Comments on: The Boy Scouts’ coming confrontation

By: Richard Rush

Richard Rush — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:05:16 +0000

If the BSA is thoroughly comfortable with the righteousness of their policy based on solid moral principles, they should amend the Scout Law to read:

A Scout is ... trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, reverent, [and never gay].

And while their at it, they should add a new activity to the 129 existing ones for which a Merit Badge can be earned: After a Scout has turned in three homos to the Scouting authorities, they earn a Merit Badge for Bigotry to wear proudly along with their others, such as American Cultures, Citizenship in the Community, Family Life, Lifesaving, Nature, Orienteering, Scholarship, and Theater.

By: Elaygee

Elaygee — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:05:15 +0000

United Ways across Ameica fund the Boy Scous with tens of millions of our dollars. Talk to your United Way and tell them you don’t want them supporting an organization of bigots. I cut my gift to them totally and have been asking others to do the same as the United Way here has been non responsive.

By: Erp

Erp — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 08:36:22 +0000

Religious groups have two places where they can make their mark on the BSA. First as sponsors of troops they have a voice in council and national policy if they choose to wield it. The LDS and the Catholic Church do.

Second it is the religious organizations that design the religious emblems programs that the BSA encourages scouts to participate in. The churches opposed to discrimination should have their programs address the issue of discrimination against LGBT. Note the statement by the BSA says specifically that it expects spiritual sdvisors to scouts to discuss treatment of gays and lesbians instead of the BSA. Admittedly the Unitarian Universalist Association addressed the issue some 10 years ago in their program and had the BSA yank recognition of the program so that now there are two UU religious emblem programs (one recognized by the UUA but not the BSA and one recognized by the BSA but not the UUA).

By: Harry Underwood

Harry Underwood — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 06:39:26 +0000

Alternatives: http://www.uuworld.org/news/articles/179052.shtml?utm_source=n

I’d like to point out that Navigators USA was set up in NYC in 2003 after the BSA was allowed by the Supreme Court to discriminate in its membership in 2000. It’s first chapter is sponsored by the Unitarian Church of All Souls in NYC, which terminated its relationship with the BSA in 2002.

They have a site with information and discussion at http://navigatorsusa.ning.com . From there, you can set up a chapter in your local community.

Not a member, but I think Navigators USA needs more press esp. in light of the BSA continuing this policy.

By: revchicoucc

revchicoucc — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 04:57:48 +0000

I agree this confrontation is coming, Timothy. My hope is the churches use it as a teachable moment. I am personally familiar with an Open and Affirming UCC congregation (not mine) that, 10 years ago, informed the troop it sponsored that it objected to the BSA policy. The congregation’s leaders met with the troop leaders for discussion. The troop leaders, of course, had no authority to change BSA policy, although they didn’t especially like it. The congregation gave the troop five years to see if the policy changed. But, of course, the troop eventually had to find a new sponsor.

Nonetheless, it prompted conversation that might not have been held if the church had simply ended its sponsorship.

Besides, should the affirming churches surrender the Scouts to the LDS. Maybe this is an opportunity for them to become more engaged with their troops.