Religious Emblem approved for Unitarian Universalist youth!

[nldscout]

I am not a UU nor have any intention of becoming one. I would however say that the debate about who in the UU church can issue a religious medal would be better discussed among UU church members on the UU list.

[fgoodwin]

nldscout:

 

I agree with you; by that logic, non-BSA folks shouldn't come in here and talk about BSA issues, but their lack of membership certainly doesn't stop them from whining about everything under the sun when it comes to BSA membership policies.

 

So by analogy, there's no reason that non-UUs should be precluded from discussing UU issues here, although I agree there is little that we (non-UUs) can do about it.

[Proud Eagle]

I don't know anything about this except what is posted here.

 

However, I do have some observations.

 

It sounds like BSA didn't like the old UUA stuff because it openly disagreed with BSA policies. It would be nuts for a group to support distribution of materials that do not support its policies. If the new group is clearly stating positions contrary to those of the UUA, then it should be made clear that it does not speak for all UUs or the UUA. However, that has not yet been demonstrated to be the case.

 

The UUA should not be encouraging the uniform wear its medal. I think it is great the UUA has continued its program in-house. However, it needs to acknowledge that while it has an award for UUs who are Scouts, that it is not a BSA sanctioned award.

 

I don't know that the issue of this UUSO being approved by the UUA is really an issue for the BSA. After all, this UUSO could easily be considered to constitute a seperate faith group all on its own. It should be noted that this is not the UUA, and that the UUA doesn't have anything to do with it, if in fact that is the case.

 

Finally, the false conflict between Catholicism and supporting our armed forces is entirely contrived. While the Pope did not support the invasions, and his opinion carries much weight, it should be noted that the catechism clearly states that authority for determining if a war is just is the role for legitimate governments. Also, the Pope has made clear that since we did invade, it is our responsibility to try to put things back together as best as possible.

[nldscout]

OK Proud Eagle, you lost me on the whole Pope/Chatholic/Armed Forces thing.

[Kudu]

Fred Goodwin writes:

 

> nuqDaq 'oH puchpa' 'e'

 

I'm sorry, but I'm new to this forum and I can't follow Fred Goodwin's Klingon logic. Can someone translate?

 

Hunt writes:

 

> A couple of points here: Trevorum's original post makes it clear that

> UUSO is not affiliated with UUA.

 

He wrote that they were working "in coordination with Rev. Sinkford who has approved of our organization and its objectives." To me this implies that Sinkford and the UUA were at least AWARE (which they deny) of the UUSO and its objectives. There is no such approval of their organization and its objectives.

 

> It seems to me that if BSA wants to recognize a religious award

> designed by a scouter group it can do so.

 

Certainly. If they want to, they can also bump Ner Tamid, and substitute a religious award designed by "Jews for Jesus."

 

> I do think it should be clear who does and does not support the

> award.

 

On that we agree, but do you really think that the BSA is going to divulge that information on its glossy four-color poster of religious awards "approved" by religious conservatives?

 

> I would like to suggest to anybody connected with the UUA that it

> is dishonest to urge scouts to wear the emblem on their uniforms if

> you know that BSA does not recognize the emblem for uniform wear.

 

"Dishonest" is the wrong word. What you are looking for is a negative term for "civil disobedience." The boys are well aware of the BSA's policies against their beliefs. Standing up for what they believe is a tradition that goes back to the sixteenth-century Unitarians, who acted on their own rational convictions in the face of overwhelming orthodox opposition and persecution.

 

> At the very least, you should acknowledge that you are asking the

> boys to violate the rules of BSA.

 

When worn on the BSA Uniform, the "Religion in Life" medal is a nifty intolerance detector. By the time they are teenagers, Unitarian-Universalist youth are old enough to understand that a smiling Scoutmaster may actually embrace the BSA's discrimination rules and order them to remove their religious medal. But it is significant that of the 500 Religion in Life medals sold to Boy Scouts since the BSA forbade them, not a single such confrontation has been reported. Perhaps the Religious Relationships Committee had to create the puppet UUSO when they discovered that Scouting volunteers will not do the BSA's bidding when it comes to persecuting a boy from their own Troop.

 

 

[Kudu]

nldscout writes:

 

> I am not a UU nor have any intention of becoming one. I would

> however say that the debate about who in the UU church can

> issue a religious medal would be better discussed among UU

> church members on the UU list.

 

The subject of the discussion is "Religious Emblem Approved for Unitarian Universalist Youth!"

 

Fred Goodwin writes:

 

> I agree with you [nldscout] ...So by analogy, there's no reason that

> non-UUs should be precluded from discussing UU issues here, although

> I agree there is little that we (non-UUs) can do about it.

 

"Little that we (non-UUs) can do about it"? That is the whole point, isn't it? You, a "non-UU," were the one who broke this story, and it will be non-UUs, from PRAY to the unwitting local volunteers, who promote this medal as THE UU religious award.

 

The Religious Relationships Committee, which was composed entirely of non-Unitarian-Universalists, selected people who disagree with the UUA to administer the religious conservative's "approved" fake Unitarian-Universalist religious program.

 

Its like the red Chinese picking Tibet's next Dali Lama.

[Trevorum]

Kudu,

 

I greatly resent your insunuations. The BSA Religious Relationships subcommittee did not "create" the UUSO. The UUSO is not a "puppet". As was posted, the UUSO was created by UU Scouters, who after several years of patient work were invited to join the subcommittee. Your statement is offensive to those who have been working behind the scenes on behalf of UU scouts.

 

Your conclusion that the UUSO is not a legitimate sponsor of an emblems program for UU Scouts is also invalid. Not all religious emblems programs recognized by BSA are sponsored directly by churches or other "official" organizations. For example, the Ner Tamid is sponsored by the National Jewish Committee on Scouting and the Alpha Omega is sponsored by the Eastern Orthodox Committee on Scouting. There are others. Neither of these organizations are official arms of a religious body and neither are they "puppets" of anyone. Like the UUSO, they are associations of religious Scouters, albeit with longer histories.

 

As far as I know, no one has ever suggested that the new Living your Religion should replace UUA's Religion in Life award. They are parallel curricula and can be taught that way. However, the LyR award and its knot may be worn on the Scout's uniform without the need for self-serving word-spinning of "honesty".

 

Your assumptions about what the LyR curriculum includes - or does not include - are premature to say the least, and inflammatory. As was posted, the UUSO does not yet have a web presence and the pamphlets are not yet printed. The approval was barely 6 weeks ago. As was posted, the awards proram will be formally presented at the Jamboree this summer, although the requirements will be posted on the web before then. Until that time, your hand-wringing and mud-slinging are empty. Evidently, you are unwilling to believe that the LyR curriculum is "very, very familiar".

 

I truly don't understand why you, and others on UU-Scouting, are so negative and ready to mistrust your fellow UUs. Are you so politically virtuous that everyone else must be an Uncle Tom? Is your glass always this half-empty? From your jumping to conclusions and mis-characterizations, I can only conclude that your posts are trolls.

 

The LyR emblems program does not resolve - and does not claim to resolve - the important philosophical differences between the UU faith and official BSA positions. Where you are, perhaps all UU Scouts wear the RiL knot as "civil disobedience". That's fine. Where I am, I see many UU Scouts who do not undertake any RE program because "you can't wear it on your uniform". The sole objective of the UUSO is to encourage UU Scouts to learn about their faith. Where I am, that's a good thing.

 

[VAordeal]

Being a Roman Catholic i disagree with many UUA issues but i am tolerant of all faiths and it is nice to see that Unitarian Scouts can now wear an emblem even if it isnt a UUA award. And GreyEagle, you lossed me aswell with your Pope/Catholic/War comment.

[OldGreyEagle]

I think this is my first post in this thread, what are you talking about?

[Kudu]

Proud Eagle writes:

 

> It sounds like BSA didn't like the old UUA stuff because it openly

> disagreed with BSA policies. It would be nuts for a group to support

> distribution of materials that do not support its policies....

 

> Finally, the false conflict between Catholicism and supporting our

> armed forces is entirely contrived.

 

It was an analogy, and all analogies are contrived. The idea is to make a strange situation seem more understandable by making a comparison to some imaginary situation.

 

I clearly indicated that the contraction between the BSA's "Support our Troops" hoopla and the Pope's statement against the war was completely hypothetical :-/

 

The UUA including the pamphlets "When Others Say God" and "In Support of All People" with their religious award after the BSA went to court to establish that the Scout Oath and Law excludes certain children from being Scouts, can be put in perspective if you imagined the BSA interpreting "Duty to my country," "Obedient," and "Loyal" to exclude children who do not recognize an obligation to "support our troops in Iraq."

 

If that directly contradicted some statement by the Pope against the Iraq war, I don't see how anyone would consider it to be unreasonable to include a pamphlet with the "Ad Altare Dei" award to explain to Scouts what the Church means to be "pro life."

 

Perhaps it was an ill-advised analogy, because I don't know where Catholics in the BSA's Religious Relationships subcommittee stand on dictating matters of faith to a religious community.

[Kudu]

> I greatly resent your insinuations.

 

I don't see why. I seem to be a lone voice in this forum. Everywhere you go for the rest of your life you will be celebrated by non-Unitarian-Universalists for your work in outflanking the UUA. Let me concede right here and now that the UUSO's program is a great victory for the religious right. In the coming years, as the BSA Handbooks and glossy religious awards posters feature "Living your Religion" as "the" Unitarian-Universalist religious award, even UU children and adults will be confused.

 

I can only hope that Unitarian-Universalists finally wake up, connect the dots, and come to understand that this is what happens when the government gets in the business of establishing a religious corporation with an absolute monopoly on Scouting.

 

> The BSA Religious Relationships subcommittee did not "create" the

> UUSO. The UUSO is not a "puppet". As was posted, the UUSO was

> created by UU Scouters, who after several years of patient work were

> invited to join the subcommittee.

 

You were invited only because you let it be known that you were willing to "play ball" with the Religious Relationships subcommittee and produce a Unitarian-Universalist program that did not include the pamphlet "In Support of All People." Can I prove exactly how this exchange in some private room of a large religious monopoly corporation was worded? No.

 

You silence as to whether or not you also agreed not to distribute "When Others Say 'God'," is less understandable. The contents are really mild in comparison to Catholic theology in the last 30 years. Please tell us that you did at least show some moral backbone in standing up to Lawrence Ray Smith and the Religious Relationships subcommittee on this spiritual matter. See:

 

http://www.inquiry.net/ideals/say_god.htm

 

> For example, the Ner Tamid is sponsored by the National Jewish

> Committee on Scouting and the Alpha Omega is sponsored by the

> Eastern Orthodox Committee on Scouting. There are others. Neither

> of these organizations are official arms of a religious body and neither

> are they "puppets" of anyone.

 

And neither was created because the Religious Relationships subcommittee rejected Jewish or Eastern Orthodox teachings and needed a puppet to circumvent matters of faith in that religious community.

 

As David Peavy writes in UU-Scouting:

 

"There is a big difference between the Jewish and Eastern Orthodox faiths,

and the Unitarian-Universalist faith in the USA. With Judaism and Eastern

Orthodox Christianity there are several national churches or branches

within each faith tradition. For example, within Judaism there is the

Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionism, etc. branches. Within

Eastern Orthodox Christianity, there are several national churches, mostly

due to which country that particular religion developed.

 

"With these faiths, having one organization where each religious faith

tradition is represented is much better than having 4-5 different Jewish

Committees on Scouting and each with their own religious emblem program.

However, that is not the case with the Unitarian-Universalist church, in

that there is one national body -- the UUA. Or are there other national

associations of Unitarian-Universalist churches, that are not affiliated

with the UUA? If so, then the UUSO-model would be appropriate, provided

that all of the National UU Churches agreed and had official

representatives on the UUSO. As we've learned that the UUA has never heard

of the UUSO, much less have any official representative on your board, then

it is difficult to differentiate your group from another group that starts

the UUSA, or the UUBSA, etc. Each would be equally lacking in standing in

the eyes of both the UUA and Unitarian-Universalism.

 

"In addition, I cannot recall any instance where a relationship between the

BSA and a church had been established, broken off, and then a group of

individual Scouters, with no authority from the church, assumes the

previous relationship. Can you cite me such a precedent?"

 

> However, the LyR award and its knot may be worn on the Scout's

> uniform without the need for self-serving word-spinning of "honesty".

 

It is not necessary to "spin words." To wear the RiL on the BSA uniform is to defy the Religious Relationships subcommittee's religious discrimination with direct action. As for the knot, the wording is ambiguous. Most religious conservatives, including Mike Walton, interpret it to mean that the knot can be worn on the Uniform after earning Religion in Life.

 

> Your assumptions about what the LyR curriculum includes - or does

> not include - are premature to say the least, and inflammatory.

> As was posted, the UUSO does not yet have a web presence and

> the pamphlets are not yet printed. The approval was barely 6 weeks

> ago.

 

If was "approved" by the RR then the program is finished. How long does it take to set up a "web presence"? A couple of hours? Do you need technical help?

 

> Your assumptions about what the LyR curriculum includes -

> or does not include - are premature to say the least, and inflammatory.

> I truly don't understand why you, and others on UU-Scouting, are so

> negative and ready to mistrust your fellow UUs.

 

You have kept your curriculum a secret from even your own UUSO members. Your program was approved only because it does not include the pamphlet, "In Support of All People." Is that assertion really so "premature"? Prove me wrong!

 

It will be interesting to see if take precautions to keep a majority of UUSO members from voting to include "In Support of All People," And "When Others say 'God'" with your program, as you know very well a majority of any random cross-section of UUA Scouters would do.

 

> Where I am, I see many UU Scouts who do not undertake any RE

> program because "you can't wear it on your uniform".

 

They sound really committed :-/ 500 Boy Scouts have earned the award since the BSA banned it, it would be interesting to view the UUA's statistics for the previous years to see if the BSA's anti-Unitarian-Universalist actions did indeed discourage boys from earning their religious award.

 

> The sole objective of the UUSO is to encourage UU Scouts to

> learn about their faith. Where I am, that's a good thing.

 

I'll give David Peavy the last word:

 

"The UUA, through its development of the RIL and L&H programs, had already

accomplished the stated goal of the UUSA. Whether a UU Scout wears a UUA

emblem or the BSA Square Knot, is up to the Scout and it is not "an act of

civil disobedience." When has BSA Uniform Regulations become US Law?

Besides, once again, are you so concerned with wearing a piece of medal

that you fail to realize that the purpose of the program should be to help

the Scout in his spiritual life?"

 

 

 

 

[packsaddle]

Three observations:

First, I want to thank Trevorum and Kudu for setting (from my perspective, at least) a very high standard for debate in these forums. I think that every reader will recognize that the debate is 'going for the jugular' without all the name-calling and reliance on 'bumper sticker' or 'sound bite' reasoning. Also that, in the spirit of UU tradition, this is being openly presented for all to read and appreciate.

 

Second, while the outcome of all this is far from certain, the element of civil disobedience mentioned so far is mild. I suspect that many of us engage in civil disobedience, so often as a matter of fact, that we are unconscious of it. Occasionally driving one to five mph over the speed limit (possibly more?) comes to mind for me. Anyone else? I agree with Kudu that for a boy to wear the award on the uniform in violation of the BSA's punitive action is just fine.

 

Lastly, although this debate is important because it represents a controversy that affects the UUA, I lament that children are still caught in the middle. The debate, in some ways, was engaged years ago between BSA and the UUA. It seems now to be modified, involving both BSA and UUSO against the UUA - I could be wrong but this remains to be seen. While I am still not comfortable with my understanding of this conflict, I do recognize that children remain the target of a punitive BSA policy. That is, unless they adopt the new award by the UUSO. Another Faustian bargain, it seems, forced on boys who ought to be able to invest their time learning about other matters, just like boys of other faiths.

From my perspective it is sad when adults choose to hurt each other needlessly. But that is preferable to adults hurting children...as surrogates for other adults. I fear that the trend continues.

[Trevorum]

Just back from Jamboree, and wanted to let y'all know that the kick-off for the new religious award for UU Scouts and Venturers got a very positive and excited reception from everyone. Many, many of the scouts who visited at the UUSO booth were grinning ear to ear to learn they could earn this award! The requirements are posted on the UUSO website at www.uuscouters.org and Scouts and Venturers may begin work immediately.

 

In addition, an estimated 250 persons attended our Sunday service.

[bucabaker]

Perhaps its just me or my computer, but I couldn't open the Living Your Religion Guidebook link, that would have the requirements for the religeious emblem.

[Trevorum]

Yep, that appers to be a bad link. I'll pass it on to the webmaster. The icon to the left is a good link.