United Methodist Church

[NJCubScouter 1389]

ProudEagle,

 

I don't think the UUA's acceptance of atheists as members would be cited by the BSA as a reason for their exclusion from the ranks of CO-hood. (Actually I don't know what reasons the BSA has cited because the only direct reference I have ever seen to that decision by the BSA is in the posts of BobWhite, but I think I am making a good guess.) My local elementary school's parent-teacher organization would have to accept an "avowed atheist" as well as an "avowed homosexual" as a member, but they are not precluded from being a CO (and in fact they are a CO.) The "ban" is on individual people. Members of the PTO can be leaders of the PTO's unit unless they are avowed atheists or gays. How would the UUA be any different? Because some of its congregations call themselves "churches" and yet admit people who don't believe in God? I don't see why that would make a difference, when a CO does not have to be a religious organization at all.

[Proud Eagle 13]

If the UUA are not willing to abide by the rules relating to homosexuals, I seriously doubt they would be willing to abide by the rules on atheists, particularly when they also have atheists as members. It may have been that the homosexual issue was the straw that broke the camels back for the UUA, but I seriously doubt they would now agree to the membership policies, even if the homosexual rules were repealed. I am not basing this on some secret knowledge of the UUA, but rather on common sense.

[Bob White 20]

The BSA has not refused any youth or adult membership regardless of their religious belief as long as they met the same membership criteria required of every member.

 

Fear mongering is one way that some people who oppose the BSA's policies use to muddle the issue, when facts do not serve their cause.

 

 

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

BobWhite says:

 

My point NJ was that the member of any religion may join scouting, and that is what the BSA's statement on being non-sectarian refers to. You misrepresent it to be in reference to its charter process.

 

Let me deal with the second sentence first. That it not what I said, nor is it what I meant. When I speak of the BSA violating its own rule about being "non-sectarian," I have always been referring to the membership policy, not to who units are chartered to. (Though, I suppose if there was a new rule that units could only be chartered to Episcopal churches, for example, it would be difficult to maintain the claim of being non-sectarian.)

 

OK, as to the main point, here is what we are talking about:

 

"The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training."

 

And Bob says that what that means is that "the member of any religion may join scouting." I think it means more than that, as I have explained numerous times in the past.

 

[Bob White 20]

And in just which sect NJ do you claim the BSA trains its members.

[packsaddle 753]

Proud Eagle, the view that UUA openness to dissent and atheism disqualifies them as COs fails. It fails because UUs do not require such beliefs or their absence. Rather, you can view this in an alternative manner: the UUA welcomes many religious traditions and beliefs, including Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Theists, Buddhists, etc. In fact, this willingness to accept a broad scope of religious beliefs should make a UU church obviously qualified to be a CO. The stopper is BSA policy (regulations, whatever) on homosexuality.

However, individual UUs who are avowed atheists would still be denied membership by BSA. I grant you this last thing would probably be viewed as unfair by most (but not all) UUs. But that would be their choice.

[Proud Eagle 13]

packsaddle,

 

Thank you for agreeing with me.

 

I also find no reason why the UU fellowships/churches couldn't charter a BSA unit AS LONG AS THEY AGREE TO FOLLOW THE MEMBERSHIP POLICIES. The point I was making was that a UU group would not be very likely agree to those rules, as it pertains to atheists. Remember, we aren't talking about the garden club, we are talking about a religious, or at least quasi-religious group. Accepting atheists is a part of their system. It is unlikely they would charter a unit that requires them to not accept them in some way.

[tjhammer 10]

And in just which sect NJ do you claim the BSA trains its members. Obviously one which does not include some of the Episcopalians, Methodist, Reformed Jews, Universalist, Wiccans or members of several others churches.

[acco40 95]

What do you get when you cross a Unitarian with a Jehovah's Witness?

 

Someone who goes door to door but does not know why.

[Bob White 20]

But which sect specifically TJ?

 

If, as you continue to say, the BSA is sectarian in its training, which sect does the BSA train members in?

 

I've read all the handbooks, taken all the training except national camp school and Ok-Pik. I have lead most every training course, and I have never seen, read or heard of the BSA promoting a particular sect. So if you are sure that they do, then you should be able to site which one, and where.

 

I look forward to your specific reply.

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

Acco40, good one! Here's another possibility: A person who goes door-to-door seeking an answer.

[Hunt 11]

NJ's point, I think, is not that hard to understand: BSA deviates from its claim to be non-sectarian when it adheres to the religious teachings of some sects while rejecting the teaching of others. But I think we'd probably all support BSA's decision to do so in some cases: for example, BSA doesn't allow discrimination based on race, so presumably would not allow a church that discriminated on the basis of race to be a CO. Most of us would shrug off a claim that BSA is sectarian because it doesn't allow such churches as CO. On the other hand, we'd presumably all agree that BSA had ceased to be non-sectarian if, say, it announced that only religions celebrating the Sabbath on Sunday could be COs. The difficulty here is deciding which kind of rule the gay ban is--is it something that is so fundamental that NO unit should be allowed to do things differently (like the race discrimination issue) or is it something that should be left up to the CO (like virtually every other religious issue--including whether women can be leaders)? While it's obviously up to those who run the BSA to make such a decision, I assume that they are persons of good will, and making reasonable, thoughtful arguments to such persons is never "howling at the moon."

 

[Fat Old Guy 11]

"BSA doesn't allow discrimination based on race, so presumably would not allow a church that discriminated on the basis of race to be a CO"

 

Maybe if it was a white church. I know that AME Zion churches charter troops and I've been told by black friends that blacks who marry whites are not welcome in AME Zion churches. I'm not black so I haven't had the opportunity to test this.

[Hunt 11]

The difference is between "de facto" and "de jure" discrimination--I suspect that AME Zion churches do not officially discriminate against whites, any more than mainline "white" churches officially discrimninate against blacks. It's a different matter entirely whether a particular congregation "welcomes" people of other races. I don't think BSA can generally be expected to look at more than the official policies.

On the actual subject of this thread: The United Methodist Church is one in which the mass of members tend to be more conservative than the leaders (a condition that seems to be reversed in some other denominations). Thus I tend to agree that the General Conference will continue to disallow ordination of gays--if they don't, the church will probably split over it, or at least lose many, many members and clergy.

[Fat Old Guy 11]

Things are heating up in the Episocpal church as well. There is dissention over gay bishops as well as female bishops.