Seeking Unbiased Explaination about BSA, Unitarians

[SR540Beaver]

NJCub,

 

With all due respect, how you choose to interpret the Scout Oath and Law as opposed to the folks at National who determine policy really makes little difference. I interpret doing my work in a timely and correct manner to be good enough. Unfortunately, my boss and his boss and his bosses boss all think I should show up each day, Monday thru Friday and be there no later than 8:00 AM and leave no earlier than 5:00 PM. Since it is their company and they are the management, I kind of have to abide by their decisions in order to continue working there and draw a paycheck. I could argue that I could get the job done in 30 hours instead of 40, but I don't think they will see it my way. You said, "Just because the National Executive Committee has the power to interpret the Oath and Law does not mean they are correct." Just who would you have interpret it?

 

Being black is not immoral. Yes times changed and the BSA was integrated because it was wrong and it was the right thing to do. In the BSA's world, being gay IS immoral and defies the "morally straight" point. That probably won't change with time.

[acco40]

Yikes! I have an "all white" troop (or should I say the troop that I belong to is all white). Boy, am I in trouble now. I was not aware that they were not permitted.

 

Yes, those darn Hollywood types are always trying to change our minds. It was just released (declassified by the former Soviet Union) that during Stalins reign, they had a "hit" out on John (Marion) Wayne. They were afraid that he would turn everyone away from communism.

[NWScouter]

MK.

If I understand what you were look for, I think I can throw some light. One you Scoutmaster was wrong to say that if they know that the boy was UU he couldnt be in scouting. BSA does not ban scouts based on the religious group. They just have to believe in God, gods or a supreme power. Per BSA standards a unit may not make membership requirement of any specific religious character beyond a belief in God. Like make them attend their services or Sunday School.

A few years back UUs religious awards requirements did not meet the BSA standards, so those awards can not be worn officially on the uniform. Im not sure but I think an individual UU congregation could still be a CO.

 

[Bob White]

Thanks MK now it makes more sense. The BSA does not exclude members of UUA from the BSA. The only restrictions are on the wearing of the uniform and now I believe the UUA is restricted from being a chartering org. But that does not restrict membership.

 

Bob White

[NJCubScouter]

Kwc says to me:

 

With all due respect, how you choose to interpret the Scout Oath and Law as opposed to the folks at National who determine policy really makes little difference.

 

And then goes on to compare it to an employment relationship. And FatOldGuy says of the BSA National Executive Committee, "By defininiton they are correct."

 

Obviously I recognize that those who presently make up a majority of the National Executive Committee have the power to enforce their interpretation, and that they are using their power to do so. I, and those who agree with me, do not currently have that power. But their interpretation is just an opinion, as is mine. My opinion is that my interpretation is more consistent with the true values of Scouting (including the Declaration of Religious Principles) than is that of the current leadership. That doesn't change the "rules," at least not this week. But they may change someday, and if they do, I think Scouting will benefit. In the meantime, here I am, part of the organization, and if the opportunity comes to help be a part of that change (with my real name attached) without negatively affecting my primary reason for being part of the program, I may take that opportunity. (That is unlikely to occur prior to October 12, 2009, and maybe after that I will just be the proud father of an adult Eagle, if that happens, and move on to other things.)

 

And, I think a better anaology than the employment situation would be my relationship with the United States government. I do not agree with everything Congress does, or that any given president does. I suspect that most people in this forum could say the same thing. We can work to change what our government does, and it does not make us any less American. In fact, healthy and peaceful debate is part of being a citizen. I do recognize the differences, and that the BSA calls itself a "private organization," though I would be interested to find any references by the BSA to itself as being "private" before the gay issue or the atheism issue came up. I doubt that the BSA ever called itself that when I was a Scout, or in the preceding decades. However, though it is a private organization, it is a private organization of which I happen to be a member, and my opinions are no less valid than any other member.

 

Kwc says:

 

Just who would you have interpret it?

 

 

 

People who are interpreting it for what it says and means, and not according to a political-religious agenda.

 

In the BSA's world, being gay IS immoral and defies the "morally straight" point.

 

As I have said, I do not think that is true. In the world of the current leadership of the BSA, yes, but not the real world of the BSA, and not permanently. The day will come when it is seen as an anachronism. I don't know how long it will take, or if it will be in my lifetime or my son's lifetime. I obviously think it would be better if it happened sooner, rather than later. (And what I am talking about is local option; I am not trying to force anyone to accept gays into their unit.)

 

And then FatOldGuy says the increasing acceptance of gay people "is being forced down our throats by Hollywood." I don't think so. My opinions don't come from Hollywood. None of the people I know who oppose exclusion of gays got their opinions from Hollywood. I do not care what Harrison Ford or any other entertainer thinks about any issue (and in the specific case of Harrison Ford, I do not even know what he thinks. I know that he is pretty good at playing a likeable rogue, which may be what he also is in real life, I don't know.) I get my opinions aprtly from knowing a number of gay people over the years, some of whom would be excellent role models for boys in Scouting. Some, but not all -- just as not all straight people are good role models. The simple fact of being openly gay does not, and should not, disqualify someone from being a good role model for youth, and if some units and CO's cannot accept that fact, then at least those that do should be able to do so. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[NJCubScouter]

Ack, I missed a close-italics, and the editing function still is not working for me. I hope this works so that I do not italicize later posts.

[Twocubdad]

Excellent post, NJ. Your analogy regarding loyal dissent is especially on target.

[Bob White]

My opinion is that my interpretation is more consistent with the true values of Scouting"

 

I am curious NJ based on what information of the original definition of the values do you come to that conclusion.

 

I don't believe scouting ever said "come join us and if you don't like who we are we will change".

It has always been, "here is who we are, and what we stand for, if you agree then come and join us".

 

Bob White(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[NJCubScouter]

Well Bob, to answer your question with a question, what "value" are you talking about, exactly? Heterosexuality? Is that a "value"? Or is it just a characteristic that the large majority of people (though not all) have in common?

 

And if it is a "value," how did it become a "value"? And, specifically, how did it become a "value" of the BSA? What is its source? Is it a religious value? Because if that is what it is, and nothing more, I do not see how the BSA can enforce it on members who do not share that religious value, without violating the BSA's own declaration of religious principles. If, on the other hand, it is (or was) a value of "society," and was adopted by the BSA from "society," then it IS relevant that society's values have changed.

 

I do not mean that all changes in society must be reflected in the BSA. I do not mean that at all. To use an example, it is probably not the best one, but it is the first one that comes to mind for an obvious reason: We (I just thought that I'd temporarily adopt your penchant for referring to the BSA as "we," Bob) require that a Scout be "trustworthy." If society has become more tolerant of lying and cheating, that does not mean the BSA has to move in that direction, because it contradicts what it says right there in the Scout Law, trustworthy. There might be slight nuances in interpretation that change over time, and some of the descriptions in the handbook HAVE changed over time, but the core values stay the same. Now, nowhere in the Scout Oath and Law does it say you have to be heterosexual. Nor (to pick the most extreme example) does it specifically say you can't murder anybody. But the prohibition against murder is a "value" that everybody agrees with. It is a societal value, not simply a religious value, and therefore the BSA enforces it without violating its own Declaration of Religious Principles. I do not think the same can any longer be said about the "value" of heterosexuality, if that is what it is.

[Bob White]

I apologize for the use of we on occasion it comes from years as a trainer ansd using we as a fiure of speech to encompas the entire scouting community. It avoids sugesting that there is a them and us between the levels of scouting. Anyone who supports and delivers the BSA program is WE.

 

Returning to the purpose of this thread, I would be good if the parent was told that he and his son are welcome members of the BSA.

 

Bob White(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Twocubdad]

Question for you, Bob: in the Tenderfoot requirement relating to the Scout Oath, Law, Motto and Slogan, a Scout is asked to explain these principles "in his own words." Why is that? If Scouting is looking for new members to understand "who we are, and what we stand for," wouldn't it be better for the boys to learn the "official" explainations in the handbook?

 

Could it be that we want boys to explain the basic concepts of Scouting in their own words because we want them to take them to heart and make them their own? Doesn't that necessarily mean that we want the boys (and adults, for that matter) to think about what the Oath and Law means to them, reflecting their own values and faith and what they have been taught by their family? Isn't that more valuable that simply reciting what you read in the book?

 

I doubt seriously that many people join Scouts with that attitude that, "I'm a member now, you change to suit me," as you suggest. There may be a few (and a few on this board), but very few. By and large Scouters recite the Oath and Law without reservation.

 

But while I can proudly and honestly raise my hand and recite the Law and Oath, that does not mean I abdicate my personal values and judgement to the National Council. As I have grown, the meaning and my understanding of the Law and Oath has evolved along with me. To think that the Law and Oath mean only what the Handbook or National says they mean, limits their value to make them all but worthless. They certainly mean more to me now than what I was capable of understanding as and eleven-year-old.

 

If you'll allow me the liberty of slaughtering an old proverb, "Tell a boy what is ethical and he'll be ethical for a day. Teach a boy to THINK ethically and he will be ethical for a lifetime."(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[Bob White]

Twocub you explained it very well as to why the boys explain the oath and law in their own words.

 

But their personal interpretation does not establish the program or it's policies. The scouts are simply being asked to see if they understand the words and their meaning. A lot of these scouts never heard the words Thrifty, or Reverent before this time. If they are saying the words we need to know they understand the meaning.

 

No scout is asked if he knows the policies or purpose of scouting. Scouts are not taught the Mission, aims or methods of scouting. They are invited into the activity of scouting where we as leaders use the methods to achieve the aims to fulfill the mission.

 

As adults we have a responsibility to understand the organization that we are entering our children into. If you don't like the membership rules why would you enter your child into it?

 

The BSA is what it is. Will it ever change? Who knows. But yesterday's scouting and today's scouting say that you cannot be a member if you are an avowed homosexual or atheist. Until it changes that's the program. Dislike if you want, complain to national as much as you want, but as long as you choose to be a member you have an obligation to follow the rules of the BSA.

 

Bob White

[dsteele]

Speaking in defense of Harrison Ford . . .

 

He achieved the rank of Life Scout in the BSA as a youth. I know this for a fact. He worked in the nature area of Camp Napowan in Wisconsin (it belongs to the Northwest Suburban Council of Illinois) in 1956 or 1957.

 

I've heard the reason Indianna Jones wasn't an Eagle Scout in the third movie is that Harrison Ford didn't want his character to wear a rank he himself had never earned.

 

Two years ago, Harrison Ford, who was piloting his own helicopter over the desert, helped save a couple of lost Boy Scouts.

 

I've never heard of his stance on BSA membership standards -- one way or the other.

 

But I have no trouble calling him a Scout at heart based on what I know and have heard.

 

Rant about Hollywood if you want, but if you want to pick on Harrison Ford, I'd like to hear a source.

 

And now back to your topic . . .

[NWScouter]

Young Indian Jones wore Life becaus Steven Spielberg (sp?) was honoring his dad who made that rank. Steven is an Eagle.

[OldGreyEagle]

Twocubdad, you said:

 

"If you'll allow me the liberty of slaughtering an old proverb, "Tell a boy what is ethical and he'll be ethical for a day. Teach a boy to THINK ethically and he will be ethical for a lifetime." "

 

While BSA says:

 

"The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law."

 

Isn't nice to know the both of you are in agreement over this?