Merlyn_LeRoy

Packsaddle, the "rock" god is from a 1991 internal BSA memorandum: http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/bsa-god_policy.html Q. Some people maintain that God is a tree, a rock or a stream. Would a person believing such be eligible to be a member of Scouting? The BSA does not seek to interpret God or religion. The Scout Oath states a requirement for a Scout to observe a duty to God, and the Scout Law requires a Scout to be reverent. Again, interpretation is the responsibility of the Scout, his parents and religious leaders. Eagledad writes: There is no argument, morality is why God is in scouting. Eagledad, the BSA does not require that a scout's god be the source of morals; in the case of a Deist, it's quite possible their god has no interest in the human race or in their morals. You seem to be assuming that your theology holds for everyone else's theology.

Whether public schools would be able to charter units again (ignoring the issue of excluding gays) rather depends on what Hunt means by members being exposed to religious content.

Hunt, it doesn't look like you read what I wrote about American Heritage Girls carefully; they, too, are NOT upfront about their religious requirements, since their front page does NOT spell out that they are for Christians - indeed, their use of "Judeo-Christian" and "god" (without Jesus) on their front page gives the decidely FALSE impression that Jews are welcome - until you read their statement of faith, required of adults: http://www.ahgonline.org/ahg/about/sof.php In the same vein, the way the BSA chartered cub scout packs to public schools for DECADES while somehow never insisting that these schools exclude atheists (I wonder why) tells me that either the BSA's religious requirements are a complete sham, or the BSA is utterly dishonest. Or both. I STILL can't find where their membership application form (youth or adult) spells out that gays can't join... And, by the way, Little League could easily follow the BSA's lead and suddenly decide to make their god-motto mandatory, and decide to exclude anyone who refuses. After all, it's been around for 50 years, they just haven't mandated it. I also found a 2004 newspaper story about an atheist who was less than pleased in finding this out only after he invested a lot of personal time & money in uniforms that Little League even had any religious component. Plus, the Little League spokesman quoted in the article emphasized that Little League was a "private organization" (he seems to be unaware of court decisions that have found LL to be a public accommodation). Ring any bells? So who are YOU to insist that baseball can't have a religious component dating back 50 years, but a camping program can? You're just special pleading to match your own prejudices.

Right on cue: "confessions of a former girl scout": http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54591 Yep, gotta exclude Buddhists, Wiccans too! Oddly enough, the article implies that all monotheists are welcome in American Heritage Girls, even though it's specifically Christian (but you have to look hard enough; even the front page of their web site doesn't reveal this, as it talks about "Judeo-Christian" heritage and "god", and only brings up the trinitarian requirements later). Here's a clear example of how someone likes AHG because of all the nasty people that are excluded, like Buddhists, Wiccans, and Jews (but don't spell out that Jews are excluded!) Not really very much on why people SHOULD join, except for all the people who can't join.

Well Hunt, your last message would lead me to think that you would approve, not disapprove, of the town where Little League was disbanded and a Christian-only ballclub was started. After all, it's obviously 1) a private club, 2) started with the intent to only allow Christians, and 3) presumably all the non-Christian kids who are now excluded learn the same lesson that kids excluded from the BSA learn that you seem to think is so important - namely, that private organizations don't have to change their rules for your convenience. Or is that a useful message only if atheists are the only ones excluded, because that doesn't exclude you, personally, which makes it OK?

Yep, the Sands Point Bath and Sun Club refused to admit Groucho as a member because he was Jewish. I hope none of the BSA's defenders would fault another private club in having membership standards...

I've replied to Eagledad a lot more than Ed in this thread, and I've attempted to keep on-topic, at least from my point of view that the BSA's religious requirements are theologically meaningless to such a degree that it serves no purpose and excludes people for the sake of excluding a much-despised minority. I agree with your first post that the BSA is just kowtowing to their major religious sponsors.

Hunt writes: I recall reading about a town where the Little League was disbanded and replaced with a church-based youth baseball league with membership restricted to Christians. That seems wrong to me, and I guess the reason is that it seems like baseball was the core element, and religion was a pretext to exclude undesirable people. So religion is a core part of scouting, but not a core part of Little League, even though Little League ALSO has a pledge that includes 'god' (and thus excludes atheists and polytheists)? Why don't you support Little League's right to practice religious discrimination just because you can't appreciate how vitally important it is for all members of Little League to be monotheists?

Eagledad writes: Yes, yes, the evil empire and all that; Uh, no, that'd be your ridiculous exaggeration. I'm pointing out that the BSA insists that all members believe in a god, yet a rock is acceptable. but as one who know several atheist parents that not only allow their sons to join the BSA, but actually encourage it, I just don't believe you paint an accurate picture of reality. How does citing actual court cases diverge from reality in your world? Are the Randall twins imaginary? In fact your words to me seem less of an idealistic activist and more the quick rantings of an angry man getting back at somebody. No, it's the futility of trying to argue with people who don't think atheists have rights, or who tell atheists how they think. We don't know each other, so I can't know your motivation, but I'm wondering just how many boys with atheist parents your activism has prevented from enjoying the scouting program. How many atheist boys has the BSA's policies prevented from enjoying the scouting program? Or don't they count? And what "activism" are you referring to?

As packsaddle has pointed out, there are units that ignore the 'god' requirement, Ed, and I already mentioned the Randall twins (who were awarded Eagles while their case was going through the courts).But yes, officially, atheists can't join, which is why the BSA still has to avoid chartering units to public schools. Some people question the wisdom of having a "core component" that is, at best, vague to the point of meaninglessness ("My god is this rock!" "You're in!"), and at worst, divisive (both in severing ties to public schools, formerly the largest single charter of packs, and in excluding boys who are atheists, or whose families are atheists, or whose friends are atheists, or who don't want to associate with an organization that discriminates against atheists).

I'd say it's like omitting 'god' when being sworn in, Ed. Perfectly acceptable except to those who want to enforce a religious litmus test.

Eagledad writes: The same basis as you, reading the accounts and watching the news. That was some years ago, but I seem to remember it all started when they were cubs. They were forced out of the program when they were teenagers. Just how many boys in Cubs would go that far because they object to some part of the program? They didn't object, they just omitted god when they said the promise, etc. Eventually, some adults in the program said they couldn't do that. Boys don't think that way and don't have that kind of power. It was an adult thing. I disagree. And as for the BSA wanting them out, well sure, anyone when push comes to shove and every move they made was watched, recorded and scrutinized, you are forced to make the hard decisions. They could have made a different decision (and, at first, they said the Randall twins could stay, they just couldn't advance. But later the BSA said they couldn't even stay). They were left with no choice, but I am sure that was a lot of effort to keep the boys in and prevent the situation from turning into the event it had. Boys don't have that kind of power. You know, for being in a supposedly-"boy empowering" organization, you don't seem to think they have very much. My oldest brother challenged the high school's dress code when they said boys couldn't have long hair (this was the 1960s). Now, even though my parents paid for litigation, HE was the one who refused to cut his hair and made a court case out of it, not my parents. We won, by the way (the courts ruled that public schools couldn't mandate an irreversible change just to attend a public school, unlike other parts of the dress code that addressed clothing, etc, which could be changed outside school hours). So far that is two boys in one family you can think of, who else? Well, I gave you four, not two (Rick Sherman and Remington Powell are the other two), but is there a minimum? How many boys does anyone know that werent given the scouting experience because they hadnt committed to god? Isn't the principle important and not the numbers?

On what basis do you say it was all their father's doing? From the accounts I've read, the twins themselves objected, and (of course) it was the national BSA that wanted them thrown out.

The well-known cases like Rick Sherman, the Randall twins, and Remington Powell are well-known only because they were reported by the media. I've seen a few anecdotal cases on the web where people have stated that they (or a friend) were thrown out for being atheists.

So, does this mean the BSA should also exclude anyone whose god(s) are not the source of morality, such as some deists? You seem to be assuming that everyone who believes in god(s) sees those gods as the source of morality, which is not true.

Ah, the old "religion=morality" canard (and the implied "no religion=no morality"). Tell you what; as soon as you can get religions to agree on whether polygamy and eating bacon is moral or not, get back to me. Otherwise, it's just another argument from authority.

Legally, Hunt, religions do NOT have to have supernatural crap, though most do. You can disagree, and (unless you're a Texas comptroller who manages to throw away public money defending an unconstitutional position) you can use your incorrect definition if you like. Of course, if the BSA starts to kick out Buddhists next, I wouldn't be at all surprised.

"Sorry, you'll have to include some unbelievable crap to be a real religion" - why should anthropologists be the ones to decide? Maybe they should be called "anthroapologists"...

"A cult is a religion with no political power" - Tom Wolfe

Hunt, state comptrollers of Texas have tried to deny tax exemptions to the Ethical Culture society for not having a supreme being, and even tried to deny tax-exempt status to a Unitarian church, even though a few US presidents were Unitarians. They lost. The US government can't require religions to have supreme being(s). The North Texas Church of Freethought is, officially, a religion in Texas. http://www.churchoffreethought.org

Yes, a religion started by a medical doctor is ridiculous - much better to be founded by someone translating golden plates by looking through a hat, or a science fiction writer, or a religion created so a king could remarry, or a religion founded by someone who married a nine-year-old as his forth wife. That's what *real* religions are about.

Gern, not all Buddhists are atheists (since atheism isn't a tenet), but many are. A more interesting question is whether atheists who are members of Michael Newdow's FACTS religion are acceptable, as that is an explicitly atheistic religion: http://www.restorethepledge.com/FACTS/ Hunt, would you exclude Rev. Dr. Michael Newdow for being an atheist, even though he's founded a religion? Would you exclude an atheist Buddhist?

Hunt, the BSA's requirements as of now are theologically meaningless - can you state any theological statement that all scouts agree on (even ignoring any atheist scouts that might be in the closet)? Buddhists can not have any god beliefs, scouts can be polytheists and believe in multiple gods, and scouts can be deists whose god(s) impose no duties upon them. So what's the basis of allowing these yet excluding atheists if there's nothing uniting the ones who CAN be members? And if you don't understand how a narrower exclusion can be 'better' discrimination, just compare a group that only allows Catholics vs. a group that allows absolutely everyone, except Catholics. I realize you're just playing stupid, but the BSA's religious requirements have never been coherent.

Tervorum, your UU example is actually an example of how BAD the BSA/UU relationship has become. The UUSO is NOT recognized as an affiliate organization by the Unitarian Universalist Association board of trustees: http://www.uua.org/news/scouts/050316_statement.html The BSA appears to be shunning the real UU organization in favor of an unrecognized splinter group, so they can pat themselves on the back and pretend everything is all right now.

Hunt, the BSA's 'god' requirement is theologically meaningless. You can believe in multiple gods, gods that ignore the entire human race, and any two scouters can have gods that subscribe diametrically opposite behavior. There's absolutely no commonality. It's like defending a whites-only organization because the members really want to be with other whites. I'll still criticize them.