Where does BSA tell us homosexuals are not allowed?

[Scoutfish]

"Scoutfish, Just what, exactly, IS a dumpcake?"

 

 

REally? I thought it was a basic staple of scouting.

 

When you make a cake in a dutch oven but "dump" everything in it and mix it all at once instead of using seperate bowls.

 

I make a mean peach dump cake.

 

I take two yellow cakes mixes, two large cans of peaches in syrup, and a can Mountain Dew or Sprite. But any citris type soda can be used .

 

Drain the syrup off the peachs and dump them in a 12" dutch oven, dump both yellow cake mixes into the DO. Then open the can drink and pour on top. Them use a spoon to mix it all together and put in in the fire for 45 minutes to an hour.

 

Tachnically it's supposed to be 350 degrees (10 coals on top and 14 on the bottom - rotating out coals every 15 minutes) but we usually have a fire using oak or pine instead of coals when we camp.

 

But it turns out great.(This message has been edited by scoutfish)

[packsaddle]

Thanks. I was REALLY hoping it was going to be something like that.

[skeptic]

For a bit more moist and clingy cake, add a box of instant pudding of choice, though vanilla or lemon work well. Also, a bit of the juice helps with less expensive cakes. Of course this discussion really belongs elsewhere, and probably extends one already here somewhere.

[nolesrule]

At least it wasn't pie. :-P

[SSScout]

... and only 42 more pages for the record. Oh well.

A sure sign that the subject has been settled and no more discussion need ensue.

 

 

Suuuuurrrrreeee.

[le Voyageur]

 

"....must possess the moral, educational, and emotional qualities that the Boy Scouts of America deems necessary"

 

Wow! So let's see, if I have a Third grade education, love the Texas Jesus with all my heart, and hate homo's, lesbo's and atheist, I'm in????

 

For meself, I'm thinking BSA needs a pretty good moral house cleaning....as I'm moraly bigger than that....

[Jeffrey H]

"....must possess the moral, educational, and emotional qualities that the Boy Scouts of America deems necessary"

The CO will interpret the above statement in light of their overall purpose and mission when they approve leaders for their Pack or Troop.  It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that a leader needs to be emotionally stable (emotional), be able to read a scout handbook (educational), and be of good moral character (moral).  If the CO wants to probe further with questions about personal lifestyle, then that is the COs business. 

 

[packsaddle]

Jeffrey H, so if I interpret what you say correctly, it is local option and UUA fellowships CAN charter units which follow THEIR beliefs.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[scoutingagain]

"and UUA fellowships CAN charter units which follow THEIR beliefs."

 

Not to mention various protestant groups that have determined the moral characteristics acceptable for their own leadership.

 

SA

 

 

[Jeffrey H]

Jeffrey H, so if I interpret what you say correctly, it is local option and UUA fellowships CAN charter units which follow THEIR beliefs.

What I meant is COs reserve the right to select and approve their own unit leaders.  Whether or not they mandate that the unit leadership follow their BELIEFS or be members of the CO is entirely up to the CO.  My CO is a Baptist Church and the CO has no requirement that our Pack leadership adhere to the beliefs of the Church or be members of the Church.  They basically want folks of good character that provide positive role models to the boys.

The only organizations that I know of that charter BSA units are the ones that are in general agreement with what the BSA stands for.  Not agreement on every point, just "general" agreement.  I'm sure that you do not agree with everything your Pack/Troop does, but you are a part of it just the same.  I'm not sure why you singled out UUA, but even some of our more liberal denominations in my area of the country have chartered BSA Troops for a very long time and continue to do so.

[packsaddle]

Jeffrey H, I singled out the UUA because they have a sad history with scouting...sad, because BSA singled them out.

You may not be aware of the BSA action to disallow wearing the UUA religious award. But aside from that shameful action, while probing this issue years ago when it was still happening, I was informed by the professional staff at the national level, that UUA churches and fellowships would be welcome to charter BSA units ONLY if they ignored certain of their beliefs. You may not be aware of this. And as far as I can tell, the status has not changed.

[moosetracker]

Shame on you Packsaddle, your hints of a juicy story made me go off to read and get educated.. There are others but this is the site I read.

 

http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/uua-re.html.

 

UUA sounds like a great group of people, and shame on BSA for sticking their nose into their religious beliefs and teachings to scouts. Of course it would be interesting to get ahold of the side pamphlets that use to be in the program booklets.. Was it just getting their "BSA banned" beliefs out about equality for all including homosexuals and others.. Or was it doing so while bashing BSA policy.. If it has BSA bashing that may be more what BSA is upset about then the promotion to treat all people fairly.

[Beavah]

Yah, moosetracker, yeh got it. There was a fair bit of BSA bashing in their stuff, and in particular other religion bashing. Teach the kids the BSA is wrong, and it's wrong because it's controlled by these other religious bigot groups. Not in so many words, it was always "polite", but da message was clear. Had they not gone that way they probably wouldn't have gotten everybody's dander up.

 

UUA folks are good people, and they tend to be a happy home for a lot of folks with mixed marriages and such. Generally fine scouting supporters too, which is what made da dust-up such a silly thing on both sides.

 

At some point, though, I reckon it's folks rights not to want to associate, and particularly to try to create da best environment they can for their kids. That's why for many, local option ain't an option. Leastways, not unless yeh want to avoid summer camp, and camporees, and NYLT, and OA, and Philmont, and Jambo, and Bechtel, and Seabase, and....

 

Personally, IMHO, da UUA made a strategic blunder, eh? They'd have been far more effective in their mission had they remained loyal opposition on da inside and engaged in dialog. Wouldn't have mattered a lick to their kids, because any lad who is pursuin' the award is also in their (quite well done) youth program and can figure da score. People in da end change their mind not because of da arguments of opponents but because of da hearts of friends.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[packsaddle]

Moosetracker, the best rendition of all this was in a series of threads long ago leading up to an exemplary exchange between Trevorum (who is involved with a UU scouter group) and Kudu. It was a cordial exchange absolutely filled with well-reasoned positions.

 

When I first heard about all this from an op ed piece in a newspaper, I decided to find out what REALLY happened. I met with some of the UUA people who were very 'up front' with copies of all the correspondence...and got as much as I could from the council execs (who didn't seem very comfortable with either the facts or the issue in general - they were only slightly more informed than the op ed piece.)

But I did read the literature for the religious award, before, during, and after the action by BSA. UUA in the original pamphlet did nothing more than to inform the boy of the disagreement between UUA and BSA regarding the UU acceptance of gays. BSA objected to the wording. UUA, as I remember, took the wording out. BSA approved. My memory here is not good but I seem to remember that UUA printed the notification as a separate page which was distributed with the pamphlet. BSA responded by no longer recognizing the UUA religious award.

The issue, as related by UUA was a 'freedom of expression' issue. They felt that BSA was, in effect, attempting to limit their expression in one of their own publications (which, in fact, it was). BSA has never made it completely clear why they took the action they did.

 

This issue has long bothered me. I agree, to some extent, with Beavah's sentiment about working within the system. On the other hand, UU members tend to be fiercely loyal to their beliefs (are there any other religions like this, I wonder?). And I suppose it would have been too much to relax their acceptance of gays, allowing gays full membership for all aspects EXCEPT as adult leaders in their chartered scout units. To me, to expect them to make that exception in order to work within the system is an unreasonable expectation. Others are free to disagree - at the same time I'd like them to describe a similar 'compromise' within their own faith.

 

BSA had an opportunity to let UUA print whatever they wanted in their own literature. BSA didn't HAVE to do anything. BSA could have ignored it and that would have been the 'bigger' way to respond.

BSA really had no way to prevent UUA from printing whatever UUA wanted in their literature because it was UUA literature. The only action BSA had available to them was to do something to the boys who earned the award. So BSA did that. In my view it was needless, petty, 'small', and cowardly. And shameful.

 

Much later I received a response from someone higher up in BSA. He said that he would charter a BSA unit with UUA 'in a heartbeat'...IF the UUA would essentially renounce their belief regarding the "worth and dignity of every person". I guess UUA considers this to be too high a price. I do wonder, sometimes, with the way things are changing for other denominations, how those denominations reconcile the conflict.

[moosetracker]

Well PackSaddle if what you say is correct, (Which I am not doubting, just it doesn't spell out BSA bashing and Beavah says there was BSA bashing.. So you two are in disagreement there, and not having read the lititure I will not get into that debate)..

 

Anyway if what you say is correct, then BSA should not have stepped in. All they stated was being in disagreement, but they were not labeling them in a book the scouts were to read as being biggoted and narrow-minded. And you are right BSA did their own PR damage by not ingoring a differing viewpoint..

 

Wow !!! Wonder why they haven't shut down this forum yet. We disagree with their viewpoint all the time. And we do go into BSA bashing from time to time.

 

If all BSA did was sponser groups in 100% agreement with them, BSA might as well shut their doors.. Between those that don't like the uniform, don't like the new lititure, Don't like required Training, don't like BSA soccar, don't like Mazzuca etc. etc. etc.

 

No one will ever agree 100% to a program, unless they are the founder and run it as a dictatorship. You just look at the whole of a program, and figure out if the pros out weigh the cons, to figure out to join or not.. If you join you have every right to be a voice for change in issues you find important, regardless of if you voice is strong enough to bring about the change or not. It's a democratic right of being a member..