Seeking Unbiased Explaination about BSA, Unitarians

[mk9750]

I thought I was clear, but perhaps not.

 

It was the father, a Unitarian Universalist, who thought his son might not have been permitted to join Scouting, and particularly our Troop (Sponsored by a Roman Catholic Church) except that he appeared to be Catholic, because he went to Catholic School.

 

Our Troop, in the almost 8 years I have known it, has never, and would never exclude a boy based on what faith he is. That was the dad's perception.

 

As to the gay arguement (AGAIN!), NJCubScouter's position concerning Trustworthy does more to support the BSA's position than argue against it. Trustworthy means the same today as it did 40 years ago, and it will mean the same 40 years from now. This is despite the fact that society has come to accept less trustworthy behavior.

 

40 years ago, morally straight included an assumption that NO immoral sexual activlty, homosexual OR heterosexual was acceptable. Society has changed to begin to accept immoral behavior, both homosexual and heterosexual. That does not mean the BSA should accept it.

 

Man, why do I let myself get drawn into these discussions?

 

Mark

[acco40]

"40 years ago, morally straight included an assumption that NO immoral sexual activity, homosexual OR heterosexual was acceptable. Society has changed to begin to accept immoral behavior, both homosexual and heterosexual. That does not mean the BSA should accept it."

 

I don't think "society" has changed to accept immoral behavior, I believe that "society" has changed the definition of what is considered immoral. A big distinction. Problems arise because not everyone has the same idea about what actions or traits are considered immoral. Thefore, what society, or some segments of society, views as moral, you may not.

 

For example, in the 60's, with the advent of birth control (specificly the "pill"), society (predominantly the youth) viewed premarital sex, cohabitation before marriage, etc. differently than the previous decades. Ten years later when STDs (herpes simplex) became more prevalent and then ten year later still when HIV reared its ugly head, the views of society changed again.

 

Heck, even highly organized institutions, such as the Roman Catholic Church, have altered their official views on morality. Those who view the world in simplistic black and white with no shades of gray mystify me.

(This message has been edited by acco40)

[Twocubdad]

Bob wrote, "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."

 

That's all I (and if I read his post correctly, NJ) are asking.

But there is a big difference between that and your earlier post saying "here is who we are, and what we stand for, if you agree then come and join us". I can and will follow the rules, but blindly accepting them is another matter. Whether it's BSA policy, the law or church teachings, I reserve the right to form my own opinions about them and if I feel so moved, to work -- within the rules -- for change.

 

OGE -- you are right. There is a nice parallel between the two statements.

 

But back in the real world, I'm off to Webelos resident camp through the weekend. I look forward to picking up the debate next week.

 

(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[mk9750]

Acco40,

 

I respectfully disagree. I see your position as making morality a moving target. I don't believe that is the case.

 

What is moral is right. What is immoral is wrong. What was wrong for years and years doesn't become right because society tolerates it more now than before.

 

I agree that society's views on such issues shift with cycles. Your example about birth control is true. But even when society viewed out of wedlock sex as acceptable, it wasn't. Maybe it can now be talked about in polite circles, but I assure you it was wrong then and still is.

 

Mark

[SR540Beaver]

NJCub,

 

Ok, if you didn't like my analogy, here is a different one. I'm a Southern Baptist. Years ago, we had a family join our church who were Charismatic. They started promoting their beliefs to others in the church. When told that their views did not reflect Southern Baptist beliefs, they would say, "Oh, we are Baptists, we just believe a little extra!" There were plenty of Charismatic churches around that they could join. Instead, they chose to join our Baptist church and change it to fit their beliefs and desires. Why? They knew what Baptists believed and they knew there were churches out there that supported what they believed. They could have joined one of those other churches and fit right in and been perfectly happy. To this day, I have been dumbfounded that they thought their contrary beliefs would be accepted and supported in a church that belived differently than them. That was between 15 and 20 years ago. They have joined several other Baptist churches since then and continue to move around in search of a Baptist church that will accept their non-Baptist beliefs. They are fighting the tide and the tide keeps winning.

 

Scouting has always viewed homosexuality as immoral and I'm willing to bet they always will. Just because society changes their views over time does not mean that Scouting has to or needs to. The mission and the message is the same as it was when Scouting was founded.

 

As for your government analogy, that is apples and oranges. We have a democratic form of government that is of the people, by the people and for the people. We vote. A private organization is not the same.

 

People have the right to be homosexual if they want. That is their perogative. They do not have the right to be a Scouter under the BSA policies. I would say that the vast majority of parents get their kids involved in Scouting because it is a program closely alligned with their own values and the values they want their children raised with. For the vast majority, that does not include homosexual leaders.

[acco40]

Mark,

 

I believe you missed my point. By definition, you are correct, what is right is "moral" and what is wrong is "immoral", they are absolutes and do not change. The $64 question is who determines what is right and wrong. That is a perception issue and perceptions do change. When you write statements like, "But even when society viewed out of wedlock sex as acceptable, it wasn't.", it begs the question, "acceptable by whom?" To you and I, it may not be acceptable then, now or ever. To a lesbian who wants to have a child and is not permitted to marry, it may be acceptable in her eyes.

 

Our society has become very polarized. I wish individuals would issue statements like, "I believe that out of wedlock sex is wrong." To flatly state personal views as absolutes rubs me the wrong way.

[littlebillie]

"People have the right to be homosexual if they want. That is their perogative. They do not have the right to be a Scouter under the BSA policies."

 

oy. sometimes it may be a choice. sometimes it may not be - frankly, the verdict ain't in on THAT one!

 

BUT. before even going down that path, the last line should really be "They do not have the right to be a Scouter under the BSA policies if they avow themselves as such."

[Bob White]

No member, avowed or not, homosexual or not, atheist or not, has the right to be a member of the BSA. Membership is a privilege allowed by the BSA. No one has "a right" to be member.

 

Bob White

[littlebillie]

Bob,

 

not even the [devout][straight] boys for whom the organization was enchartered? interesting point...

[Eamonn]

This may take a minute, but I will get there.

Some years back in the late 1990s, when I was District Commish. A parent came along that wanted to do "Something."

He had been a Scout, and thought very highly of the program, and both his sons had joined a troop, and were enjoying a really good program.

Bob, was/is a really great chap and was a member of the Troop committee. He just wanted to do more.

We talked for a while and when he said that he worked as a college professor, and I at the time had an opening for a Scout Roundtable Commish. Everything seemed to fall into place.

Scout roundtables were never better, he was doing a great job.

Soon he signed up for Wood Badge, at that time the Boy Scout Wood Badge. As luck would have it, he was an owl, and I was the guide. I was also his Ticket counselor.

Bob and I had never really talked about religion, he knew that I was R.C.but I had never thought to ask what he was.

So you can imagine my surprise, when as a Ticket item, he put down that he was going to try and bring the BSA and the UU closer together.

Heck, I didn't even know that there was a problem.

I did think about asking him to change it. But it was his ticket. So I asked him to explain what the conflict was, and what he thought he could do to change it. He was going to write letters to both the National Office of the BSA, and the leadership of the UU.

I have to admit, that I wasn't very happy about this, but after talking it over with the Scoutmaster, we came back to it being his ticket.

This was about the time that the BSA, had decided that the religious emblem of the UU, was no longer to be worn on the BSA uniform.

Over the next year or so Bob wrote long letters to both organizations and we spent a lot of time talking this over.

I had/have a hard time trying to comprehend that a church can give credence to the idea that you don't have to believe that there is a God. He was very passionate about the gay issue. He wasn't gay but did use the argument, "What would I do if my son came home, saying that he was gay; Would I love him any less?"

I made the point that he could and would love his son no matter what, but the BSA, had ruled that avowed homosexuals were not the role model for our youth.

Bob moved away from the area, and we have not kept in touch.

I do miss our talks, that were never heated. Most of the time it was more, two Dads talking about what we thought was best for our sons.

Bob didn't quit Scouting because of this. He did try to bring the two sides closer together. He was a member of both organizations and enjoyed both.

[packsaddle]

mk9750, Years ago while I was trying to grasp the rift between the UUA and BSA it became clear that while each organization agreed to disagree, the UUA, near the end, tried to accommodate BSA as part of an agreement to get the religious award back on the uniform. The UUA changed the wording of their pamphlet to conform to the stated demands of BSA. BSA reneged.

 

Bob White is correct in his statements that BSA needs no justification for its actions...or any justification they wish. BSA is free to act arbitrarily and with prejudice and they owe no explanation as a result. My question is: "and this benefits the boys how?". My requests to our council for some clarification were met with a polite and nervous silence. I got the point and never broached the subject publicly again. Why? In spite of such issues, I like the program and I feel I can have a greater impact by working with the boys (this will be clearer later in this post).

 

The issues are interweaved and the concerns by the UUA toward BSA regarding homosexuality or atheism have long existed. These are the only issues that BSA seems to recognize in this conflict. The UUA obviously disagrees (apparently so do the Episcopals) but they also see the religious award conflict as a 1st Amendment issue. The point I keep hearing is that BSA 'excommunicated' the UUs because they merely stated their disagreement. I have the pamphlets, old and new, and they seem to confirm the UUA rendition. The UUA stated in their literature that BSA policy is one thing and that UUA is in disagreement. There was no condemnation outside a simple statement of disagreement...in their (UUA) own pamphlet. The UUA in a compromise with BSA changed the wording to meet BSA's demand. And then BSA changed its 'mind' about the compromise. As I understand it, a UUA church still can be a CO (although it mystifies me as to why they would want to).

 

I need to emphasize that in all this, BSA is consistent in their reaction to such 'avowed disagreement'. It is in the act of public revelation that BSA ejects 'avowed homosexuals' and 'avowed atheists', not when they quietly "know their place" within the program. And it was for the public statement of disagreement that BSA chose to reject the UUA religious award - 'avowed dissentors' if you wish. If the UUA had kept their mouths shut (so to speak) they might have been able to dissent quietly all they wanted (there is probably an object lesson here for us as well). Having grown up in, and still living in the old South, I recognize this MO clearly. Yes, I vividly remember sitting at the campfire as a Boy Scout listening to the leaders (and DE as well) discuss how racial segregation and discrimination was consistent with Biblical teaching and morality in general - those were really mean times and nothing for which BSA to be proud. I am saddened to report that those evenings made strong impressions that supported hatred and prejudice in some of the boys.

 

It is clear that BSA enjoys the benefits of constitutional protection, they profess to promote similar values, ...and then they seem so unable to live up to them. But as Bob White is quick to note, BSA is within its rights to act unapologetically in any manner they wish. And this benefits the boys how? I react by trying to keep my eyes on the real prize - the troop and the boys - and I hope that time will do for BSA what it did for racial segregation and discrimination, still a work in progress but making progress nevertheless, one boy at a time.

[dsteele]

I'm not going to step in on this debate.

 

I do wish to clarify that the religious awards program is not a BSA program. Some awards are recognized by the BSA for uniform wear, but the programs are developed and administered by the individual churches through an organization called P.R.A.Y. The UU changed it's requirements for their awards and the BSA and the UUA combined decided that the BSA would no longer recognize their awards for uniform wear.

 

And now back to your regularly scheduled debate. For more information, take a look at the web site for P.R.A.Y.

 

DS

[mk9750]

The opinion I formulated after investigating this quite deeply is this:

 

The UUA had material in their Religious Emblem Award Literature that was inconsistent with the Philosphies of the BSA. The BSA objected, and when the UUA made an unacceptable attempt (to the BSA) to ammend their material, the BSA advised the UUA that they would no longer recongnize their Religious Emblem. This apparently caused the UUA to work harder toward satisfying the BSA, as, after many letters between the two organizations, and many reviews, the UUA was able to satisfy the BSA by pulling all reference to homosexuality out of the material. They said they would attempt to stay true to their beliefs by advising all UUA youth where they could obtain guidance on the topic if they were looking via other channels (by the way, this is a very reasonable position to take, IMHO). The BSA then agreed to recognize the Award. When the Emblem materials began to be distributed to youth who wanted to work on the Award, there was a seperate sheet included detailing the UUA's position on the issue and advising youth where to go for guidance. I don't suggest that this is a bad thing, but it was clear to me that the BSA's intent was to avoid ANY reference to homosexuality in the materials for an Award that they would recognize: The UUA used the disemination of the materials for the Award to provide information about the subject. A few more letters went back and forth, and both insitutions apparently agreed that they would not be able to align their goals with respect to the Award.

 

I think it is unfair of anyone to label one side or the other right or wrong. Both organizations protected core beliefs. These beliefs just don't align. Some might say that this is the same as the core beliefs of the BSA and the KKK not aligning. That would be unfortunate to characterize this like that. A more realistic analogy might be the core beliefs of the BSA and Girl Scouts not aligning (which they don't on a number of issues). It doesn't make either wrong, just different.

 

I started the investigation with as much of an open mind as I can have while being "on BSA's side" (if you can understand what I mean). The material that I saw was easy to categorize as being pro UUA, pro BSA, and some which truly was impartial. Upon reviewing all of the evidence I found, both parties are right, IMHO. I still disagree with the UUA's position, but I'd like to think that we all have the right to believe what we want. I commend the BSA for standing their ground. I commend the UUA for standing theirs. I hope that UUA youth both in and out of Scouting pursue their Religious Emblem. Even if it can't be worn on a Scouting Uniform.

 

By the way, I see a world of diference between this and the Presbetarian issue. The UUA is attempting to use material that the BSA has an interest in reviewing to promote a policy that is diametrically opposed to the BSA's. the Presbetarian Church is dealing with an internal issue. At some point, those who agree to allow a homosexual Bishop my decide to promote homosexuality in a way the affects the BSA. If and when they do, I'm sure the BSA will respond. But the election of a Bishop (which, although is more complicated than just this, is an internal political issue) does not affect Scouting.

 

I am done.

 

Mark

[dsteele]

Mark --

 

I agreed with every word of your post -- and still applaud it -- right up until I hit the word Presbyterian. I think you meant Episcopalian.

 

It is the Episcopal Church that has bishops. Presbyterians do not. I just happen to be a Presbyterian, so it did catch my attention -- but my upbringing (and leanings) are Baptist. But that's a different story.

 

I thank you for so eloquently expaining what I believe was a mutual disagreement over the delivery of a religious award.

 

DS

[mk9750]

Dave,

 

Man, I fretted for 20 minutes trying to get the spelling right (which I think I STILL goofed up!), that I paid no attention to whether I had the right Church!

 

Sorry!

 

Your words are kind. thank you!

 

Mark