Calif. Judges Possibly Banned from Scouting Activity

[packsaddle]

kwc57, I am fairly sure that UU boys are still accepted by BSA as Scouts, although considering BSA's intent, I don't see why . The UUA (true to their heritage) encourages boys who earn the religious award to go ahead and wear it on their uniforms anyway, perhaps their initiation into civil protest. Right on.

I seem to remember an earlier thread where a troop was 'dumped' because either the leadership or the sponsor openly disagreed with policy. Does anyone remember what that was all about? For that matter, I wonder how many of us would be retained if BSA found out about our disagreement with policy. Maybe, a la Seinfeld, BSA has become the 'faith Nazi'..."no more scouts for you!"

 

[littlebillie]

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=11363

 

packsaddle, not sure if this is the one you meant, but it IS about a Pack that declared an open membership policy, was NOT questioned by Texas, and was nevertheless kicked out by the school due to Dale...

 

 

[ScoutParent]

Read this resolution by the UUA to see that this has been a contrived situation designed to force the BSA to change it's values and not vice versa.

 

http://www.uua.org/obgltc/botres.html

[ScoutParent]

why hasn't any attention been paid to the agnostic and atheist beliefs of the UUA and the major role they played in the BSA's decision on the religious award.

 

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

 

 

[pfann]

There are some groups that do start their own organization instead of trying to force the BSA to change.

 

One such group is the Wiccan church, found at the link below,

 

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/31/70432.shtml

 

My response to these groups that start their own orgainization is more power to them!

 

Let them cpmpete in the market place of ideas and ideals and let's see who comes out the winner.

[packsaddle]

ScoutParent, the resolution states their position and asks for BSA no longer to refer to the UUA as a chartered organization as a result. BSA isn't FORCED to do anything. But it is good that you included the letter by BSA. In that letter BSA states that it is an "ecumenical" organization as opposed to "secular". 'Ecumenical' is a category that has no relevance to Judaeism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and others... as it is specific to Christianity. This a clear admission by BSA itself that it gives preference to and is dominated by one religion.

 

[pfann]

 

packsaddle,

 

Not to sound like a former U.S. President but it depends on which definition you use.

 

My American Heritage Dictionary has one definition of ecumenical relating to unity in the Christian Church. Another states it relates to worldwide unity among religions and does not specifically refer to Christianity.

[littlebillie]

so, let's see.

 

If it's packsaddle's def of ecumenical that's in play here, then the BSA is a Christian org.

 

but if it's pfanns, then with the UUA situation, the BSA has shown itself to be NOT ecumenical - well, of course, since there's no unity being shown.

 

Either one's pretty bad. I wonder why they they've gone this route?

[packsaddle]

Pfann, Thanks for your observation. I looked into my old standby, a huge unabridged monster, and it agreed with my characterization. I then toured my collection of various abridged dictionaries and indeed there is a more general definition in some of them which describes the term as (I paraphrase), "worldwide in range or applicability" and synonymous with 'universal'. For a less rigorous discovery, I searched the term on the internet. All of the top matches were orthodox Christian sites some of them in Cyrillic or Greek. Entering 'ecumenicism' returned similar results. [i found a nice little letter by Lt. Col. Henry T. Cook, USMC (Ret.) on a page called "Ecumenicism in a small town".] Your point is well taken that BSA could have been using the the term in the manner you describe. If so, strictly speaking, my argument would fail. However, it seems that common usage of the term mostly occurs among Christians.

Littlebillie also makes a good point. Regardless of interpretation, both alternatives are still unsavory because both support a contention that BSA is not true to its self-proclaimed (and worthy) philosophy.

I don't hold UUA as innocent in all this either. But it was BSA that decided to take action that affected the boys. You can make all the arguments you want about the events leading up to the end but at that time they acted. They placed boys in a position less important than their pride. That crossed the line for me.

[OldGreyEagle]

I think I understand the objection to making the boys suffer for a BSA action. But I have to wonder how far should it go?

 

COMPLETELY HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION**************

 

Let's say (only say) that the National Board of the Lions Clubs, Moose, Eagles, Rotary (or any other organization that charters a BSA unit) decides for whatever reason that it will adopt a policy of non-discrimination towards sexual orientation.

 

The policy is written in such a manner that the units chartered either have to accept gay leaders or find a new charter organization. If the BSA holds firm, it could result in a major disruption in many a boys scouting career. Maybe most of the units would find new sponsors, but some wouldn't. Would the BSA be crossing the line with this attitude?

 

Ok,then, lets say the BSA replies with a "hey, thats not the way the program is written, but if you want to be responsible for the liabilities, fine with us", the boys of those units are not effected, the units still exist, but the overall rules and philosophy of the organization are changed and how many other chartering organizations would disband its units in response?

 

Either way, boys are effected, and they shouldnt be, but how do you spare them?

 

(The above exaample is Hypothetical, I apologize in advance to any member of any oranization mentioned, I do not mean to insult, only give a possible situation)

[packsaddle]

OGE, Thanks for understanding the way I feel. Your first example, I think, is not exactly the same. The boys' achievements would still be recognized by BSA even during the transition. And most of the burden of the transition should fall on the leaders. As for disruption, these things happen frequently (our scout hut was destroyed recently) but I would try to live up to the motto.

The second example, although interesting, doesn't really apply to this case. Although the UUA probably would very much like for BSA to change its policy, all UUA did was express their disagreement. Obviously, for BSA to allow units to set their own standards (perhaps left for each chartering organization) would take power away from BSA in setting such standards. Would you not trust a Methodist Church? BSA could provide some oversight to take care of those pesky Unitarians. There is no way to know how such would affect unit enrollment though. The Girl Scouts are also chartered by congress. However, the Girl Scouts do not have the same sort of policies towards homosexuals in their organization. Have they, as a result, had units leave because of it?

[pfann]

packsaddle,

 

I do believe some parents have left Girl Scouts but I don't know about whole units.

 

A group of moms in the Cincinnati area started their own scout group called American Heritage. Their homepage link is below,

 

http://www.ahgonline.org/

 

As best as I can tell from this and other stories I've read about them, they started this group to get back to or start from a Judeo-Christian philosophy that they feel Girls Scouts has abandoned, or perhaps never were at.

[littlebillie]

packsaddle,

 

about the GSUSA and its "diversity", I think in part that image remains because it's never really been tested.

 

I am not aware on any real media attention on an atheist or lesbian or gay publically "coming out" in the Girl Scouts as has happened in the BSA, nor of any resulting "official" statements by GS leaders.

 

On the very rare instance that a Girl Scout leader has been accused of molestation, the announcement is made that the Girl Scouts don't promote any lifestyle, that its a family matter, and the offending leader has resigned.

 

Now take religion. The world organization puts God first and foremost in the charter or constitution. go to http://www.scout.org/wso/index.html and select the Constitution and By-laws Adobe option.

 

When the GSUSA was challenged on the word "God", they said, sure, put anything you want in there, but they still say the spiritual side of life is important - they just leave it up to the individual to decide if she has that necessary "spirituality" . So until such time a Girl Scout actually publically and with media attention declares herself an atheist AND we get to see what the official response is then, I see the atheist friendliness of the GSUSA as very much like some kind of urban spin-myth. Mind you, I think it's a more open position than the BSA, but I don't think its quite as atheist-friendly as is sometimes saud.

 

from http://www.girlscouts.org/adults/beliefs.html

 

"The "motivating force in Girl Scouting" is spiritual. Girl Scouts respects the spiritual values and beliefs of its members, leaving the interpretation of spirituality to each individual and the family"

 

I leave it to wiser minds than mind to determine if spiritual atheism is a religion or an oxymoron.

 

ok, this has been a sidetrip - the Girls and the Boys don't really diverge as much as some believe, that's all, at least not officially. Wheich takes us into back the world of "don't ask, don't tell".

 

The GSUSA is really trying to be all things for all girls; that's great as far as it goes, but when spin, fact and practice all diverge, sometimes all that's left is confusion.

 

mine, anyway! :-)

 

 

 

 

 

[evmori]

It seems to me the GSUSA is being wishy washy on the religion issue. At least the BSA is unwilling to compromise their principles.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle]

Thanks Pfann and littlebillie, Interesting stuff. I think I am a little less confused about Girl Scouts now...perhaps...maybe...I think.

Ed, I would have to agree with you. BSA is correct to pursue what it thinks is right. However, persons or groups who disagree ought to be allowed to express themselves. BSA should not punish someone for exercising their constitutional right to such expression.

 

There is another way to view this, though. Why shouldn't individual communities (i.e., churches) have the freedom to interpret scouting principles their way? Why shouldn't local community standards be allowed? Why must we have a centralized government (BSA) to decide what is right for everyone? Except for their position, what makes them correct and others incorrect in the interpretation? What did the Protestants protest?