Question for Bob White

[evmori]

Excellent point twocubdad!

 

[littlebillie]

I've seen Cub and Boy Scouts wearing the non-standard vests over their standard uniforms with all kinds of non-uniform-authorized patches. I've seen these at Pack and Troop meetings and at Flag Placement - and of course while not part of the official uniform, I've never seen any Scouter request or suggest their removal at any event.

 

Since these are unofficial in the first place (aren't they?), I'd guess there'd be nothing to keep a UU group from employing the same non-standard to display the patch.

[packsaddle]

I agree, Twocubdad.

After reflection there is another way to view the BSA/UU conflict. At the outset was one potential outcome of the interaction. In the end was another. A comparison of the two is instructive.

 

At the outset, if BSA had merely not responded to the UU statement of disagreement in the pamphlet for their religious award, what would have been the effect on BSA policy or actions? There would have been no effect, BSA could have ignored it. The UUs would have had their say. End of story.

In the end, what was the effect on BSA policy or actions? There was no effect. And the UUs eventually had their say anyway.

 

The difference between the two paths is the decision by BSA to 'punish' the boys by not allowing them to wear the religious award. BSA chose to apply this to the only persons who were vulnerable to their action, a few boys who had no real part in the conflict but were in a position of weakness with respect to BSA wrath. The humiliation of those few youth might not seem important to persons in the majority view. But to me the real issue is that BSA chose to do it at all. They had nothing to gain, nothing to lose, and BSA did it to those boys anyway. And in this particular case, the action speaks volumes about BSA's 'character'.

 

I saw this process many times in my past, applied to persons of color; blacks, hispanics, middle easterners, oriental...not to mention Jews - all vulnerable because of their minority status. So I react strongly when I sense a similar mode in BSA. Today's minorities should take notice.

[Bob White]

This discussion has gotten just plain silly. The uniform of the Boy Scouts of America belongs to the BSa. They have the right and responsibility to control the way it is worn, when it is worn, who wears it and what goes on it. They have determined that the the Uniterian Church has not met the requirements to have their religious award displayed on the the scout uniform.

 

The BSA did not say that the members of the church could not be scouts, could not earn their churches award or could not wear it on their own clothing, just that it can not be worn on the BSA field uniform.

 

To equate this to repression of race, religion or minorities is irresponsible. The Uniterian church lead the parade in flip-flopping their position several times in the course of the negotiations. The BSA lost confidence in the churches abaility to state what they wanted to do and stick to it, so the BSA made the decision to remove the UU as a chartering organization and to disallow their awards on the field uniform, just as they disallow many other non scouting related awards.

 

The BSA has not infringed on the UU church, their operation or thier choice of beliefs, they have just said that their values and the goals of the BSA no longer share a commonality.

 

Non of which as a thing to do with the topic of this thread.

 

Bob White

[packsaddle]

So, Bob White, you're saying that UU churches are no longer allowed as chartering organizations? I had been looking for this answer for a while, thanks.

Actually, I think this is relevant to the topic. If you will reread the original post by littlebillie, it asks about the potential for similar action to the Episcopals as taken for the UUs. Seems relevant to me.

 

To note a similarity does not necessarily amount to an equation. An equation involves two things that are equal, sometimes formalized with and '=' sign. An example of a similarity could be in the comparison of, say, a golden delicious apple with a red delicious apple. Both are similar in that they're apples, but clearly not equal. Perhaps there is such equation in your mind but I noted the similarity in order to identify an area for future scrutiny or concern.

 

Finally, my concern is for those boys who were affected by all this. I note your failure to address that. I can hardly equate (your term) your concern for what can go on a uniform with BSA's willingness and intent to focus their response on innocent youth. You obviously have no such compunction.

[Bob White]

Actually packsaddle the difference seems to be my ability to determine what has an effect on youth and what doesn't. I do not see the inabilityt to weaqr an unrelated award on a scout uniform as having an impact on the development of youth. However I see the the values, aims and methods of scouting as having very positive impact on youth. Nor do I see this mountain out of a mole hill over the UU as having an impact on either the BSA or on the youth we serve.

 

Bob White

 

[Rooster7]

Packsaddle,

 

They had nothing to gain, nothing to lose, and BSA did it to those boys anyway.

 

As I already stated

 

BSAs policies benefit the boys and their families who embrace traditional values and chose to remain in Scouting. The parents of those boys need to consider whether or not they embrace BSAs mission (as defined by the BSA). If they dont, then they need to find another program for their boys. Its that simple. If anyone did anything to those boys, it was their parents and/or guardians that chose to enroll their children in a program, which they knew contradicted their own teachings.

 

I saw this process many times in my past, applied to persons of color; blacks, Hispanics, middle easterners, oriental...not to mention Jews - all vulnerable because of their minority status. So I react strongly when I sense a similar mode in BSA. Today's minorities should take notice.

 

Why would anyone equate (or compare - if you prefer) national origin and race with sexual behavior? Do you equate these good peoples minority status with other sexual behaviors such as bestiality? Dont you realize that many minorities are insulted by such comparisons?

 

Bob White,

 

Silly is the word. Bob, your remarks are right on the mark!

 

Twocubdad,

 

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.

 

First, I would argue (if one is not being stubborn) Most folks readily understand what traditional values mean. One does not have to be a history major to know and understand the moral values publicly embraced by this country prior to the 60s. And please, you folks who like to cart out the history of the Klan and other such groups, dont try to equate that garbage with the majority of Americans who lived prior to the 60s. Its an insult to them and to the intelligence of most folks posting on this board. The fact that some bad things occurred prior to the 60s does not mean it was a moral value embraced by the majority of Americans. So, my point is, the BSA has a maintained an excellent and worthy set of moral values. Values that have remained consistent since their inception.

 

Second, there is a huge difference between ones mission and the means one utilizes to accomplish it. Moral values, the Scout Oath and Law, are crucial to the mission of the BSA. When necessary, the BSA is wise to make clarifications. Or, more accurately, they should remove loopholes and define their mission more clearly so that others cannot exploit the organization for their own political gain. The requirement to be active in your troop is important because if one is not participating, one cannot gain the benefits offered by the program. However, it is not nearly as important as the mission itself. The mission affects everyone in the organization. Ones activity level, in the long run, tends to affect the one individual. Furthermore, the BSA can reasonably expect that troops will monitor and encourage its members to be active. If not, why obtain a charter and offer the program. On the other hand, the BSA cannot trust that everyone will reasonably interpret its mission. Some folks have their own agenda and are not ashamed of employing the most devious of tactics to accomplish the same. Therefore, common sense demands that the BSA give its mission statement more attention and priority. They need to define it more rigidly so that people will remain true to its mission, to prevent others from corrupting and/or stealing the organization to serve their own agenda. Ironically, there are some maybe yourself included, who claim that the BSA was stolen by Christian conservatives in recent times. To me, this is nonsense. Im convinced, and I think most folks know this as well; the BSA has remained true to its mission, one that they established nearly a hundred years ago. Christian conservatives flock to the BSA because this statement is true. The BSA offers values that they (and many other faiths as well) want their children to learn and to embrace. They did not highjack the BSA. However, there is a movement by homosexuals, atheists, and others (with their own design for the BSA) who are trying to do just that!

 

I, for one, believe that they will fail. God Bless those who stand in our stead and fight the good fight to keep the mission intact and the program strong.

 

[packsaddle]

No, Rooster7, I would not make the comparisons that you just did. In the case of UU Boy Scouts, a large organization (BSA) made a conscious decision that affected a small number of boys - boys that were segregated (by BSA) on the basis of an idea that was being promoted not by those boys but by other persons (UUA). The situation is very similar to what I observed during the conflicts regarding segregated schools. In many cases children were caught in the middle. It was without honor then, and now.

 

Although BSA had the ability to do what they wanted, their action was needless as the outcome had effect on neither their policy nor any other youth. They couldn't touch the persons (UUA) who actually were promoting the idea with which they disagreed so BSA took action against their (UUA) children, Scouts in this case. Again, very similar to actions I observed during desegregation conflicts. I think a wide variety of types of minorities will see the similarity as well.

 

Bob White, you can minimize this by calling it a mole hill and I suppose you do that because of the small number of boys involved, a minority of Scouts, if you will. To me the fact that BSA was willing to engage in this tactic IS the point and the numbers of boys is less important. Actually, the smaller the number the more sensitive I tend to be to it. BSA was not merely willing but they were intent on this action, indicating again a willingness to hurt a few youth again if it advances their cause. Again, an old tactic that I and others know too well.

[mk9750]

Pack,

 

I respectfully disagree with your position here.

 

I investigated the issue of UUA as unemotionally as I possibly could. I determined that BOTH organizations refused to assimilate a core value of the other into important aspects of their own program (BSA refused to allow UUA to discuss homosexuality in literature that pertained to a religious emblem they recognize, the UUA refused to accept the BSA's position on homosexuality). BOTH organizations MUST claim responsiblity for this situation, as well as BOTH feeling good that they stuck to their principles.

 

You say that the BSA made a decision that negetively affected innocent children. OK, for the sake of the discussion I'll accept that. But if I do, I MUST point out that UUA made a decision that EQUALLY negetively affected these same children.

 

And in no way can I see the effect that these decisions had on UUA children anywhere close to the effect of the real discrimination that happened in the cases to which you allude. And it isn't a matter of quantity of people involved.

 

Mark

[packsaddle]

Mark, I am glad to read your reply. I had not thanked you for the good job you did researching that issue. I learned a few things that I hadn't known before as well. Thanks.

I do understand what you say regarding tactics and degree of harm. I admit that I am honing a fine edge here, but that is because I think we should be able to expect the best out of this organization, and I expect them to meet a higher standard. I am sure you agree with that.

At the same time, don't think the UUs are getting off lightly in my world. I have taken and still take them to the verbal woodshed about this on numerous occasions...in fact, I started with them. Why shouldn't I do the same to both parties? This is, after all, a Scouter forum, not a UU forum. I get to see the UUs up-close and personal and I don't hold back. They do, ahem, take it to heart more than BSA seems to. I appreciate your good words.

[Rooster7]

Packsaddle,

 

You're missing the point. Even 12 year-old "innocent" boys understand principled-based positions. It is the UU that is attempting to make a political statement with its "supplemental" literature. You portray these boys as being caught in the middle. Even so, I give them credit for having a brain. This is a struggle from which they can learn. Do you honestly believe a Scout is going to suffer irreparable harm?

 

[Bob White]

I call it a mole hill not because of the number of people involved but because of the almost indiscernible affect that the ability to wear the award has on either program.

 

The fact that it cannot be worn on the scouting uniform does not diminish or restrict the scout's ability to give give service to his church or earn the award. I hope that you are not suggesting that the scout's lack of opportunity to display it on his uniform detracts from his service to God?

 

As a scout I earned a medal from the American Legion as a winner of their "Voice of America" competition. Although the Legion is a huge sponsor of scouting, the medal is not authorized for wear on the Boy Scout uniform. So I did not wear it. There was no disappointmnet on my part. There was no wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth between the BSA and the American Legion. The Boy Scout uniform is for Boy Scout approved awards, the American Legion did not instruct me to display the medal on my uniform in spite of the BSA's rules. The "Voice of America" does not exist for the sake of scouting, nor scouting for the purpose of displaying everyone elses awards.

 

The BSA's program does not change for lack of this one award on a shirt. The values and teachings of the Unitarian church are not altered by their inability to have a medal displayed on a uniform. The scout did no less a worthy deed for not being able to put someone elses award on the BSA's uniform, nor is his participation in the scouting program altered by one iota.

 

I call it a mole hill because it is.

 

Bob White

[NJCubScouter]

BobWhite says:

 

The scout did no less a worthy deed for not being able to put someone elses award on the BSA's uniform, nor is his participation in the scouting program altered by one iota.

 

I have a question about this. Both the Bear and Webelos ranks have requirements that say: "Earn the religious emblem of your faith." Can a boy satisfy these requirements by earning the UU religious emblem?

 

And, if the answer is no, doesn't that affect the boy's participation in the Scouting program, by more than just an iota? Now, I realize that each of these requirements does have a matching option, in other words there are religious requirements that can be fulfilled instead of earning the religious emblem. But if a boy is told that all the Catholics and Jews and Hindus and whoever in his den can choose a or b, but he gets no choice because he is a Unitarian, I don't know, that seems like it might have an effect.

 

These requirements also suggest to me that the statements that I have seen some make, that the religious awards are completely separate and apart from the BSA except for the "uniform wear" issue, are not completely correct. If the BSA has nothing else to do with these awards, what are they doing being part of the Cub Scout advancement program?

[Bob White]

They are separate in that the BSA does not determine the requirements. As you ponit out the earning of the religious award is an optional activity and the scouts can advancence without having to earn the award no matter what religion they practice.

 

This is a non-issue for a boy whether he is particpating in the Unitarian church, Scouting, or both.

 

A boy who wins a medal for sportsmanship in Little League is not authorized to wear it on his scout uniform. That neither effects his ability to play ball or fully participate in scouts. The issue over the UU religious award is no different.

 

Bob White

[dsteele]

NJcubscouter put a question on the table as follows:

 

"I have a question about this. Both the Bear and Webelos ranks have requirements that say: "Earn the religious emblem of your faith." Can a boy satisfy these requirements by earning the UU religious emblem?"

 

The answer is yes.

 

It says nothing about "approved" religious emblem, or "uniform wear" religious emblem.

 

The religious emblems are created and established, indeed governed by their respective religion. There is an organization who's anacronym is P.R.A.Y. that helps with administration.

 

The BSA picks and chooses which emblems to recognize for uniform wear.

 

The BSA recognizes the importance of religion with the requirementsmentioned above, not the importance of a medal on a uniform.

 

It's kind of like the Presidential Physical Fitness award I won in fifth grade. It never occured to me to wear it on my uniform -- I earned it through school and not the BSA.

 

DS