UUA renews relationship with Boy Scouts of America

[Eagledad 2777]

<<The basis, I'm told, of the church is for individuals to find their own God. >> 

 

 

Man creating God in his own image.

Correct!

 

Barry

[Rick_in_CA 401]

I don't see how it helps, the only restriction on Unitarians was recognition of their church specific religion badge. We had a couple of Unitarian families in my troop. Any family that decided against scouting because of the restriction wasn't really wanting the scouting program anyway.

 

Barry

Actually, the religious badge issue was really a symptom of a greater "we don't like Unitarians" among some in the BSA. And it wasn't just the badge, if I remember right, UUA lost it's seat on the BSA's Religious Relations Committee. The UUA wasn't the only religious organization involved with the BSA that disagreed with BSA's stance on gays, but it was singled out by the BSA over it. The Union for Reform Judaism and United Church of Christ both had a falling out with the BSA over the gays issue, neither had their scouts punished by being told they "couldn't wear the religious emblems of their faith on their uniforms" (though both groups have, like the UUA, recently renewed their relationships). The policy against the UUA religious emblem program sent the message that scouts and scouters of the UU faith were not welcome in the BSA. I'm glad to see that policy end.

[gumbymaster 98]

It isn't so much an issue of the religious badge/medal/knot, as there has been a UU Scouters Association that existed to provide that function for almost as long as the UU has been separated from the BSA. 

 

What the memorandum really means is that UU congregations would be invited to once again charter Scout units.

The UU and the stated principles of the BSA were generally in sync, The problem, at the time, revolved around the "supplemental materials" the church added to the religious award worksheets that explicitly identified the inconsistency between the principles of the UU vs. the BSA with respect to GLBT... issues where the Church was inclusive and welcoming and the Scouts, at the time, were not.

 

The back and forth on this is what eventually led to a complete separation of the organizations' support for one another.

 

I generally saw it as the BSA telling the UU that they were not allowed (were wrong) to believe what they believed (because it disagreed with the majority of BSA religious beliefs), and that never really sat well with my interpretation of how the BSA was supposed to be theologically neutral.  But by that time, I had largely separated from the UU for my own reasons, so it did not really affect me.

[cyclops 55]

Correct!

 

Barry

 

Would you agree that it is unscoutlike or 'incorrect' behavior to disparage someone else's faith with a statement based in prejudice?

 

I add in response to gumbymaster that my take on it was that BSA was attempting to limit the UUA's First Amendment right to say whatever it wanted in its own literature. I can't believe that all this hasn't been hashed out long ago in these forums back when these things happened. I'm going to dive into the archives if I can figure out how, and see what's there.

Edited March 26, 2016 by cyclops

[Peregrinator 85]

I add in response to gumbymaster that my take on it was that BSA was attempting to limit the UUA's First Amendment right to say whatever it wanted in its own literature.

The First Amendment is a limitation on government restriction; it doesn't apply to private associations like the BSA (insofar as the BSA is "private" since it is favored in federal law).

[Peregrinator 85]

Man creating God in his own image.

The sort of thing that happens once one accepts the principle that the "God" in "duty to God" is up to the individual to define.

[Eagledad 2777]

Would you agree that it is unscoutlike or 'incorrect' behavior to disparage someone else's faith with a statement based in prejudice?

It's unscout like to make accusations base from ignorance. Clearly you have less understanding of the UUA than I have.

 

Disagreeing with speech is not a violation of the first amendment?

 

You must be a young man, Cyclops, because your reactionary post is out of context. That's ok, we all grow from our experiences. But, character is also defined as much by appropriate inaction as it is action.

 

Barry

[Stosh 3452]

The First Amendment is a limitation on government restriction; it doesn't apply to private associations like the BSA (insofar as the BSA is "private" since it is favored in federal law).

 

And if read carefully it is a limitation on federal government only.  For a while there as long as it did not interfere with federal laws, the states could allow for religious expressions within their borders.  Of course that has deteriorated over the years to mean that parents can no longer legally require their children to accept their religion or follow their religious rulings in the household.

 

People who quote the "Constitution" basically have had a few years to reinterpret it to mean anything they wish.

[Peregrinator 85]

And if read carefully it is a limitation on federal government only.

Yes, but the First Amendment has generally been held against State and municipal governments since the 14th Amendment.

[Stosh 3452]

Yes, but the First Amendment has generally been held against State and municipal governments since the 14th Amendment.

 

Yep, since the Southern States lost their states rights, ALL the states lost them as well.  Instead of a collection of individual states with a limited federal government, the Civil War was the second American Revolution where we now have exponentially increasing bureaucratic bloated central government with continually degraded states' rights.

 

What the Founding Fathers designed is not anything like what we have today.  Lincoln was right, the baby went out with the bathwater.  Lincoln did not save the union, he created a new one.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Stosh

[cyclops 55]

It's unscout like to make accusations base from ignorance. Clearly you have less understanding of the UUA than I have.

 

Disagreeing with speech is not a violation of the first amendment?

 

You must be a young man, Cyclops, because your reactionary post is out of context. That's ok, we all grow from our experiences. But, character is also defined as much by appropriate inaction as it is action.

 

Barry

 

In case you didn't notice, my question was a 'yes' or 'no' answer question. You didn't answer. You responded but you didn't answer the question.

 

SeattlePioneer glibly made a 6-word characterization of my faith that he may have thought was cute or he may have thought was fair but it was neither. For the 30-odd years I've been a UU I've suffered this kind of prejudice from members of nearly every other faith in this area but I didn't expect to read it from a so-called 'scouter'. To read it from a scouter makes it all the more offensive - I am offended. I believe that I have never made any such mischaracterization of anyone else's faith in these forums and I think it is not too much to ask to be treated with similar respect. Evidently, since you agreed with him, you think it IS too much to ask.

 

As for my understanding of the issue, I was involved with the issue from day 1 and have followed all of it closely over these many years. If your bloated opinion of your own authority is warranted in some areas, I seriously doubt that it applies to this topic.

Edited March 27, 2016 by cyclops

[NJCubScouter 1389]

The sort of thing that happens once one accepts the principle that the "God" in "duty to God" is up to the individual to define.

That's the "principle" followed by the BSA, right?

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Actually, the religious badge issue was really a symptom of a greater "we don't like Unitarians" among some in the BSA. And it wasn't just the badge, if I remember right, UUA lost it's seat on the BSA's Religious Relations Committee. The UUA wasn't the only religious organization involved with the BSA that disagreed with BSA's stance on gays, but it was singled out by the BSA over it. The Union for Reform Judaism and United Church of Christ both had a falling out with the BSA over the gays issue, neither had their scouts punished by being told they "couldn't wear the religious emblems of their faith on their uniforms" (though both groups have, like the UUA, recently renewed their relationships). The policy against the UUA religious emblem program sent the message that scouts and scouters of the UU faith were not welcome in the BSA. I'm glad to see that policy end.

Well said.

 

I would just add, I can think of one reason why the religious emblem issue came up with the UUA and not the Union for Reform Judaism.  (I really don't know much about the United Church of Christ.)   The UUA is a single, nationwide (or worldwide?) organization which, while it does not control the policy positions of local congregations, generally reflects a consistent worldview on the "gay issue", and has its "own" religious award.  The URJ represents only one of the several "movements" within Judaism (similar to denominations in Chrstianity, though not exactly the same.)  There is no "Reform Jewish" religious award; all Jewish scouts are eligible for the same awards, so the awards are not in any way controlled by the URJ - far from it, since the URJ had distanced itself from the BSA, and many of the local Reform congregations had followed the URJ's recommendation.  That doesn't mean there aren't Reform Jewish Scouts and leaders, there are many - but generally not in units chartered to their own place of worship.  Hopefully, there will now be many more units chartered to congregations affiliated with the URJ, UUA and UCC, as well as the Episcopalian church.

Edited March 27, 2016 by NJCubScouter

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Yep, since the Southern States lost their states rights, ALL the states lost them as well.  Instead of a collection of individual states with a limited federal government, the Civil War was the second American Revolution where we now have exponentially increasing bureaucratic bloated central government with continually degraded states' rights.

 

 

 

States don't HAVE rights (and never have); they have powers, not rights.  And governmental powers are limited by the constitution, which states and your local sheriff (not matter how corrupt) have to respect now.

 

I think Massachusetts shouldn't have the power any more to hang Quakers for having "unacceptable" religious views.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Merlyn_LeRoy

[SSScout 1615]

Thank you, Merlyn for the reference to Mary Dyer , et al.  

 

When political leadership is questioned, it is often folks that "go to the source"  that do so.  "Believe as I tell you to believe"  has always been a contentious idea. Just ask any Quaker farmer who was forced to move from Virginia  to Ohio so he could legally free his slaves.   

 

"Duty to God" is always an important part of the Scout experience, but defining that duty , and how to judge it's successful accomplishment (can  it ever be considered fully accomplished?)   is how we get into nasty debates here on Scouter dot com.   

 

As a parent, I came to the realization early on  that my job  was to give my children something to either agree with or rebel against.  Many parents never realize this, or that they do this not only by instruction but by example.  Such will happen whether or not it is done consciously.