It’s not like this is a theoretical situation for my family. Our local troop enjoys a high level of funding thanks to Microsoft matching contributions to the men and women who volunteer as our Scouters and committee members, many of whom are full-time Microsoft employees. I suspect that Microsoft’s policies are actually the same as Intel’s, based on their publicly stated policies for software donations to charities. If Microsoft were to stop funding Scouting (or Scouting were to stop taking Microsoft dollars because of this policy) our troop would be directly and severely affected.

I personally know at least two gay Scouters, and I suspect I know more. Scouting would somehow find the money to replace the lost donations. I don’t know how they’d replace the people I’m thinking of.

I’ve talked this over with my son on multiple occasions. When we discussed this particular petition and the fact that I was going to publicly support it, we talked about the implications. I asked him if he had any concerns. His response: “Do it, Dad. Scouting needs a kick in the ass.” (Yes, he’s my kid.)

And if you think I’m somehow being abusive or manipulative for supporting the use of defunding as a tool for policy change, go back to that Birkey article:

In a brief filed in the landmark case of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, a lawyer for the LDS Church warned that the church would leave the scouts if gays were allowed to be scout leaders.

“If the appointment of scout leaders cannot be limited to those who live and affirm the sexual standards of BSA and its religious sponsors, the Scouting Movement as now constituted will cease to exist,” wrote Von G. Keetch on behalf of the LDS Church and several other religious organizations in 2000. “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — the largest single sponsor of Scouting units in the United States — would withdraw from Scouting if it were compelled to accept openly homosexual Scout leaders.”

According to the Chartered Organizations and the Boy Scouts of America fact sheet, as of December 31, 2011 there are over 100,000 chartered Scouting units, with nearly 7/10 of them chartered by religious organizations. In the tables in that fact sheet, we see data on the top 25 religious charterers, top 20 civic charterers, and the educational charterers – giving us data on 55,100 units (just over half) and 1,031,240 youth. According to this data, the LDS Church sponsors almost 35% of the Scouting units in the BSA. Yet, according to this same data, they have only 16% of the actual youth in Scouting. The youth-to-unit average for the LDS Church is a mere 11.1, which is the lowest of any organization (or group of organizations) listed in the fact sheet data.

Several of the organizations on that list, including the next largest religious sponsor (the United Methodist Church – 11,078 units, 371,491 youth, 33.5 youth per unit, 10% of the total units, and 14% of the total youth) would support and welcome gay Scouts and Scouters. The LDS Church gets to be vocal about it because of that 1/3 number of units – that translates into money for Scouting. This kind of ultimatum is in fact what manipulative behavior (using the threat of defunding) looks like.

Reason 2: People who see a problem need to be part of the solution

I’m continuing to get more involved with Scouting for one simple reason: I believe that if I see something I think is wrong, I need to be part of the solution. I don’t think it’s right that Scouting be in a position where it can have its cake and eat it too. However, I’m not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater; I see the incredible value the Scouting program gives to young men (and the young women who participate in the Venturer program).

My own religious beliefs and principles move me to be more involved precisely because I think Scouting needs more Scouts and Scouters who are open about their support for changing these policies. I know people who gave up on Scouting; I refuse to be one of them.

I want Scouting to change its policies, but I’m willing to keep being a part of it during those changes. I’m not trying to take my bat and ball and go home if the game doesn’t go my way. I want Scouts to continue producing young people of character for future generations.

Want to see the data I’m looking at? I got the fact sheet from the link stated above, brought the data in Excel, and added formulas for unit/youth ratios and percentages. I’ve put this spreadsheet online publicly via SkyDrive.

Things They Forgot

Pat Robertson’s comments on Haiti basically boil down to “they got what was coming to them.” Mr. Robertson, I think you forgot Matthew 25:34-46 (KJV):

34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Rush Limbaugh may have forgotten the above as well. His claims that Obama is using humanitarian aid for political profit definitely seem to have forgotten Matthew 7:15-20:

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

If that last passage seems a bit murky, here’s a quote from C. S. Lewis’s The Last Battle (the last book of the Chronicles of Narnia) that I have always loved. The speaker is a Calormene soldier, Emeth, who has had a life-changing encounter with Aslan during the last hours of Narnia:

He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he had truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child?

By their fruits ye shall know them…whatever their claims.

Defend THIS

Iowa’s Supreme Court handed out a fairly shocking unanimous decision this morning striking down the definition of marriage as “one man, one woman”, upholding a 2007 Polk Country ruling

If you follow along my blog, you probably already know that I think this is a good thing, so I won’t comment extensively on it here. However, there’s one section in the article I linked to above that just reeks of so much stupidity that I have to respond:

Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, a New Jersey group, said “once again, the most undemocratic branch of government is being used to advance an agenda the majority of Americans reject.”

“Marriage means a husband and wife. That’s not discrimination, that’s common sense,” she said in a press release. “Even in states like Vermont, where they are pushing this issue through legislatures, gay marriage advocates are totally unwilling to let the people decide these issues directly.”

Really? Ms. Gallagher, did you really just stoop to the “30 billion flies eat shit” argument to justify your position? You lose.

Okay, to unpack that for anyone who didn’t follow that train of thought:

Ms. Gallagher is relying on the tactic of telling people “the government is ignoring your opinion.” By telling people this, she’s playing on a fundamental ignorance of the design and intent of the American government system, which is the tired old myth that America = democracy = the will of the people = only tolerating Christian values. Let’s see what our founding fathers had to say about that:

It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.
Federalist No. 14

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
Benjamin Franklin

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.
John Adams

It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.
Patrick Henry

I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, (A)nd if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.
Thomas Jefferson

I have always thought that all men should be free; but if any should be slaves, it should first be those who desire it for themselves, and secondly those who desire it for others. Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on them personally.
Abraham Lincoln

I could go on all day and find tons of quotes, but the key threads that I’m weaving here are these:

America is not and was never intended to be a pure democracy. Remember the phrase “the tyranny of the majority”? Basically, it’s great to be in a democracy if you’re part of the 51%. Not so much to be in the 49% Our democratic functions are not set up to allow citizens to directly decide upon laws and legislation and the handling of day-to-day governance; they are set up to elect responsible leaders who do that for us, and to give us mechanisms to take those leaders out of the picture when they fail to discharge their responsibilities. That’s the “democratic republic.” Remember the Pledge of Allegiance? “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands…”

By electing responsible leaders (including legislators and judges), we are in fact giving those leaders the mandate to act in the fashion they see as best. If we don’t like what they do with that mandate, then we’d better pay attention and give them feedback. You can’t leave the people out of the equation, but you can’t directly hand them the keys to the kingdom, either. That’s why we have checks and balances, including the judicial branch of government. It is their job to say, “No, these laws are causing harm and cannot be used, even though they are popularly supported.”  The exercise of democracy should never come at the expense of depriving others of their liberties. How long did popular opinion support and uphold slavery, and how much damage did that do to our country (and continue to do today)? How long was racism enshrined in our laws? Sexism? If you’re counting upon the will of the people to make the correct choice every time, you’ve got a pretty grim track record of results.

America was designed to be a refuge for all religious belief systems, not just a narrow stripe of fundamentalist Christianity. This includes religious systems that directly challenge basic beliefs of Christianity. It was never designed to be a system that promoted Christianity over all others, even though the majority of founders were Christians, espoused Christian ideals, and wanted to see this country continue to be based on a set of morals not completely incompatible with Christianity. When push came to shove, most of the founders espoused liberty and freedom *over* Christian principles as a guiding principle for the government. They reasoned, correctly, that Christianity could flourish in an environment where liberty was pursued, but the reverse was not true (as had been graphically demonstrated). That is, the proper place for Christian values is on the individual level and in our relationships with others, not hard-wiring our specific interpretations into our functions of government. Religion + bureaucracy + power = corruption of values and lessening of liberty.

Let me leave you with this final challenge if you’re still thinking that it’s your religious duty to enshrine your notion of marriage into the laws of our nation:

Show me a comprehensive case in Scripture for collective Christian political activism. Remember the specific accusations the Pharisees made against Jesus to Pontius Pilate and his answers to Pilate in return. Remember his response to the commercialism in the Temple, how his fiercest criticisms were reserved for those who used religion to gain and maintain power. And then take a look at the agenda and funding of groups like National Organization for Marriage and Focus on the Family who are leading this fight to preserve marriage (whatever that really means) and tell me how they’re not gaining power and money from their collective activism.

Jesus in my arm

Summer is here and school is out, so the kids are looking for more to do. One thing they won’t be doing for the next couple of weeks, however, is riding their bikes.


You see, some bastard(s) stole their bikes at some point in the last couple of days (we were out most of Friday, so it could have been any time from Friday afternoon until Saturday afternoon. We assume that the parties who felt the need to liberate the bikes from our carport are the same parties who helped themselves to Nick and Steph’s bikes last Sunday. (Nick stored his bike here since he doesn’t have room at his apartment.)


Needless to say, the kids were pretty upset yesterday when they’d put on their helmets and went out to ride. These bikes were their major Christmas presents and were the first brand-new bikes either child has owned. They’ve taken pretty good care of them, all things considered, and really enjoyed having mountain bikes with multiple gears.


I’m not sure how we’re going to replace them at this point. Nick offered to pick up a couple of new bikes for them in a couple of weeks, and we’ll probably let him help us out, but he’s not going to shoulder it on his own. We need to find some way to scrounge up the money from what is a tight time of the year for various reasons (mainly because we’ve been aggressively paying off debts). Steph, of course, immediately started looking on Craigslist and Freecycle, but Nick suggested — and I agree with him completely — that we may want to spend the extra money for new bikes, since the kids’ bikes were new and were lost through no fault of their own.


I’m trying to maintain a good attitude about this. After all, like I told the kids, their mother and I believe that God gives us financial resources for many reasons, including ministering to others, and if someone is in a bad enough place in their lives to steal someone else’s bike then a) they probably need it worse than we do and b) they have to answer to God about it. The kids are pondering that one thoughtfully; they don’t entirely accept it, and I honestly don’t expect them to, especially since I flat-out admitted that that’s a hard one for me to keep my head wrapped around all the time. It did, however, get them thinking about the general wisdom of getting really attached to material things (and carefully picking which things, if any, you get attached to), which is a huge step forward.


I, however, just want to find the people who made my kids cry and introduce their face to my aluminum baseball bat. With all the love of Jesus in my arm, of course.

Rare or well-done?

Today commemorates the burning at the stake of Thomas Cranmer, archbishop of Canterbury under Henry VIII and Edward VI, at the hands of the court of Mary I. Cranmer was influential in guiding the reformation of the churches in England as they broke (over several issues, not just divorce) with Rome and became the Church of England. He was opposed to the practice of clerical celibacy and penned the first two revisions of the Book of Common Prayer, the key liturgies of the CoE.


Cranmer was convicted of treason for his support of the Lady Jane Grey, and spent two years in prison until Mary completed negotiations with the Roman Catholic Church and was able to appoint a new archbishop in Canterbury. During this time, Cranmer had signed several recantations that, according to laws Mary had enacted, should have spared his life. Instead, she charged him with heresy in February of 1556 and burned him at the stake on March 21 of the same year.


No matter how you look at him, Cranmer was a man of rare talent, and he faithfully executed what he saw as his duties to the Church (even when they brought him in conflict with his patrons). He is still remembered and honored for the strong imprint he placed on the CoE and, by extension, the churches of the Anglican Communion.


Thanks to TNH for the reminder.

A nine-word poem

My friend Mir was telling me about a writing challenge she's been working on lately on one of her web forums; someone posts nine words and then people write a poem incorporating them.


I decided to do something different: write a poem in nine words.

Discipline.
Commitment.
Relationship.

Can't I have easy lessons, God?

Boy, I wasn’t kidding…

…in my last post when I said this was the year of the outage. About the time Steph and I tried to get the domain controller back online, we had a completely unrelated bit of breakage take down the blog server for another several weeks. Finally tracked it down and fixed it this weekend, and in the process fixed more of the cruft on the servers.


But more about me later; it’s time to do the Advent wreath with the family.