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--
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.