Seeking Unbiased Explaination about BSA, Unitarians

[mk9750]

I have been asked by our SM to research the BSA's relationship with the Unitarian Church, particularly Unitarian Universalists. I have seen a few threads discuss this in the past, but they revolved around other central issues, and I'm not certain how much of the information was factual and how much was conjecture.

 

Although I will also be trying to find information from other sources, anything you kind folks can give me will be appreciated.

 

Thanks in advance!

 

Mark

[NJCubScouter]

Well, a web search on "unitarian universalist boy scouts" turned up a bunch of hits, but you might start here:

 

http://www.uua.org/news/scouts/

 

It is the church's own position on the subject and looks like it has tons of links.

 

I am sure somewhere down the search list, you would find a link to something that states the point of view of the BSA, or least one of its apologists on this subject.

[NJCubScouter]

I tried to heavily edit that post because I realized you said "unbiased" and the UUA web site by definition could be no more unbiased than the BSA web site on the subject. But the editing function isn't working, at least for me.

[Bob White]

I have more difficulty understanding NJ's bias than I do the UUA. "the point of view of the BSA, or least one of its apologists" how's that for unbiased?

 

The BSA has offered no apologies and asks for none. The UUA doesnt agree with the BSA's membership rules, that is the UUA's right. The BSA does not have to conform their program to the UUAs beliefs, that is the BSA's right.

 

The BSA controls the BSA uniform. UUA is out of line for telling their members to wear unauthorized awards on a uniform that isn't theirs.

 

What the UUA site does not report is that within the recent past (I believe) the BSA has removed the UUA as an approved Chartering Organization for the Traditional programs..

 

Membership in the BSA is not a right. If the UUA is unwilling to support the membership rules of the program they do not have a choice as to whether or not they get to sponsor the program.

 

Each side has a right to their opinion. But neither has a right to force their opinions into the operation of the other program. UUA does not have to use the BSA's programs. The BSA does not have to accept the UUA's values.

 

Bob White

[mk9750]

NJCubScouter,

 

I was actaully on that site when I saw your post. It does have a significant amount of information regarding the confilct between the two organizations. There is no question as to its bias, although they do seem to try to be fair.

 

This assignment is difficult for me. I have based an opinion on the topic from threads that have discussed this already. I intend, as best I can, to put my opinion aside and gather facts, not opinion. My first review of the UUA website makes me believe that the facts are there, with biased opinions surrounding the facts. I'm pretty sure I can seperate the two.

 

I'd like to hope that I didn't start another platform for debate. That wasn't my intention, and if it happens here, this thread won't accomplish what I need it to accomplish.

 

Thanks!

 

Mark

[Bob White]

I am curious Mark, what is your scoutmaster's interest in this? It's really is a pretty cut and dry kinda thing.

 

The UUA does not agree with the BSA's stance on membership restrictions and has said they will teach the scouts that they disagree, and they will not abide by the membership policies.

 

The BSA says that because the UUA will not abide by the BSA policies they will not authorize the UUA awards for wear on the BSA uniform and UUA aasociations and churches will not be approved as chartering organizations for traditional units.

 

I am curious as to how this affects your SMs responsibility to train junior leaders and deliver the BSA program.

 

BW(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[NJCubScouter]

Well Bob, Mark does not want this thread to become a "platform for debate." On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with debate. I will just say this: The problem arises from the BSA policy itself. If it did not have the policy, or allowed local option, it would not be in a position to ban what would otherwise be a perfectly legitimate chartering organization. And you don't have to keep repeating the fact that the BSA has the right to have this policy. That is irrelevant. The policy itself is wrong. And your comments about the BSA "program" are irrelevant as well. The BSA program has nothing to do with excluding gay people. It does not promote the values of the BSA. As I have said before, if I really thought that the true values of the BSA required the exclusion of gays from all units, with no local option, I (and my son) would be gone in a minute. That will not happen, because I know that the current policy is a misinterpretation of the Scout Oath and Law, and that eventually that misinterpretation will be reversed.

 

By the way, the church that is CO for my son's troop has a fairly new-looking sign out front that says "A Welcoming Church." My understanding is that that phrase has become a "code" for acceptance of gays. I haven't asked if that is the case, because in my "real life" as a father and troop committee member, I do not discuss this issue with anyone. But I wonder, after the BSA gets done with the UU's and the Wiccans and whoever else they don't like, is this church next? My son's troop has been at this church (a Presbyterian church) for at least 75 years. Are they next? And what about Reform Jewish congregations, are they next? They also are welcoming of gays, and some are led by openly gay rabbis. Will the BSA allow an organization to be a CO if their IH is openly gay? How far down this road is the current BSA leadership going to go, before they end up destroying the organization that I grew up with, and that I would like my son to grow up with? Why don't the people who want a discriminatory organization leave and form their own group, and leave me and those who represent Scouting's true values alone? If you dislike how I have turned around a statement that has often been directed at me, then there is only one answer: Local option. Then we can all be happy, or at least equally unhappy.

 

Sorry, Mark... I just got going...

[acco40]

I agree with BW with respect to why on earth would a SM ask someone to research this topic? It would not fall under any umbrella of tasks that a committee member or ASM would be responsible for.

 

I agree with the right of the BSA to set policy for their members but agree with NJ in his interpretation of the basic Scout Oath and Law doesn't make a blanket statement about homosexuality.

 

For example, in most Islamic religions (and was it Ben Franklin, Shakespeare, or the Bible that stated, "neither a lender or borrower be") charging a fee (interest) for a loan is considered immoral. Therefore, if the BSA were based in Mecca (after the USA took over Saudi Arabia for their oil), the authorities may state policy that "morally straight" means that one can't get a loan. Therefore, any leader who publicly avowed that they received a bank loan would be deemed as an unfit role model and dismissed.

 

I feel the BSA was within their right to make the same type of policy with respect to homosexuals. I also believe that in time, it will change.(This message has been edited by acco40)

[Twocubdad]

"Seeking Unbiased Explaination..."

 

Good luck, Mack!

[Bob White]

"if I really thought that the true values of the BSA required the exclusion of gays from all units, with no local option, I (and my son) would be gone in a minute."

 

From a press realse from the National Council of the BSA in Feb. 2002

"The BSA reaffirmed its view that an avowed homosexual cannot serve as a role model for the traditional moral values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law and that these values cannot be subject to local option choices."

 

The entire press release can be read at http://www.scouting.org/media/press/020206/index.html

 

No one is going to make you leave and I doubt anyone would ask you to stay if it conflicts with your personal beliefs. It's a tough decision, I hope you make the right choice.

 

Bob White

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[OldGreyEagle]

Acco40,

 

That was Shakespeare, in Hamlet, in the soliquoy Polonius Advice to Laertes

 

"Neither a lender or borrower be, for loan oft loses both itself and friend. And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry."

 

Just trying to keep it real.

[Hunt]

Bob, it's clear to everyone that the National Council of the BSA has declared that local option isn't available. But it's not your view that it's somehow impossible or inconceivable that the National Council could change its position on this, is it? Or that the declarations of the National Council are somehow above question or criticism? Also, I think it's unkind to suggest that anybody who doesn't agree with the National Council's view on this should quit Scouting--if most of us quit every organization that we disagreed with on anything, we'd be pretty lonely.

 

All that being said, I agree with you that while the rules are what they are, a CO can't just ignore them. I support the steps BSA has taken in defending its policy--I just think the policy is questionable. (Note: the policy I question is the gay-leader policy; I agree with the non-atheist policy. Doesn't UUA have problems with both?)

[mk9750]

My hope was to keep the reasons for the question to myself until I heard a number of reasonable explainations. It may be that the topic is too inflamatory to deal with unemotionally, so I will cease trying to find answers for this here, and continue elsewhere.

 

As such, I can explain why I was asked to do this. Although there is certainly no official pretext under which the SM can ask me to do this for him, I think you will see why he did.

 

A few weeks ago, one of our older Scouts put together a patrol trip to Washington D.C. He asked the SM and the dad of one of the other guys to go.

 

The SM, an attorney, led a discussion at the Supreme Court Building regarding court cases that might affect the Scouts. The cases that we have talked about in the forum were mentioned. According to my youngest son, it was very informative, and ended upon leaving the building.

 

Over diner later that night, the SM and the other dad were sitting at their own table when the dad took exception with statements the SM had made to the boys when the SM said that BSA had the right to make their membership rules. The dad, a Unitarian Universalist, suggested that the BSA was one of the most discriminatory organizations in the country. The discussion apparently got rather heated, although out of earshop of the boys, as my son never knew it even took place. It included the dad telling the SM that the BSA excludes UUs, and that he believes the only way his son was permitted in Scouting, and Specifically our Troop, was because the boy goes to Catholic School.

 

The SM is a very devote Catholic, and very supportive of the BSA stances regarding membership exclusions. His personal opinions come through very loud and clear when he discusses topics like this, and I am certain both these people had a difficult time trying to see the other's side of the issue.

 

It seems as though the discussion got to the point that the dad hinted that he was going to pull his son from Scouting because it was obvious to him that "all of Scouting's beliefs are different from mine".

 

The SM wishes he hadn't engaged in such a heated debate about a topic he didn't know enough about directly. He also believes that as far as this topic goes, he can't possibly research the realities of each organization's position with neutrality. He believes, and I hope you all feel the same way, that I am sufficiently fair enough to determine all the facts, organize them to make them understandable, and then to come to a fair conclusion. Thus, he asked me to do so, so that if he were wrong, I could point it out to him. But even more important is to be able to speak intellegently to this man in an effort to keep him from pulling his son out of Scouting.

 

Thus, my motive for the research. For those of you who tried to help, thanks.

 

Mark

[NJCubScouter]

Yes, Bob, I remember that press release and the resolution on which it was based. I am sure that I wrote about it in this forum. Obviously, I do not agree with it. All that the National Executive Committee "reaffirmed" was its own interpretation of the Scout Oath and Law, and I (and others) believe that that interpretation was and is erroneous and does not reflect the true values of Scouting. Just because the National Executive Committee has the power to interpret the Oath and Law does not mean they are correct, and it does not mean that the interpretation will not change some day. Once upon a time, the BSA permitted racially segregated units, but as society changed, the BSA changed as well. I believe that as society continues to change in the area of acceptance of gays, the BSA leadership will ultimately change to the point where the National Executive Committee recognizes that exclusion of gays is not a "value" of Scouting.

 

As for my own "tough decision" as to whether to remain in Scouting, I made it almost three years ago, and have "re-made" it several times, always with the same result. I have explained my decision-making process on this board a few times. I think I have made, and continue to make, the "right choice" -- for my son, for Scouting and for me.

[Fat Old Guy]

" Just because the National Executive Committee has the power to interpret the Oath and Law does not mean they are correct"

 

By defininiton they are correct.

 

"Once upon a time, the BSA permitted racially segregated units, but as society changed, the BSA changed as well."

 

They still exist, it is only that "all white" units are not permitted. In my area there are Korean troops, Vietnamese troop and black troop.

 

"I believe that as society continues to change in the area of acceptance of gays"

 

It is being forced down our throats by Hollywood. Most people are afraid to speak out in public because they don't want to seem out of step. Harrison Ford (drunken, cheating, draftdodging paragon of virtue that he is) likes homosexuals so if you don't there must be something wrong with you.