What are the requirement for establishing a religious emblem?

[King Ding Dong]

My goggle skill are failing me. What are the current requirements for a religion to get a emblem approved ? My understanding was chartering at least 25 units was the base requirement. Others have stated that is not the case.

[NJCubScouter]

I think it probably depends on how many units the Wiccans have. If they have less than 25, you need 25. If they have 25 or more, you need more than that. (I'm only half -joking.)

[King Ding Dong]

Any official document spelling out the rules? Anyone else think this rule is contrary to the allegedly "non-sectarian" approach to religion?

[packsaddle]

Having BSA accept the emblem is, as NJ noted, ambiguous. I do know that once accepted, all you need to do to get it 'un-accepted' is to note in your literature that you disagree with BSA policy.

 

Edit: I scanned the P.R.A.Y. website but didn't see an answer to the OP question. But you might see something I missed. You may have to ask specifically for each faith:

http://www.praypub.org/main_frameset.htm

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

As NJCubScouter alluded to, the rules were changed deliberately to prevent a Wiccan award from getting approval; yes, it's totally contrary to the BSA's supposed non-sectarianism.

 

Looks like this requirement also scuttled a Navajo religious award, it doesn't look like this effort from 2007 succeeded:

http://www.navajohopiobserver.com/main.asp?SectionID=35&SubSectionID=47&ArticleID=6039

[packsaddle]

Of course, no one is going to jail for wearing the emblem on the uniform regardless of BSA'a approval. Their approval carries almost no real significance compared to the actual achievement and recognition by the boy's own faith.

[Peregrinator]

I do know that once accepted' date=' all you need to do to get it 'un-accepted' is to note in your literature that you disagree with BSA policy.[/quote']

 

If I remember correctly, the reason that the UU emblem was "unaccepted" was not they criticized BSA policy but because they included that criticism in the manual for the emblem.

[packsaddle]

Peregrinator, I have actually read that literature. Factually stating that the UUA disagrees with BSA on the membership policy could be considered 'criticism' by some, I suppose, but it was their manual, UUA's own literature, after all. They had the right to inform their own church members of their disagreement. BSA, in response, could have just let it go since there was nothing factually incorrect about the UUA statements. But BSA didn't. They took the low ground by denying recognition to their own members who happened to be UUA scouts. Those boys were not part of the argument and BSA didn't have to do anything. But they did. They did it to the only truly vulnerable individuals available, the boys. It was vindictive and cowardly.

[Peregrinator]

OK, the reason that the religious emblem was "unaccepted" was not because the UU disagreed with the BSA policy but because they included that disagreement in the manual for the religious emblem. They then removed the material the BSA found objectionable from the manual, getting the emblem "accepted" again, but included the disagreement in supplemental material included with every copy of the manual. But that wasn't underhanded or cowardly.

[Rick_in_CA]

OK' date=' the reason that the religious emblem was "unaccepted" was not because the UU disagreed with the BSA policy but because they included that disagreement in the manual for the religious emblem. They then removed the material the BSA found objectionable from the manual, getting the emblem "accepted" again, but included the disagreement in supplemental material included with every copy of the manual. But that wasn't underhanded or cowardly.[/quote']

 

The UUA told the BSA about the supplemental material. The BSA first said fine, then rescinded that approval without any explanation. From the September 30, 1998 letter from the UUA to the BSA (bold emphasis is mine):

 

For our part, the UUA will publish a new, revised edition of the Religion in Life manual. While continuing to assert as a matter of religious principle our belief in the worth and dignity of every personâ€â€regardless of race or creed, gender or sexual orientation, ability or disabilityâ€â€the revised manual will be written so as not to offend the BSA in any way. Authors of the new edition will be the Rev. Keith Kron of our Faith in Action Department and the Rev. Cynthia Breen, UUA Director of Religious Education, both of whom were present at the meeting. Where we feel it necessary to help Scouts working on the award or Scout leaders acting as advisors to more fully explore Unitarian Universalist under-standings of ‘duty to God’ or current BSA policies, the new edition will simply reference other helpful publications available from our Youth Office. This will avoid including in a manual for a BSA award material which the BSA finds inappropriate.

 

All the letters can be found at: http://www.uua.org/re/children/scouting/162788.shtml.

 

So no, it wasn't underhanded or cowardly.

[Peregrinator]

Hi Rick, I'm not sure what that bolded part of your post is supposed to show.

[Rick_in_CA]

Hi Rick' date=' I'm not sure what that bolded part of your post is supposed to show.[/quote']

 

That the BSA knew exactly what the UUA was doing (about the supplemental material), because the UUA told them about it. And I read what your wrote as implying that the UUA was doing something underhanded or cowardly by putting the objections to the BSA policies in the supplemental material.

[Peregrinator]

Hi Rick, I apologize but I'm still not following you. Are you saying that the supplemental material consisted only in the references to other publications? Is this article (pro-UUA, by the way) mistaken, then, in its description of the supplemental material (top of p. 54)?

 

http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6200&context=expresso

 

Your letter goes on to say the following: “The new edition of Religion in Life will be available from the UUA Bookstore this summer. Along with each copy, the Association will separately provide a letter from me, along with resources appropriate to dealing with issues of homophobia and religious discrimination.†Unfortunately, this simply reopens the entire issue of using boys as a venue to air your differences with the policies of the Boy Scouts of America.

[packsaddle]

Peregrinator, are you prepared to similarly embrace the rest of the document, especially starting on page 40?

[Rick_in_CA]

Peregrinator, you implied that the UUA was being underhanded and dishonest with it's actions. The record clearly shows that to not be the case.