TIMELINE: As of 07 Feb 1996 1960's: My own participation as a youth in Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts. Religion was not overtly expressed and was entirely left up to the families. 21 Aug 1963: Letter from BSA to the Buddhist Rev. Fujitani, related thus in a 24 April 1975 retrospective: ...It is interesting to hear BCA Scouts recite loudly, "On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God..." During his visit to America last autumn, this sentence was enough to shock Shinmon-sama, or Lord Abbot Apparent Koshin Ohtani of Jodo Shinshu Hongwanji who happens to be one of the honorary advisors to the Japanese Boy Scouts. According to him, Buddhist Boy Scouts in Japan say [translated], "I will do my best to serve the Buddha." In conjunction with these problems, on behalf of the BCA Ministerial Research Committee, I wrote a letter...to Boy Scouts of America asking: ... 3. As for the Boy Scout Oath, is there any case of a non-Judeo-Christian troop which does not ues the term "God" or "god"? ... Mr. James Benz...of BSA was kind enough to give me his prompt answers [supplied by the Boy Scouts World Bureau]... ... 3. Yes, there are many non-Christian groups which do not use the term "god". In some countries such as Burma, the Scout Oath contains the expression, 'To do my duty to my religion and my country.' The same expression is used in other countries among Buddhist groups. In India the first clause of a Scout Oath reads: 'To do my duty to God and/or Dharma and my country." Early 1980's: BSA adopts the wording "belief in a supreme being", expressly as part of a design "to broaden rather than constrict the understanding of the phrase 'duty to God' (i.e., it was intended to allow for non-Christian understandings of deity)." (Schulz, 15 Sep 85) 1985: Unitarian Star Scout Paul Trout expelled at his Life Board of Review because his idea of "God" is not a "supreme being" 30 July : BSA spokesman Raul Chavez appears on Phil Donahue Show. 2 Aug : UUA President Dr. Schulz' letter to editor of NYT 26 Aug : BSA Relationships Director McCleery's letter to Unitarian minister Wayne Arnason. 9 Sep : Dr. Schulz' meeting with BSA Chief Scout Exec Ben Love at BSA National in Irving, Tx. Ben Love labels the "supreme being" wording a "mistake", announces that BSA is dropping it completely, and assures Dr. Schulz that BSA fully intends to abide by its religious policies as given in the Interpretive Statement in the Advancement Guidelines. 16 Oct: Letter from Ben Love to Herb Livingston reported to have said: "[BSA] is nonsectarian; does not have a religious test for membership, and does not define God." 1985 - 1990 (time indefinite): Chief Scout Exec Ben Love breaks his word to Dr. Schulz and returns to enforcing that "mistake" with the current disasterous consequences. 1988: Sep : my older son joins Cub Scouts, Wolf den. 1989: Feb : I register as Pack Committee Chairman. Jun : I register as Cubmaster. Sep : I create and lead the Pack's first Webelos den. 1990: "Supreme Being" "rule" used to prevent Elliott Welsh and his son from joining Tiger Cubs. The Welsh case begins. 1991: Jan: "Supreme Being" "rule" used to expell the Randall twins. The Randall case begins. Mar: I find Scouting forum on CompuServe and meet Elliott Welsh on-line. The BSA spy on CompuServe downloads my very first message and identifies me to BSA National for expulsion. May: my younger son joins Tiger Cubs with me as his Adult Partner. 12 Jun: BSA publishes its Reaffirmation of "Duty to God". 15 Jun: The Welsh trial has started in federal court in Chicago. Elliott calls me to inform me of the BSA spy on CompuServe and of my very first message having been submitted in federal court as evidence with the label "Atheist Leader" attached in big red letters. We make arrangements for me to fly to Chicago to testify. 17 Jun: I testify in the trial of Welsh vs BSA. At the trial, I meet my future minister, Don Northcutt, and first hear about Unitarian Universalism. I am surprised to find that I had been a practicing UU for the past 20 years. 18 Jun: I bridge our pack's first two Arrow of Light recipients into Boy Scout troops. 20 Jun: My minister, Don Northcutt, writes to BSA National asking about the acceptance of non-theist Buddhists but the exclusion of non-theist non-Buddhists. 08 Aug: My expulsion from BSA. In a follow-up telephone conversation, Orange County Council Scout Exec Kent Gibbs did not know how this would affect my status as my Tiger Cub's adult leader and promised to inform me immediately if there is any problem. He never got back with me and I didn't discover until the following January that my son had been without an official adult partner since August. This was only one of several promises that Kent Gibbs broke. 14 Aug: BSA National responds to Northcutt's letter by avoiding the entire question of Buddhists being non-theists and stating only that Buddhists "do their duty to God in accordance with Buddhist teachings." 04 Oct: I submit my first official request for review to BSA Western Regional as instructed. 09 Oct: Western Regional informs me by letter that they have received my request and promises to start work on it immediately. After more than four years, BSA has taken no action on my official request. Dec: We visit and start attending All Souls Church in San Juan Capistrano. Dec: The court rules against Elliott Welsh on the legal technicality that BSA could not be found to be a "place" as required under the Civil Rights Act. Welsh took the decision through the appeals process until the Supreme Court declined to hear it. 1992: 26 Jan: my minister writes on my behalf to Regional and certifies in writing that I do perform my "duty to God" in accordance with Unitarian teachings. This letter is ignored. May: The Randall trial is held in Superior Court in Santa Ana. I am subpoenaed to testify. The Randalls win their case and the twins join our pack, where they received their Bear badges (unfinished business from their previous pack), went through Webelos, and graduated with their Arrow of Light. They are currently First Class Scouts in our Scout troop. BSA has taken the case through the appeals process, where it is currently awaiting a decision by the California State Supreme Court. Jun: UUA General Assembly approves a resolution condemning BSA discriminatory actions. (enclosed) Sep : BSA expells the UUA unilaterally and refuses to discuss the matter at all with the UUA. (read enclosed article) 1993: 22 Apr: Our Pack Charter Representative writes to Western Regional inquiring about my case. 26 Apr: Jack Billington of Western Regional falsely and misleadingly informs her that they are awaiting my request for review. 1994: 30 Mar: I submit my second official request for review personally to Orange County Council. A series of follow-up calls reveal my request to have traveled up and down the chain from Council to Regional to National and back down again several times. 26 Apr: Our pack Cubmaster submits his letter of support. Summer: The Cubmaster moves to New Jersey. Before he departs, he makes sure that the next year's leadership is in place. The previous year's Webelos Leader is recruited as the new Cubmaster and is officially instated at the June pack meeting. An Assistent Cubmaster is recruited with the knowledge that he will be unavailable for six months due to his military duties. And in anticipation of my immenent reinstatement, the pack grooms me as the new Webelos Leader. Fall: Just a few days before Fall Recruitment Night, the Cubmaster suddenly quits. At the request of the pack, I step in to run the recruitment night, where we try without success to recruit new leaders. In the interim, I agree to perform the Cubmaster duties and to run the Webelos den. We are at least able to register all Webelos parents as Members of Committee in order to satisfy BSA requirements (my own presence was justified by my younger son being in the Webelos den). In the meantime, our pack puts unrelenting pressure, including a petition, on Orange County Council to resolve my case. 16 Sep: my minister writes to National inquiring into my case and again certifying in writing that I perform my "duty to God". He is again completely ignored. Oct: At the Webelos Camperall, our District Exec informs me that BSA is finally about to form a committee to review my case. Nov: We discover that the committee never formed and that my case was relegated back into limbo. I continue the follow-up calls, but even Council is having trouble getting any response from Regional or National. 21 Dec: Donald L. Townsend, Director of BSA National Relationships Division, writes a letter in his official capacity stating in part: "The Boy Scouts of America does not require you to belong to a specific church, temple or synagogue nor does it require a belief in a supreme being." 1995: Feb: Just in time for unit recharter, a husband-wife team volunteers as Cubmaster and one of the Webelos dads agrees to be a straw-leader, ie to put his name down as the officially registered leader while I continue to actually run the den (this was a common ploy before women were allowed to serve as Webelos leaders or Cubmasters). I continue to run the Webelos den and to assist the new Cubmaster team. Mar: Orange County Council gets tired of my persistent requests for status and gives me the names of the the two individuals at Western Regional who are blocking action on my case, Jack Billington and David Weis (it was Jack Billington who had grossly misinformed our pack Charter Rep about my status back on 26 Apr 1993). 01 Apr: I write to Chief Scout Exec Jere Radcliffe at BSA National asking for status on my case and assistence in getting Western Regional to finally take appropriate action. My letter is ignored. 06 Aug: Our former Cubmaster writes to BSA from New Jersey about my past work with the pack. Aug: I obtain a copy of the Townsend letter of 21 Dec 94. When I show it to our District Exec, he exclaims, "But that's what you're been saying all along!" 02 Sep: I write another letter to Chief Scout Exec Jere Radcliffe with the Townsend letter attached. This letter is also ignored. 02 Sep: I write a letter to Western Regional with Townsend letter attached. 26 Sep: My younger son receives his Arrow of Light and graduates to our older son's troop. I am now out of the Cub Scout program altogether, though I still provide some informal support of our old pack, especially for the remaining Webelos. 02 Oct: I receive a letter from Western Regional informing me that my case has been refered to National and that my point of contact there is Chief Scout Exec Jere Radcliffe (oh, great! ). There has been no word from National about my case yet. 1996: 06 Feb: I prepare a copy of this documentation for our new minister, Rev. Robert Jordan Ross. 1997: 28 Sep: BSA 1998: I need to research to itemize out the sequence of events in those last two years. The Randall case waited for years before going before the California Supreme Court. I suspect that a number of other reviews before BSA, including my own, were waiting for that decision, which would explain the long delay and the run-around I kept getting. In the meantime, both boys progressed in their Boy Scout troop, completed their requirements for Eagle, and were up for review. As I recall, at that point the state Attorney General intervened and expedited the case to go before the court. The California Supreme Court upheld the fact that BSA does discriminate, but found that it was not subject to the law. Immediately, BSA expelled the Randalls and denied them their Eagles and notified me after the fact of a board of review that upheld my own expulsion. In my years of correspondence with BSA, I repeatedly requested that I be present when my case was reviewed, as was my right, but they never informed me of that review until after the fact. --------------------------------------------------- I do not have an exact chronology on this, but in the early 1980's we see BSA first introducing a "supreme being" rule and then in Sep 1985 we see Ben Love denouncing the "Supreme Being" wording as a "mistake" and assuring Dr. Schulz that there is no need that "some additional phrasing be added to make explicitly clear that the meaning of the phrase 'duty to God' shall be interpreted and understood by each Scout within the context of his own particular religious tradition" because the "Advancement Guidelines and these principles still apply." Shortly before that, on 26 Aug 1985, William A. McCleery III, BSA National Director, Relationships Division, wrote: It is _not_ our _policy_ to require a belief in a "supreme being" in order to be a member of the Boy Scouts of America, adult or youth. We do require adherence to the "declaration of religious principles" for adults and adherence to the Scout Oath and Law for youth. Interpretation and definition of "duty to God" is not our business! It is the bussiness of parents and religious leaders. And after his meeting with the UUA, Ben Love wrote a letter on 16 Oct 1985 to a Herb Livingston in Los Angeles stating that "[BSA] is nonsectarian; does not have a religious test for membership, and does not define God." (quote is from Livingston's 1985 report of the letter; I have not read the actual letter itself and Mr. Livingston cannot find it in his files). But then by mid-1990, that very same Ben Love had returned to enforcing that "mistake" with the current disasterous consequences. Around that time, BSA used it to block Elliott Welsh from registering his son in Tiger Cubs. At that same recruitment night, Tiger Cub Coordinator Sandy Dixon, who knew the Welsh family, told the DE present, who had just told Elliott and Mark to leave, that her religious beliefs were the same as the Welshs'; he told her she could stay because "we know you, but we don't know him." The whole thing stank to her, so she wrote to Ben Love to find out what was happening; he thanked her for her volunteer work and kicked her out, telling her to stay away from Scouting forever. Elliott tried to resolve the problem with BSA and just got the run-around. Finally, he filed a lawsuit in Federal Court in Chicago based on BSA's violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. At about the same time, the Randall family moved from Los Angeles to Orange County, Calif, and their twin sons transfered into the local Cub Scout pack as Bears. Then just as the boys were about to receive their Bear badges, the Randalls received a letter from the Orange County Council that they were expelled from BSA and from Scouting. It seems that the boys, who are a bit precocious, got to thinking about the Promise and decided that, since they were sure what "duty to God" was supposed to mean, that they shouldn't promise something that they didn't understand. When the den leader caught them excluding those words, she freaked. She reported it to the Cubmaster who reported it to Council who expelled the boys. The only warning of trouble the parents ever had was a single cryptic and confused phone call from the den leader, who quit shortly thereafter. The parents tried to resolve the problem through BSA channels, but BSA blocked their every effort. Then BSA capitalized on an administrative irregularity. In LA, the Randalls' first pack had failed to have them fill out an application form to reregister the boys when they went from Tiger Cubs to Cub Scouts and their second pack in Orange County failed to have them fill out a form in order to transfer in (I assume that both packs just registered them on the overflow sheets at re-charter -- at least this year our council explicitly requires an application form to accompany that overflow sheet entry). So, BSA tried to claim that the boys never were members and mailed letters out to every member in Orange County with that claim. Then BSA started a sadistic little game in which they told the boys that all they had to do to get back in was to fill out an application form. Then every time they filled one out, BSA rejected it as not being filled out correctly, but "all you have to do is fill out an application form." Finally, after working up and down the BSA chain from Council to National, the head lawyer at National (I've got his name here somewhere, but multiple sources describe him as a real jerk) just came right out and told Jim Randall to sue them, which Jim Randall, himself a lawyer, did do and won. In Sep 1988, my older son joined the school's pack as a Wolf. It was a small pack struggling to survive. Basically, the Bear den leader ran the whole show and the Cubmaster was little more than a figure-head. There was no Webelos den nor a real Tiger Cub den; the Tigers were registered as Wolves and run as a regular den -- that den leader did not last at all, poor woman. Then in the Feb 1989 rechartering, I signed on as Committee Chair. When I filled out the application form, I asked about the DRP, being a non-theist, and the Cubmaster told me that it's just a formality that doesn't mean anything. I signed the form, but still had my doubts. These doubts increased when I dug up an August 1985 newsletter which told of Paul Trout's expulsion, but not of his subsequent reinstatement. Then in June 1989, the cubmaster expressed a desire to quit and the Bear den leader approached me to take his place. I expressed my concerns based on the Paul Trout case, but she blamed the Paul Trout case on his being in the Bible Belt (she was a Baptist from that area) and expressed confidence that that kind of thing could never happen in California. I agreed to sign on as Cubmaster. In the summer before that first year, I obtained copies of the Rules and Regulations and of the Bylaws (remember, that was before BSA restricted access to them) and read the Declaration of Religious Principles. At first I was taken aback by the blatantly Judeo-Christian bias in the wording, but the key words "absolutely nonsectarian" clearly indicated that the blatantly Judeo-Christian bias in the wording did not necessitate a Judeo-Christian interpretation. Indeed, the near-definition of "God" as "the ruling and leading power in the universe" rather than as a "supreme being" left the door wide open to interpretation, which I felt to be necessary to keep it nonsectarian. Now that I had read it and thought about it, I found that I had no trouble subscribing to the Declaration of Religious Principles and that "Duty to God" was learning and practicing your religious beliefs, which did not necessarily need to include belief in a supreme being. In the Fall, we had a complete turn-over of leaders. We reorganized the pack, started a proper Tiger Cub program, started our first Webelos den (with myself acting as leader), and earned Quality Unit for both years of my tenure as cubmaster. At the commissioners' meetings, which I also attended acting as our unit commissioner, our pack was repeatedly cited as a success story. When, as Webelos leader, I taught the Scout Oath, I taught that "Duty to God" was learning and practicing their religious beliefs and that they should talk with their parents to learn what their family's beliefs are. I taught the same thing for "A Scout is Reverent," though I also made sure to add, as is in the handbook, that there are many other beliefs out there and so they also need to respect the beliefs of others. Also, as Cubmaster, I repeatedly recommended the Religious Emblem programs to our families as a good opportunity for the boys to learn more about their beliefs. The officially published BSA religious policies were in agreement with my own religious beliefs and my beliefs were with those policies. But then around Jan 1991 the story of the Randall twins in the Orange County Council, my own council, hit the news and I was shocked to read the BSA spokeswoman, Caytie Daniell, state, "Scouting requires a belief in God ... It just requires belief in a supreme being outside of oneself." And Kent Gibbs, President of the Orange County Council, stated, "We don't attempt to dictate which god boys believe in, but they must have a belief." In other newspaper articles, Mr. Gibbs reiterated the claim that membership in Scouting requires "belief in a supreme being." This was all totally contrary to the Declaration of Religious Principles! I read through the Rules and Regulations, the Bylaws, and the Congressional Charter repeatedly and could find nothing at all to support such a strongly sectarian requirement as "belief in a supreme being." Something was seriously wrong and I had to find out what. But how? I had learned enough about the Randall case to know that the Orange County Council had struck suddenly and without warning, so that the Randalls did not even suspect that there might be a problem before they were told that they were out. This, and other actions of the Council, convinced me that they could not be trusted, a horrible thing to realize about Scouters. Then one day while logging onto Compu-Serve, I read an announcement that there was a Scouting section in the Outdoor Forum. I joined the forum and started looking for any messages about BSA's alleged "supreme being" requirements. It was there that I found out about Elliott and Mark Welsh and I met Elliott, a participant in the forum. When he described BSA's argument that the mere presence of an atheist would totally disrupt the Scouting program, that was too much for me to take. I told of how I has an atheist and a leader and that instead of disrupting the program, our pack had grown from just barely existing to increased membership, increased advancement, increased participation, and a much more complete implementation of the Cub Scout program with Tiger Cubs, Webelos, and Cub Sports. And, in both years of my tenure as Cubmaster we earned Quality Unit for the first time. My mere presence did not disrupt the program; the pack actually flourished! Indeed, the only disruption that the pack would ever suffer would be the Council's dismissal of me. Later, as the Welsh's trial date approached and both sides submitted their evidence, Elliott learned that BSA had a SPY on the Scouting forum who had downloaded and printed out a massive notebook of messages. Not only was my message included, but it was labeled with big red letters, "ATHEIST LEADER!" BSA was aware of me and I had every reason to believe that it would immediately move against me with extreme prejudice. Since my very existence put a lie to BSA's claims that the mere presence of an atheist would irreparably disrupt the program, Elliott Welsh asked me to testify. It was a difficult decision for me, but considering that BSA already had me slated for elimination, I finally decided to at least try to do some good and to try to help justice be done. Indeed, since truth and justice are two ideals that I prize very highly, not testifying would have constituted shirking my "Duty to God." Ironic, isn't that, that by doing my "duty to God", BSA would accuse me of not doing my "duty to God." To the question "Are you an atheist?", I answered: "Yes, sir, insofar as I do not believe in the supernatural or supernatural beings, but rather the natural world and that which we can -- that which we can study and verify to the best of our ability. Yes, I am atheist." I then testified that I had been cubmaster of my son's pack for two years (BSA counsel, George Davidson, tried to claim that I was not a registered leader), and described our accomplishments under my leadership and mentioned that I had to rush back home that night to bridge our first two Arrow-of-Light recipients into Boy Scouting the next day. Furthermore, I testified that I subscribe to the Declaration of Religious Principles and that its near-definition of "God" allows such a broad interpretation of "God" as to accommodate the full gamut of religious beliefs, including those which do not include "belief in a supreme being." Furthermore, the rules, regulations, and bylaws do not contain any requirement for "belief in a supreme being," nor for that matter even "belief in God." (again, if you know where such a rule is, then do please bring it to my attention) To his discredit, BSA attorney George Davidson just tried to imply that I was not a registered leader (untrue), that I didn't know what I was talking about (untrue), and that my testimony had no bearing upon the case (untrue). Then he had me read isolated, selected passages from the Declaration of Religious Principles and from the Cub Leaders Guide whose wording strongly suggested that it referred only to JHWH, despite the Declaration of Religious Principles' expressly stated requirement for BSA to maintain an "absolutely nonsectarian" attitude. He even went so far as to question my authority to interpret "God" for myself when BSA policy expressly gives me that authority and forbids it of BSA. I could not observe the judge at that time, but throughout the day, I repeatedly saw her shake her head in disbelief when George Davidson spoke. On another day in the trial, George Davidson boasted that BSA did indeed discriminate on religious grounds and that they had ever right to do so. He claimed that BSA was not liable but rather that the chartering organizations were liable and that Elliott Welsh should be suing his public school, the pack's CO, instead of BSA (how long do you think that schools will keep packs if they think that they will get sued for BSA's actions?). In the end, BSA won the Welsh case on a legal technicality: by the wording of the CRA of 1964, BSA could not be found to be a "place". The Court of Appeals upheld the decision and the US Supreme Court refused to review the case, even though even BSA wanted the Supreme Court to make a decision. Before the trial, I had told Elliott about YMCA's Indian Guides program, which Elliott and Mark joined and enjoyed with no trouble whatsoever while his wife and daughter have been active in Girl Scouts, again with no trouble whatsoever. It's been a year since I've heard from them. Upon my return to Orange County, I learned that our Council Scout Exec, Kent Gibbs, had been calling everybody to find out what I was doing in Chicago, so I spoke with him the next day and explained the situation. While I had him on the phone, I asked him if there were indeed a rule requiring "belief in a supreme being" and he answered that there is. But when I asked him directly where that rule is stated, he refused to answer me. He directly refused to answer a simple direct question which, if true, should have been a matter of public record and trivial to answer. Then when I tried to talk to him about the Declaration of Religious Principles he professed ignorance of religion. I offered to answer any questions he may have and he promised to take me up on my offer, the first of many promises that he broke. Then a little more than a month later, on 8 August 1991, Kent Gibbs called me at work and simply told me, "Come in and pick up your letter." I said I couldn't get away from work just then and what was the letter about. He said that they had read my testimony and found that I couldn't subscribe to the Declaration of Religious Principles (absolutely ridiculous since I had testified that I subscribe to the DRP). I said, "But I DO!," whereupon he excused himself to talk with their lawyer. He called back about an hour later and told me about requesting a regional review and that instructions would accompany the letter. I honestly believe that if I had not insisted that I do indeed subscribe to the Declaration of Religious Principles that he would never have told me about being able to request a review. The next day, the letter arrived and I was shocked, since Mr. Gibbs had not told me that it was a letter of dismissal. Unfortunately, the letter did not indicate any reason for my dismissal, except for what appears to be a standard "say-nothing" formulation about "concern that [I] may not meet the high standards of membership which the BSA seeks." If I had not called Mr. Gibbs and pressed him for clarification, which he was reluctant to give, I would still not know why I had been dismissed so abruptly and without warning. Mr. Gibbs said that even though everybody they had talked to about me had nothing but praise for me as a person and as a Scout leader, my dismissal was based upon my testimony that I was an atheist. Yet judging by his surprise when I said that I do indeed subscribe to the Declaration of Religious Principles, as I had testified in court, I strongly suspect that he had not bothered to read past the words "I am an atheist." If that is the case, then he probably ignored my explanation of why I define myself as an atheist (simply because I do not believe in any supernatural beings) and substituted his own distorted definition with all kinds of horror stories attached, none of which would have anything to do with me nor my beliefs. I asked him just what "high standards of membership" do I not meet and he answered subscription to the Declaration of Religious Principles and performing my "Duty to God" because of my being an atheist. Where are these standards published? In the Charter and Bylaws, the application forms, and the Scout Oath. Then I asked him exactly where in those sources I should look. He mumbled that he didn't have them available, but that he could send me copies. I said that I have the documents, but could he please send them anyway with the pertinent wording marked. Yes, he would. And no, he hasn't; yet another promise broken. Finally, I asked him what he means by "belief in God" and he answered, "whatever you think it does." But then I tried to point out that the wording of the Declaration of Religious Principles offers a wide range of possible interpretations for what the word "God" could mean, possible interpretations which are necessary for it to work, and that my experience in talking with other people about their religious beliefs shows those interpretations to range from images of the Sistine Chapel to projections of oneself to the personification of Nature to abstract ideas and ideals to almost as many different ideas as there are people. But he immediately cut me short by accusing me of playing semantic games. This is the same guy who said, "it means whatever you think it does" and who professed ignorance of religious ideas. And doubtless this is the same guy who passed judgement on my own religious ideas without ever trying to find out what they are. In fact, that part of the conversation rapidly degenerated into a stupid game of his of: "'God' means whatever you think it does", "Well, then, 'God' could mean this", "No! It cannot!", "Then what is 'God'", "'God' means whatever you think it does", etc. This is the same man who played that abusive "just fill out the application form" game with the Randall twins. Before my testimony and upon my return I confered with the other pack leaders, who have all expressed strong support for me and continue to do so. Also, many of the parents have expressed their support as well. One positive outcome had been increased parental involvement in the pack. Then this year () In the meantime, we have started attending a Unitarian church. I am pleasantly surprised to find that Unitarian teachings agree almost perfectly with what I have believed and have been practicing for the past 15 to 20 years. If Unitarians are welcome in Scouting, why shouldn't I be too, since our beliefs are virtually identical? Auqust 2, 1985 The New York Times Letters to the Editor 229 West 43rd Street New York, NY 10036 Dear Editor: The Boy Scouts of America (BSA), one of our finest civic organizations, has recently entangled itself in theological controversy. Paul Trout, an outstanding 15-year-old Scout from West Virginia, has been denied Life rank and expelled from the Scouts because he cannot affirm God as a "Supreme Being." Raul Chavez, Communications Director of the BSA, claimed on the July 30 Phil Donahue Show that belief in God as a "supreme Being" is common to all religions and therefore to require that belief as a prerequisite to Scout membership does not violate the non-sectarian nature of the organization. Unfortunately for Mr. Chavez, theological knots are far more intricate than the knots with which the Scouts are used to dealinq. The Scout Oath requires that a Scout do his duty "to God and country," never mind that those two duties may often be in conflict with one another. Should the BSA wish to require of its members a belief in some kind of God it surely may do so but, if it does, it ought to (1) make that requirement explicitly clear to prospective Scouts and (2) recognize that it is thereby establishing a "reliqious test" for membership and excluding a whole host of young people, includinq some Unitarian Universalists, who consider themselves religious people but who do not speak of their faith and spirituality in terms of God. Such a religious test also raises questions as to whether the Scouts ought to receive government funds or utilize government properties. More to the point with regard to Paul Trout, however, is that, thouqh he is willing to speak of "God," he does not conceive of God as a "Supreme Being." In this respect he is, contrary to Mr. Chavez's reading of religious history, in exceptionally good company. Not only do most Eastern religions have far less hierarchial notions of deity than the Scouts do but even the Christian tradition, particularly in its more mystical manifestations, offers considerable support for Mr. Trout's wariness of God's "supremacy." It is ironic that Paul Tillich, arguably the greatest Christian theologian of this century, could not be a Boy Scout for he understood God as the "ground of al1 Being," exactly opposite to a "supreme Being." And even Jesus might have difficulty qualifyinq if he held to his opinion that "the Kingdom of God is within you!" Indeed, much of contemporary theology, influenced in large measure by feminist spirituality, has long since abandoned the notion of God as "above" or "beyond" Creation, greater than all that is. But then why should Mr. Chavez be expected to know that? His business is not theology but the development of leadership in young people. That is of course the very point. Let the Scouts stick to what they do best and let them heed the words of a great believer: "God is not what you imagine," said Augustine of Hippo, "or what you think you understand. For if you understand, you have failed." Sincerely, The Rev. William F. Schulz, D.Min. President Unitarian Universalist Association Boston, MA WFS/cmg By Express/Same Day Mail þrþþ þþ ~ þi þi þ þ þ þþ þþ-þ þþ 'þ þ tþ;. þ .þ þ þ' i þ ' ` " September 15, 1985 To: Those Concerned About the Boy Scout Requirement of Belief in God as a "Supreme Being" From: UUA President William F. Schulz Subject : UPDATE Because I have received so many letters concerning the Paul Trout case and its potential impact upon Unitarian Universalist Scouts, I am taking the liberty of replying in this Memo form. I apologize for the impersonal nature of this correspondence but trust you will understand. As most of you know, I spoke out strongly in August via broadcasts on Ecumedia radio and in an editorial in the August 28-September 4, l985 issue of Christian Century (article enclosed for those of you who may not have seen it) against the apparent requirement of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) that their nembers actively affirm "God as a Supreme Being." You are all familiar with the arguments I put forward but you may be interested also in the enclosed letter to the New York Times which raises a further issue regarding the Scouts' federal charter. After conferring with several Unitarian Universalists active in Scouting, we reached the conclusion that the most appropriate course of action would be to seek a meettng with Chief Scouting Executive Ben Love to explain our concern directly. Therefore, on Monday, September 9, UUA Executive Vice President Kay Montgomery and I met with Mr. Love and several of his associates at BSA headquarters in Dallas. The conversation was cordial and productive. The BSA, we learned, has received dozens of letters -- many of them of course from Unitarian Universalists -- objecting to the apparent change in their policy. The phrase "Supreme Being" was first introduced into Scouting policy just a few years ago by action of the National Council designed to broaden rather than constrict the understanding of the phrase "duty to God" (i.e., it was intended to allow for non-Christian understandings of deity). The BSA now recognizes that this change had exactly the opposite effect and Mr. Love now labels it a "mistake." In response to the Trout furor, the National Office has drafted a new statement on a Scout's "Duty to God." A copy of the draft is enclosed and has been circulated to all members of the BSA's National Religious Relationships Committee. You will note that, while the statement reaffirming a Scout's "duty to God," it has no mention of "Supreme Being" or any other definition. This statement is, I think, a step in the right direction and certainly a retreat from the position originally taken by the BSA in the Trout case. Kay and I urged, however, that some additional phrasing be added to make explicitly clear that the meaning of the phrase "duty to God" shall be interpreted and understood by each Scout within the context of his own particular religious tradition. We urged, in other words, a return to adherence to the Advancement Guidelines which read in part: The Boy Scouts of America-- 1. Does not define what constitutes belief in God or the practice of religion. . . 4. If a boy says he is a member of a particular religious body, the standards by which he should be evaluated are those of that group. Mr. Love assured us that these Advancement Guidelines and these principles still apply. Indeed, in an August 26, 1985 letter to Wayne Arnason from William A. McCleery III, BSA National Director, Relationships Division, Mr. McCleery says: It is _not_ our _policy_ to require a belief in a "supreme being" in order to be a member of the Boy Scouts of America, adult or youth. We do require adherence to the "declaration of religious principles" for adults and adherence to the Scout Oath and Law for youth. Interpretation and definition of "duty to God" is not our business! It is the business of parents and religious leaders. All of which is to say that the Scouts appear to be committed to returning to their "pre-Trout" policy which says, in effect, that if a Scout is willing to adhere to the Scout Oath and Law, no further questions will be asked. We will continue to monitor this situation closely. It is obviously possible that local Scout leaders may take a more narrow or sectarian view than the national leadership advocates. Should you learn of any instances in which young people are subjected to such theological scrutiny, please let us know immediately by writing to Ellen Brandenburg, UUA Consultant for Youth Programs, here at UUA headquarters. While those who wish that there was no reference to God whatsoever in the Scout Oath will not be satisfied by these developments, I think we have made progress and can, for the time being at least, continue the UUA's Religion in Life program with a fair degree of equanimity. Should circumstances change, we wiIl not hesitate to take further appropriate action. Thank you for your support and interest in this matter. Let me conclude the saga of Bill Schulz v. the Boy Scouts of America by applauding the Scouts' modification of their policy undertaken after our conversations with them. The Scouts added the following underlined phrase to their Resolution on "Duty to God:" "_While not intending to define what constitutes belief in God_, the Boy Scouts of America is proud to reaffirm the Scout Oath and its declaration of "Duty to God," a phrase which I had suggested to them. The young Scout involved has been reinstated and promoted to Life Rank. The press coverage we received on this action was quite positive though, amusingly enough, the Religious News Service chose to summarize the situation as follows : The head of the UUA has attacked the Boy Scouts for denying promotion to a scout who refused to affirm belief in God as a Supreme Being. The Unitartans (sic), of course, have found in the young scout... a fellow traveler. from "President's Report", Oct 1985. So, Kathie, let's review the events. In the early 1980's, BSA felt the need to more explicitly dispell a specifically Judeo-Christian image caused by the standard English definition of "God" as YHWH, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god. They sought to accomplish this by defining "God" (despite the already existing officially published policy of not defining or interpreting that term) as a "Supreme Being" and by interpreting "duty to God" as requiring "belief in a Supreme Being." When this new definition resulted in the expulsion of Unitarian Paul Trout, BSA at first remained adamant about their new requirement, but then responded to numerous protests against their sudden imposition of a religious test by reversing their position. Their original intention was to make the understanding of "duty to God" membership more INclusive, but when they realized that they had instead made it more EXclusive they dropped that new wording and rule immediately, calling that wording a "mistake." BSA then promised to return to its officially published religious policies of not defining or interpreting "belief in God", "duty to God", or the practice of religion and of judging each member only by the standards of that member's OWN religion. BSA also explicitly stated that "It is _not_ [BSA] _policy_ to require a belief in a 'supreme being' in order to be a member of the Boy Scouts of America, adult or youth" and reaffirmed that "Interpretation and definition of 'duty to God' is not [BSA's] business! It is the business of parents and religious leaders." Paul Trout was reinstated and went on to earn his Eagle. Unfortunately, while Dr. Schulz was rightfully concerned that "[i]t is obviously possible that local Scout leaders may take a more narrow or sectarian view than the national leadership advocates", he did not anticipate that that national leadership itself would abruptly return to that more narrow and sectarian view, breaking the promises that they had made. Guess that demonstrates what BSA really thinks about its traditional values, like "Scout's Honor." %%%%%%%%%%%%%%