Question for Bob White

[packsaddle]

Ed, I am surprised that Bob White hasn't kept with the spirit of past responses. If I were him, I'd inform you that as a private organization, BSA has the right to capriciously and arbitrarily deny any potential CO - or to deny with prejudice or reason if BSA wishes. Neither explanation nor apology has to be given. Just like membership.

Not, of course, that I agree with that spirit.

 

But Ed, do you think his response actually addressed your observation?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[evmori]

pack,

No I don't.

 

Ed

[NJCubScouter]

Ed, how is it contradictory? There have been openly gay Episcopal priests for years. There have been openly gay Reform Jewish rabbis for years (probably more years, I would guess.) I am sure there are a few other faiths in the same category. The BSA has never banned Episcopal or Reform Jewish places of worship from being CO's. How does changing one gay clergyman's title from "priest" to "bishop" change that? (It has probably never come up with Reform Judaism because there is no Jewish counterpart to a bishop. The only higher authority in Judaism is, as they say in the Hebrew National hot dog commercials, The Higher Authority.)

[Bob White]

Ed,

If a school (church) that sponsors a cub scout pack hires a homosexual principal (Bishop) is the school (church) in violation of the BSA membership rules? No. Why you ask? Because the School (church) is not saying that they would allow the principal (Bishop) to be a member of the pack, or that they would allow other homosexuals to join the pack. They hired an employee, which has nothing to do with membership in the BSA.

 

No harm, no foul.

 

Should the school (church) decide to extend the acceptance of homosexuals to include offering them membership in the pack then the BSA would become involved. The school (church) would have its ability to be a chartered organization revoked (Wiccan and Unitarian churches).

 

Now do you understand?

 

The BSA is not telling the school or church who they can hire, only who they can allow into the BSA. The BSA is not trying to alter the rules of the school or church, it is just upholding the rules of the BSA within the BSA scout unit.

 

Please let me know what part of this is unclear.

 

Bob White

 

Packsaddle,

If you have a comment or question regarding me, feel free to address me directly in your posts. If you were me.... you would have a better understanding of the issue and won't be propagating so much misinformation.

 

 

 

[packsaddle]

Bob White, So....you're saying that BSA does NOT have the right to deny CO status for any reason? I stand corrected.

[evmori]

It's contradictory because both stance ar virtually the same!

 

Ed

[Bob White]

Where could you have possible drawn that conclusion from packsaddle?

 

I said the that a chartering organization can do anything it wants as far as the BSA is concerned EXCEPT to alter or overrule the authority of the BSA within the BSA program.

 

The CO can hire atheists or homosexuals, they cannot accept them as members of the BSA. They can have as many religious awards with whatever requirements they want, but the cannot decide what can be put onto the BSA's uniform.

 

What part of this can you not understand?

 

Bob White

[NJCubScouter]

Bob, as a purely technical matter, you are probably correct. But think about the messages being sent here. A boy is a member of a church or a student at a school (and let's make it a private school to avoid entangling Merlyn into this.) His pastor (or principal) is openly gay. The church (or school) is CO of the troop the boy is a member of. The openly gay pastor (or principal) is IH. The Boy Scouts says an openly gay man is not a good role model. The church (or school) has placed an openly gay man into a position that by definition is supposed to be role model for both youth and adults. (Maybe not in all aspects, like if the pastor is required to be celibate, but you know what I mean.) The church (school) owns the troop and to paraphrase the BSA, uses the Scouting program as part of its service to youth. The same individual is being identified as a good role model and a bad role model within the same organization.

 

Doesn't this strike you as being just a bit incongruous?

 

By the way, I do realize that this is why this situation would almost never arise. But on a theoretical level, it could, and it doesn't make much sense. At least Ed and I can agree about something.

[Bob White]

"The same individual is being identified as a good role model and a bad role model within the same organization."

 

That is incorrect. The school has said he is a good role model. The BSA has said he is not. The school is welcome to their opinion but they do not have the authority to alter the BSA's.

 

Bob White

 

What is the difference between being technically right and being right?

 

[packsaddle]

Bob White, I'm clear on that part. The reason I spoke for you out of turn (and I apologize), I'm still confused about something you said earlier. To wit,

"The BSA did not tell the UU what thier religious doctrine should be. They told them how their changes would effect their awards eligibility to be displayed on the BSA uniform and how it would require the BSA to bar a Unitarian Church from being a BSA charter organiation."

That part requiring the BSA "to bar a Unitarian Church from being a BSA charter organiation." caught my attention.

 

Given that the change UUA made was merely to verbally state disagreement with BSA, BSA's rejection of UUA churches as COs sets a precedent. For the sake of consistency and fairness, I would expect ANY church that expressed public disagreement with BSA similarly to be ejected as a CO. Unless....

 

UNLESS BSA had the ability to arbitrarily deny CO status regardless of the situation. In THAT case, I understand rejection of UUA churches that express disagreement with BSA while allowing CO status for other churches in disagreement with BSA. And I think the point that some of us are trying to make is that the Episcopals may provide such test. Moreover, as I understand it, NJCubScouter has identified other organizations evidently in disagreement with BSA as well. I'm merely waiting for all the shoes to drop (I've always heard that phrase used, but never really understood it, can someone help me there?).

 

The outcome will be telling. If the Episcopal church (or any other church) publicly disagrees with BSA but is allowed to continue as a CO, then I am correct in my statement that BSA arbitrarily rejects COs for any (or no) reason. BUT, if the Episcopal church (or any other church) publicly disagrees and BSA consistently rejects them as COs, then BSA is being consistent and fair, at least in their way of thinking. And I will have the evidence needed for me to reject my interpretation.

 

Alas, if the Episcopals merely keep silent in their disagreement, we'll have to wait for some other church to provide the test.

[Bob White]

This is what I mean about you spreading false information.

 

The Episcopal Church using their national representatives in the BSA have expressed that they disagree with the membership rules but will abide by them.

 

The UUA Church said publicly that they disagreed with the BSA and would not abide by the membership rules.

 

The Episcopal church remains as a member in good standing, the UUA church does not.

 

Your misrepresentations of fact does a disservice to all parties involved.

 

BW

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Rooster7]

The same individual is being identified as a good role model and a bad role model within the same organization.

 

The conflict (as described above) was caused by the chartering organization, which sought out a BSA charter, knowing that the BSAs values were different than their own. Furthermore, while this situation may have not yet become a reality, the BSA has not issued any decrees or promises that they would never reject a chartering organization given the above scenario. My guess is, based on the BSAs recent history dealing with these kinds of matters; they would continue the relationship with the chartering organization so long as they did not try to use the situation to gain political ground (i.e., circumvent the BSAs position on homosexual leaders). If the chartering organization went public and/or manipulated the situation to serve their agenda, I believe the BSA would revoke their charter. Unfortunately, I think the BSA is making a mistake by waiting for those kinds of situations to develop. The liberal media attacks these stories like a pit-bull. The BSA goes out of their way to keep these relationships intact (i.e., UUA Church, Episcopal Church, etc.) even when they dont necessarily agree with their values. Yet, the media loves to make the BSA look like the bad guy. I think the BSA would be wiser by being proactive and rejecting these chartering organizations before they have the opportunity to exploit the Scouting movement. While the Episcopal Church may have agreed to abid by the BSA's membership policies, it's only a matter of time before they turn and bite BSA's hand.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Rooster7]

OR - as the old saying goes - Be careful who you climb in bed with.

[NJCubScouter]

Rooster says:

 

I think the BSA would be wiser by being proactive and rejecting these chartering organizations before they have the opportunity to exploit the Scouting movement.

 

I have no doubt that you do, Rooster. That is one of the "options" I was talking about earlier. The one I said would take the BSA further down a path that it shouldn't be travelling in the first place. I have no doubt that that is exactly the path you would like the BSA to take.

 

And at the same time, society is on its own, opposite path. I think that as time goes on, more and more religions are going to stop teaching that being gay is immoral and that gays should be excluded. More and more states, and eventually the federal government, will outlaw discrimination against gays. Some sort of "union" of people of the same gender, having most or all of the characteristics of marriage, will become commonplace. The military ban on gay conduct, and with it the ban on gays in the military, will be repealed (if it is not already unconstitutional based on the recent Texas case, which it probably is.) Rooster, you recently said in some thread that in 100 years, the issue will all be resolved, and I think you're right, though I don't think you will like the resolution. In the meantime, I am afraid that as the paths of the BSA and society diverge, the BSA will become more and more of a marginal organization. And that would be a real shame.

[Bob White]

Rooster,

How exactly does the BSA decide to remove an CO before they do anything wrong?

 

BW