What are the requirement for establishing a religious emblem?

[Peregrinator]

Peregrinator' date=' are you prepared to similarly embrace the rest of the document, especially starting on page 40?[/quote']

 

I wasn't stating that I agreed with the article, I was wondering whether its description of what occurred between the BSA and the UUA was factual. Since it is a pro-UUA article I don't see any reason to think that it isn't factual.

[Peregrinator]

Peregrinator' date=' you implied that the UUA was being underhanded and dishonest with it's actions. The record clearly shows that to not be the case.[/quote']

 

The UUA said they would include references to other publications in the manual (or at least with the manual). The letter they received from the BSA (which, since it is cited and not disputed in a pro-UUA article, I assume is accurate) indicates that they went beyond merely including references. So it doesn't appear that the UUA told the BSA what they were doing.

[packsaddle]

"The UUA said they would include references to other publications in the manual (or at least with the manual)."

Which is what they did.

But even IF the UUA was sneaky and underhanded, that does not diminish the FACT that BSA took action against boys who had no way to defend themselves, an action that did not change any of the circumstances of the disagreement, an action that did not contribute to resolution of the disagreement, an action that was gratuitous and taken because they COULD - against the only vulnerable target available, defenseless boys. It was cowardly. It was vindictive.

[Peregrinator]

"The UUA said they would include references to other publications in the manual (or at least with the manual)."

Which is what they did.

 

Well, yes, along with actually including other resources, not merely referencing them as they had agreed to do.

 

But even IF the UUA was sneaky and underhanded, that does not diminish the FACT that BSA took action against boys who had no way to defend themselves, an action that did not change any of the circumstances of the disagreement, an action that did not contribute to resolution of the disagreement, an action that was gratuitous and taken because they COULD - against the only vulnerable target available, defenseless boys. It was cowardly. It was vindictive.

 

I am not arguing that the BSA wasn't those things.