My son, brought up Unitarian Universalist, accepting and respectful of other's beliefs, may never pass muster if judgement in a Board of Review is coming from someone with a Fundamentalist Christian perspective.

Yah, here's da thing, drmbear. Da Fundamentalist Christian lad may never pass muster if judgment in a Board of Review is coming from someone like you with a UUA perspective. Rather than bein' open and tolerant, you have expressed that you feel his views are "ridiculous". So who is bein' discriminatory?

There are different perspectives on Global Warming depending on who you ask. That does not mean that one particular perspective isn't right, eh? It just means that lots of folks can be ruled by their own ignorance or biases or self-interest. Steppin' away and sayin' that all perspectives should be treated with the "ideals of non-descrimination, acceptance, and respecting the belief of others" to my mind is abdicating a duty, eh? It's abdicating one's duty to (seek) the truth, and to educate. Abdicating that duty can have genuine consequences for all of society.

Now, yeh might make a case that it's easier and more civil if we let da anti-global-warming folks, or the anti-evolution folks, or the anti-gay folks have their own chartered schools where they can teach their own values and have their own teachers. But is that somethin' we as a public want to support? That yeh want your tax dollars to go to? That yeh want your name and reputation affiliated with?

How is that different from Scouting, eh? At one level, I'll agree that it's easier and more civil if we let each CO do its own thing. But then is that something that we as a Christian majority want to support? That we want our donated scouting dollars to go to? That we want our names and reputations affiliated with?

That's a hard question. There's a claim that lots of folks stayed away from Scouting because of its membership position on this issue. I think that's just a claim myself. But if it's true, then doesn't it stand to reason that lots of other folks will leave scouting because of its membership position on this issue? Is that what we want for da community? Does that show respect for their "ridiculous" beliefs?

Beavah

Wow!!
I don't ever remember a thread going to ten pages as fast as this!
I did read the first six pages but that's as far as I got.

I think maybe it's time for me to admit that I was wrong when I said this would never happen in my life time.

This local option does seem to make a lot of sense.
Of course what happens next? - Is the $64k question.

My great hope is that this will act as a wake up call for many of our CO's. And they will take more of an interest in what's going on and who is signing up as adult leaders.

I'm not sure what happens when a Lad in a unit that doesn't allow gays comes out?
But we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

With this one issue out of the way, we can now return to talking about the evils of cell phones.
Ea.

Wow!!
I don't ever remember a thread going to ten pages as fast as this!
I did read the first six pages but that's as far as I got.

I think maybe it's time for me to admit that I was wrong when I said this would never happen in my life time.

This local option does seem to make a lot of sense.
Of course what happens next? - Is the $64k question.

My great hope is that this will act as a wake up call for many of our CO's. And they will take more of an interest in what's going on and who is signing up as adult leaders.

I'm not sure what happens when a Lad in a unit that doesn't allow gays comes out?
But we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

With this one issue out of the way, we can now return to talking about the evils of cell phones.
Ea.

I noticed the quick pileup of pages too, Eamonn. But when you consider the number of total pages that have been expended on this issue in this forum over the past 15 years or so (hundreds of pages?), when the policy is suddenly (apparently) about to be reversed, a lot of comments are to be expected. Not to mention that someone threw the issue of atheists into the mix; that one's always a crowd-pleaser as well.

We are at a cross-roads, if the reaction here is any indication there is quite a diversity in the ranks. BSA has been losing membership and corporate support.

No matter which direction we go, we will face controversy. If the mebership qualifications are changed, then we gave in to the PC crowd and we stand firm then we are sexual oritentation bigots who need to get up with the times

Going with the present membership qualifications we can see how its worked out, maybe changing will be for the best. Actually, I dont know and it may be time to try out a different position, can't be much worse than where we are now

As I have said, and Scouter Terry put it in his article. The wrong turn was when BSA decided to change policy and take this decision away from the CO. Had they not done it, whether it was in the 70's, 80's or 90's I don't much care (it was not always the policy).. But had they stayed the course of leaving the decision making of ALL unit leaders up to the CO, they would have sailed through this polarized period in history without a scratch.

"Wow!!
I don't ever remember a thread going to ten pages as fast as this!"

It also helps to have a whole bunch of duplicate posts.

Another change, I think the upcoming Scout Sunday will be pretty interesting

The General Commission of the United Methodist Men (which oversees all Scouting for the UMC) has just released the following statement regarding BSA's policy change. It will be left up to each local church to determine whether or not they will allow gays and lesbians into Scouting - either as a youth or a leader.

Statement from GCUMM

Gilbert Hanke, top staff executive of the General Commission on United Methodist Men, says that both he and Larry Coppock, national director of scouting ministries, were consulted by the leadership at the highest levels of BSA prior to the proposal to change membership requirements.

Basically this proposed change removes a national membership requirement dealing with sexual orientation and allows those decisions to be made at a local level consistent with charter organizations perspectives, said Hanke.

The United Methodist Book of Discipline clearly supports the rights and liberties for all persons, regardless of sexual orientation.

In 2012, 6,700 United Methodist congregations enriched the lives of 363,876 young people through 10,868 Cub Scout packs, Boy Scout troops and Venturing crews.

We consider our scouting program as a ministry to the community and a way to provide the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relations with God, with others, and with self (2012 Book of Discipline 161F), said Hanke.

These proposed changes will allow local churches to reflect those tenets in their membership requirements. It does not force changes, but allows local churches control over these requirements.

These proposed changes are actually more consistent with the current Book of Discipline, Hanke concluded.

Lodge 489

do you have a link to that?

I only have the actual email that was sent out to the Scouting Ministry Specialist. I will try to find out if they have posted it somewhere and report back.

I have found the link that you requested: http://www.gcumm.org/news/2013/01-29/statement-regarding-boy-scouts-of-americas-proposed-changes

"My son, brought up Unitarian Universalist, accepting and respectful of other's beliefs, may never pass muster if judgement in a Board of Review is coming from someone with a Fundamentalist Christian perspective."
I saw this happen to a UU a few years ago. Fortunately there was only ONE fundamentalist Christian attempting to catch the boy in some kind of argument about his faith - his FAITH, not his views of BSA membership policy. Beavah, drmbear wrote NOTHING about a boy's views being 'ridiculous'. He wrote that the BSA discrimination policy was ridiculous, in HIS view.

Drmbear, this policy change will not alter the outcome if your son ever DOES face a review by fundamentalist Christians (which, let's admit, is about as likely to happen as my car tires are to be eaten by roaches tonight). This is not to say that such an unlikely review would end up good or bad but rather that this policy change is irrelevant to prejudice based on religious faith. Prejudice is still going to be around. It's not going to take a bow just because membership was just opened up.

Beav,

Actually, a UUA BOR would welcome the views of a Fundamentalist Christian lad - the whole point being that it is an individual decision whatever you believe. The whole point of UU belief is respect of what others believe, a completely Scouting perspective in a Scout being Reverent from what I learned as a Scout.

Thanks, Lodge

UMM onboard is a good sign the proposed changes will happen.