Question for Bob White

[captainron14]

Waiting for Bob.

I'm very interested in hearing from him.

Anyone know when he will be back? Anyone "Private message him and get a reply?

Hope to hear from him soon!

[Bob White]

Little Billie,

Last summer at Philmont Training Center I asked one of the camp chaplains, an Episcoplalian minister, about the controversy already brewing in the Episcopal Church.

 

He said that although there were many who disagreed with the membership stance of the BSA, it was the opinion of the church leadership that the tremendous good accomplished by the scouting program far outweighed this one point of disagreement.

 

He went on to say that while the church will continue to discuss the membership rules within the BSA they have every intention of following the BSA's regulations and continuing as members in good standing with the Boy Scout movement.

 

I do not see how their rules for eligibility as a Bishop alters their ability to support the rules of scouting. Until that happens I would expect them to continue to act as a chartering organization, unless the BSA determines otherwise.

 

Bob White

[packsaddle]

To follow Bob White's reply, I agree with his assessment. The Episcopals (like the UUs) will not likely get in trouble with BSA unless they choose (like the UUs) to state their disagreement in their religious award literature (avowed dissentors). THAT is where the rub with the UUs began and they were unwilling to back down completely. As long as the Episcopals are willing to let BSA intimidate them out of their 1st Amendment right, or if they merely choose to remain silent in print, they should be just fine. Chartering is a separate issue, I think.

[Bob White]

You were doing so well up to a point packsaddle. There is no intimidation going on from either side. The Episcopal church just plain likes the BSA movement. They see this disagreement in membership as a minor point in the big picture of scouting's benefits. A point which they feel can be worked through in the long run. They are willing to continue a dialogue within the BSA until that time. It is a very mature position.

 

My explaination is based on a discussion with a repesentative of the Episcopal Church, He is a uniformed volunteer, Eagle Scout, and assigned to serve scouting as a Chaplain at PTC for three months that summer. I saw no signs of intimidation and he memntioned none during a prolonged and frank discussion.

 

Do you have any facts at all to back up you remarks?

 

Bob White

[evmori]

packsaddle,

What 1st ammendment right?

 

Ed

[Rooster7]

packsaddle,

 

As long as the Episcopals are willing to let BSA intimidate them out of their 1st Amendment right, or if they merely choose to remain silent in print, they should be just fine.

 

This accusation, or rather its implied resolution, is incredibly ironic. Since it is un-Scout-like to intimidate folks, I am presuming that you would prefer to see the BSA give up its Constitutional rights to take moral positions and/or to set their own standards for membership.

 

Chartering is a separate issue, I think.

 

Actually, ultimately, chartering is not a separate issue. Organizations that seek a charter from the BSA have a choice. They can recognize and agree with the BSA standards, or they can openly disagree. If they chose the former, there is no conflict. If they chose the latter, they should be prepared for whatever consequence the BSA chooses to invoke, including the possibility of the charter being revoked or denied.

 

Look at the BSAs mission. If you agree with it, then support the BSA. If you disagree with it, then find or establish an organization that has a mission that you can support. I would never join a Synagogue to solicit Christian converts. Everyone has the right to believe as they chose and to seek like-minded individuals and groups. Likewise, the BSA does not need pressure from churches that do not agree with its time-honored values. They should do the honorable thing Either support the BSA or find a group that can rally behind.

 

[NJCubScouter]

Rooster says:

 

Look at the BSAs mission.

 

OK, let's. This is right off the BSA's web site, though I had to reformat it a bit. Hopefully the formatting will be correct:

 

Mission Statement

 

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.

 

Scout Oath

 

On my honor I will do my best

To do my duty to God and my country

and to obey the Scout Law;

To help other people at all times;

To keep myself physically strong,

mentally awake, and morally straight.

 

Scout Law

 

A Scout is:

Trustworthy

Loyal

Helpful

Friendly

Courteous

Kind

Obedient

Cheerful

Thrifty

Brave

Clean

Reverent

 

Sounds like a good mission to me. Nowhere do I see anything that says, or even suggests, that an openly gay leader cannot be part of achieving this mission. The exclusion of gays really has nothing to do with the mission or values of the BSA.

[packsaddle]

Bob White, There was an 'or' in the statement. This means that under either set of conditions, the Episcopal boys will still be allowed to wear their religious award on their scout uniform. It does not mean that BSA is currently trying to intimidate nor does it mean that the Episcopals are currently planning to state a disagreement in writing. It merely states two conditions that, assuming the Episcopals disagree with BSA in the future (and this seems a possibility on the gay issue), the Episcopals can seek to avoid the fate of the UUs.

 

Ed, Freedom of expression.

Here's the edited part. Ed has a point, the term 'expression' doesn't occur in the first amendment. However, it is common to lump expression in the form of speech and expression in printed form into a single term, 'expression'. The UUs consider the issue a 'freedom of speech' issue but BSA objected to what they wrote in print (UUs have been speaking their disagreement for much longer.) So left to decide which, I opted for 'expression', I hope Ed is the only person with a problem with this.

 

Rooster7, in the original post the only issue mentioned was related to wearing the religious award on the Scout uniform. Later in the thread someone brought up the question of chartering. As I understand the current status with the UUs, their Boy Scouts may not wear the religious award on the Scout uniform. However, the boys are still free to be Boy Scouts, to earn the religious award, and UU churches are still free to act as chartering organizations (am I wrong about this?) I see these as separate in that context.

 

I agree with you that intimidation is un-Scoutlike. In my view, defense of our freedom and our constitutional rights does not merely mean defending our personal rights - it means defending the rights for all citizens. Am I wrong?

And where we disagree on an issue does not mean that one party's rights are or should be subordinated to the other's rights. On the contrary, we should respect each other's rights even if we disagree.

 

BSA rejected the ability of Boy Scouts in good standing from being able to wear the religious award that they earned. BSA did this because the boys' church openly disagreed with BSA.

 

The church was confronted with a situation tantamount to an ultimatum. BSA essentially took boys' ability to wear their religious awards on their uniforms (just like other religious awards for other faiths) and held that ability hostage, to be released only if the UUs no longer expressed their disagreement in print. The printed material was not BSA literature, it was literature associated with the religious award, a non-BSA award. The UUs could either set aside their freedom of expression of their disagreement with BSA policy (Ed this is the 1st Amendment part) or they could cave to the BSA - essentially the two alternatives the Episcopals may face if they also find disagreement with BSA on this issue.

 

If I read more into Ed's statement than he actually said, technically the UUs did not lose their right. They exercised it. They chose not to be intimidated by BSA - risking that in the exercise of their right, BSA would continue to take action against the boys. And the UUs were right, BSA continued to deny Boy Scouts in good standing an ability to wear the earned religious award of their faith on their uniforms. And I still ask the question, 'and this benefits those boys how?'(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[evmori]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

Where is the word expression?

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

 

[packsaddle]

You really got me on that one Ed. Your choice, speech or press. Which do you think it is?

[evmori]

Sorry for being so literal but I was trying to make a point.

 

And you really didn't have to read anything into what I posted. You are correct! The UU did exercise their rights!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Rooster7]

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.

 

The past and current leadership of the BSA is authorized and responsible for defining the words in the Scout Oath and Law. The phrase morally straight is in fact, just two words. When left by themselves, it can be argued that their meaning is very vague and extremely relative to each person. This is especially true for those who want to pursue loopholes. Unless a person or group expounds on the meaning of such a phrase, it is open for interpretation. This is where the BSA leadership comes into play. Of course, there are many who would prefer that no one gives them specific meaning. These folks are more concerned about inclusiveness or living as they please without condemnation than they are about being morally straight. Nevertheless, the BSA leadership is wiser than that, and they have given further details as to how they want the Scout Oath and Law to be interpreted. Until recently, traditional values were known and accepted. No one (or at least very few) tried to present the idea that homosexuality should be associated with wholesome living. No one (or at least very few) would dare credit their existence or good fortune to anyone but God. But as I said, there are those who wish to pretend that they do not understandthese folks burry their collective head in the sand and claim that they have no idea as to what the BSA is talking about. Sorry, it doesnt play. Decent folks know better. And the fact is, indecent folks know better too. In the end, a hundred years from now, well all be wiser. My bet is, many of us will be wiser and happier many others will be wiser and very sad. Its unfortunate that so many seem to have scales over their eyes.

 

Packsaddle,

 

I agree with you that intimidation is un-Scoutlike. In my view, defense of our freedom and our constitutional rights does not merely mean defending our personal rights - it means defending the rights for all citizens. Am I wrong?

 

You are right. However, we are not talking about defending each others right to believe in something. We are talking about the right of association.

 

And where we disagree on an issue does not mean that one party's rights are or should be subordinated to the other's rights. On the contrary, we should respect each other's rights even if we disagree.

 

You are right again we can and should disagree without devaluing someone elses rights.

 

BSA rejected the ability of Boy Scouts in good standing from being able to wear the religious award that they earned. BSA did this because the boys' church openly disagreed with BSA.

 

Three for three, you are right again. And I venture to guess, at all times, the BSA respected the right of the UU church to have and express its opinion. What the BSA did not respect was the UU expressing its opinion in association with an award that was to be worn on a Scout uniform. The UU church is free to express that opinion, but not if they want to be associated the BSA. The BSA is simply exercising their right of association.

 

And I still ask the question, 'and this benefits those boys how?'

 

It benefits all of the boys and their families who embrace traditional values and remain in Scouting. The BSA mission statement is honorable and worthy of a strong defense. Those who understand that will benefit from the BSA. Those who dont embrace this mission will miss out. Just as those who dont embrace traditional values will miss out.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[hops_scout]

The First Admentment is more of a freedom of expression... not just speech or press. It basicly means you can do what you want to a certain extent. At least that is the way I think my Civics teacher said it.

[packsaddle]

In the case of interactions with the UUs I can square BSA policy or actions with neither tolerance, inclusiveness, nor fairness, nor with the golden rule, all of which I hold as traditional values. We obviously just disagree.

 

hops scout, you are in agreement with my use of the term. The only limit that should apply to the exercise of such right is where its exercise limits that right for another (golden rule). In my view this is where BSA crossed the line with their actions. But they had the ability, power and position so they did it. And that's that.

[Twocubdad]

What an interesting juxtaposition between this thread and the one I just came from regarding the definition of "active."

 

On the one hand, BSA very strictly dictates the meaning of "morally straight" to include things not readily available in a common reading of the words. But the meaning of "be active in your Troop" is left to the interpretation of each individual Scout.

 

Very interesting.