mhager

I considered replying in detail to the last few posts, but I am not. You see, I am done. I have found out what the ideas of the rank and file are, at least those who post here. Aside from a few encouraging posts, I have seen for the most part a simple minded, unquestioning adherence to rules for their own sake and a distressing inability to think beyond the superficial. I have seen shocking bigotry and unseemly venom, especially from evmori. The simple, ugly truth is that all of you who support the discrimination policy are short-sighted, narrow minded fools and I am done with you. Reason cannot persuade zealots and zealots cannot see reason. That the membership of so fine, or what was so fine, an organization can sink to these disgusting lows is truly sad. I hope that those few of reason that I have encountered here and who have more patience with foolishness then I do can somehow save Scouting. Leaving it in the hands of most that I have encountered here will only drag down what was once noble and good into a quagmire of partisan rancor. You people are not even able to discuss if a rule should be changed for goodness sake! Wake up and think for a while. The adults here are supposed to be leaders. Try not being an intellectual follower and not simply claiming "them's the rules so that's what we do". I am off to try and figure out how to remove my membership so I won't be bothered with the inevitable sour grapes these well deserved remonstrances will generate.

"Look at it from a parents point of view, who are you going to trust more to spend a week out in the woods with your son, a guy like you who says you are moral because good guys are moral, or the guy whose morals are based from a higher power?" Here, at last, is the heart of the matter. It is, I would venture, exactly this idea that prompts this policy. The bottom line is that many people view Atheists as less moral and of less character then theists. Why do they think this? I don't know. It is untrue, that I do know. But it is exactly this kind of unreasoning prejudice writ large that results in backwards ideas like the religious discrimination policy of the BSA. "Those aren't our kind of people," they say. "They don't know right from wrong." In ironic echo of the strident cry often mocked by The Simpsons "Think About The Children!", "We don't want that sort around our children. It may infect them!" Never mind that no two religions or individuals can decide on exactly what is moral working from the same base. Never mind that what even one religion, Christianity, has thought right and wrong has changed over the years (If you doubt either of those two statements, I commend the study of history to your attention); it is the Atheist we should fear, for he is different. So, eagledad, try this on for size. Which would you rather have with your son for a week long camp, a man who is good only because of the threat of punishment and promise of reward or one who does right for it's own sake? The above is just as unfair, bigoted and defamatory as what you said about Atheists. How do you like it. At least I don't actually believe it when I say it. I realize my civil tone is slipping just a bit, and I regret that, but eagledad's open bigotry kind of got to me.

Dan, A good question. I have two answers. First, I am quite knowledgable concerning religion. The amount study needed to reach my beliefs was extensive. I would be more then capable of steering such a conversation to what the Scout thinks and could discuss it in a historical and philosophical context, be that scout Christian, Muslim, Hindu or what have you. Second, if that Scout persisted in asking about my personal beliefs, I would politely decline, directing him (hopefully) to another leader more in agreement with the boy's ideas. 9muckracker7, No reason would suffice, of course. No such reason exists. The policy is utterly unreasonable and should be immediately abolished. Is it surprising that I have a ready answer for every protest raised? It should not be.

Fscouter, I do believe in the values of Scouting. I do not believe that those values include religious discrimination. Do you? The point I am trying to make is that the idea that an Atheist cannot be reverent, cannot do "Duty to God" by simply ignoring religion and letting others believe what they will, and be a moral leader and good example is simply wrong. It seems that many of the replies I am getting are merely saying "That's the rule" without addressing why the rule was made or how the rule benefits Scouting. I have yet to hear any good reasons for either of those two things.

evmori, If you believe that religious discrimination is not immoral, that it is a good activity for groups and individuals to engage in, then further discussion would be pointless. On a personal level, I am stunned that any person who has been so involved with Scouting and the lessons it imparts could make such a statement.

9muckracker7, I to am also trying to figure out why anyone believes this to be a good policy. The idea that Atheists are likely proselytize and lead young men into amorality is clearly ludicrous. No Scout leader who is competent would attempt such a thing.

Semper, In what way is my analogy ridiculous? You asserted that the good of the religious discrimination policy was maintenance of membership. I merely applied your reasoning more generally. It is not my fault you don't like the conclusions that stem from your own assertions. You also flatly state that the religious discrimination policy is a good one without supporting your position. Why is it good? Your first reason, maintenance of membership is clearly not a good reason (as I showed) so what do else do you have to support the policy? Also, blithely charging me with having a victim mentality is a poor attempt to discredit me and is also untrue, Sir. This policy is wrong. It hurts good people, of which I happen to be one. By questioning the rightness of this stance by Scouting, I am somehow making myself out as a victim? Absolutely untrue. Sometimes the majority does win. However, it is explicitly built into our government and also, I propose, our consensus morality that a minority should not be unjustly treated by the will of the majority. By that reasoning, you would also support Jim Crow laws in the old south. Do you?

Packsaddle, Thank you for your supportive reply. In answer to your question, I thought recently that I would see about becoming a Scout leader in the city I have recently moved to after a long absence from direct involvement. In researching what I needed to do on the web, I doscovered that as an Atheist, I was not allowed to serve. This outraged me and this forum is my outlet for that.

Semper, At last, a post addressing the actual heart of the matter. You claim that allowing Atheists would cause a decline in membership. Very good, let's examine that. The extension of your statement in that anything that causes a decline in membership is bad. All right. Now, it is the policy of the BSA that Scouts not have all the liquor and prostitutes they can use at troop expense. I am aware that there is no specific policy detailing the BSA stance against this, but I think we can all agree on my stance. I think that membership would soar should troops start providing liquor and prostitutes. So, by your reasoning, since membership is the standard by which the good of organization is measured, this policy should be immediately implemented. The above is, of course, ridiculous. The BSA should not engage in immoral activities to maintain or increase it's membership. Religious discrimination is immoral.

fscouter, That is utterly not true. I made a reasoned judgement about my beliefs. It was Scouting that choose to terminate any possible relationship, not me.

Rather then reply to each poster individually, I have opted to do it in one missive. Reading the replies to my posts, it seems that four general points are being made: 1. That's the rule, live with it. Well, as I said to evmori, bad rules need to be changed and discrimination against Atheists is a bad rule. 2. One theme that recurred was that the BSA has been constant and I have changed. That is correct, I have grown in wisdom and knowledge. I have made my decisions about how the world is and am happy with them. Part of that growing in wisdom has made it plain to me that religious discrimination is wrong, whatever reason it is done for and by whatever organization is doing it, even if that organization can do so legally. Since when has legal meant the same thing as moral? I hold all the important values of Scouting dear. I firmly believe that each Scout must interpert religion for himself. That was one of the values I was taught in my Troop, and in other places. Scouting itself only believes this up to a point. Interpert religion as you will, but come a conclusion we like or you're out. That is truly sad. When the interpertation of one aspect of Scouting's code, in it's current interpertation, is clearly in conflict with many others (tolerance, brotherhood, acceptance of differences, etc.) then perhaps it is time to look at that policy. 3. I was asked if I lied on my Eagle application. That is an insulting question which I am tempted to treat with the disdain it deserves, but I will answer. No, I had not made the fundamental realizations that led me to reject religion in 1986. If I had, I would have clearly stated so. The Scouting policy was quoted to me, and I will in return quote a small part of it back. "The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God..." This policy is, from it's very first line, wrong in fact. Unless one necessarily includes religion as a quality for being the best kind of citizen for no reason other then it's own sake rather then it's actual effect (which is unreasonable) this makes no sense when looked at with an understanding of facts. How should one try and determine if a given subset of society is generally one with positive effect? Well, one might look at the rate of incarceration. The fact is that Atheists commit fewer crimes on the average then theists. Education levels, perhaps? Wouldn't a group concerned with the benefits it can provide youth want the best educated men to help lead it? Atheists are, on average, better educated then Theists. Is concern for the general good something desirable? I would think so. Atheists give to charity causes at a slightly higher rate then Theists. Is civic responsibility something one would want in a member? Atheists vote at a higher rate then theists. I can cite reliable sources for all of the above on request. I am hearing a lot of "That's the rule" but no comment on why it is the rule or why it is good for Scouting. Why is it?

evmori says, "The BSA is a private organization that has membership requirements. Since you don't meet those requirements, you can't be a member. " I am aware of that rather simplistic stance, evmori. I am questioning the rationality of the rule. Do you understand that rule are not absolutes and can, when detrimental, be changed? This discrimination rule is detrimental to the BSA and should be changed.

Wingnut, I was a member of the Boy Scouts, one who acheived it's highest honor and who honors it in return. I was excluded, I never wanted to leave. I can understand that you want somewhere your son can engage in his religion freely and in comfort. How will the presence of an atheist in the room prevent that? Do you think that a person being an atheist means they will automatically try to change your son's mind? Would you think the same of, for instance, a Wiccan or other non-Christian or even polytheistic adult leader? I want the same for my sons (should I ever have any) as you do yours. I want them to be able to be a part of a great organization and they would have as much right to feel comfortable with their beliefs as your sons. It isn't picking on me that is the problem. I am using myself as an example. The problem is excluding an entire class of people because they do not agree with the majority. How is that in keeping with the ideals of Scouting? You say that you wonder why people don't want you to have a place where your family fits in. Perhaps someone out there wants that; I certainly do not and never said so. My family also deserves a place where they can fit in, and why can that not be in the Boy Scouts? To feel that you belong, does everyone around you have to agree with you?

sst3rd, You say not once but twice that you think the religious discrimination policy is a good one so I gather that you strongly support it. What I am unclear on is your reason for your support. You say that it is not an idea but an ideal. What exactly is the ideal you refer to? Religion in and of itself? Is zealous adherence to the precepts of a religion on the part of each Scout the ideal you propose? I would like to respectfully request a further explanation of this. You go on to say, "As a youth member, we may not have our code (call it what you want) resolved, so in the hindsight of adulthood, we now feel the need to second guess." I am afraid I don't completely follow this either. Are you talking about how I (and others who may be in the same position I am) may have changed my views since the days of my active membership or are you talking about current youth whose beliefs are being formed? The second of those two options disturbs me a great deal, but I will await a clarification of what you mean before I venture a comment on it. You have responded to one of my questions, but I also have two others that I think are important for everyone who loves Scouting to consider very carefully. What is it about me and people like me that makes us unsuited to be involved in Scouting? How is it good for the organization to keep out adults and young men, preventing them from partaking in the great joys and benefits of Scouting? Why is it right to keep these young men from those benefits based on their choices about religion? I have asked these several times, yet have seen no answers from those who support the discrimination policy.

While I disagree strongly with the BSA's current policy of religious discrimination, I have no desire at this time to engage in legal activity. My posting here is merely a matter of curiosity. I simply want to see if this group, which I assume is a decent cross section of Scouting (leaning heavily towards adult leadership) agrees that this is a good idea. Good leaders and good boys are being kept out by this policy. I was wondering how anyone can see that as positive.