Agnostic parent

[Laurie]

My ultimate goal was to try and get the scout to an interview so I had a reason to advance him. After a discussion with mom and dad last night, my interview with the boy is this Sunday.

 

Excellent news.

 

[Vicki]

Actually, nwscouter, there's more wiggle room than you might think. The spectrum of "agnostic" includes atheistic agnostics at one end and theistic agnostics at the other end (see below). I do not have access to the exact wording of the BSA legal policy (tried Googling it and none of the links gave me anything but hysteria). As a former agnostic, I would have been comfortable, from an ethical perspective, signing the registration form - I've always believed in God but am unable to prove his/her/its existence. I have since moved into the theist arena and worship as a Christian (a Lutheran pastor having told me that honest seekers are welcome in the LCMS). I would also be very uncomfortable excluding this Scout - I think you're absolutely right to pursue this as exhaustively as possible.

 

Anyway, all that aside, I thought you might be interested in the following (especially the last part) and in knowing that the term "agnosticism" wasn't even coined until relatively recently. As with many terms related to religion, it depends on where you look for your definition:

 

"Gordon Stein wrote in his essay The Meaning of Atheism and Agnosticism:

 

Obviously, if theism is a belief in a God and atheism is a lack of a belief in a God, no third position or middle ground is possible. A person can either believe or not believe in a God. Therefore, our previous definition of atheism has made an impossibility out of the common usage of agnosticism to mean neither affirming nor denying a belief in God. Actually, this is no great loss, because the dictionary definition of agnostic is still again different from Huxleys definition. The literal meaning of agnostic is one who holds that some aspect of reality is unknowable. Therefore, an agnostic is not simply someone who suspends judgment on an issue, but rather one who suspends judgment because he feels that the subject is unknowable and therefore no judgment can be made. It is possible, therefore, for someone not to believe in a God (as Huxley did not) and yet still suspend judgment (ie, be an agnostic) about whether it is possible to obtain knowledge of a God. Such a person would be an atheistic agnostic. It is also possible to believe in the existence of a force behind the universe, but to hold (as did Herbert Spencer) that any knowledge of that force was unobtainable. Such a person would be a theistic agnostic."

 

Vicki

[Vicki]

Thanks to the scouter who sent me the URL for the legal info. Whether I agree or disagree, which doesn't matter, it does seem cut-and-dried as far as Mom is concerned, unless she's willing to posit the existence of a God (which it is possible for an agnostic to do).

 

There is wiggle room for the scout, in my view, depending on what Dad actually believes, how influential Mom has been (sounds like she's been very influential), what son thinks he believes (at 10!) and what the family actually does.

 

I'll stop now.

 

Good luck Sunday (how ironic that this conference is happening on a day of religious observance for many:

[NJCubScouter]

Scoutndad says:

 

The horse aint gettin any deader by beatin it...

 

Heh heh, keep hanging around this forum and you will learn that no horse is ever too dead.

 

As the full thread of comments and opinion shows, it is absolutely a lenient process where the interview is not an interrogation.

 

I think you have shown in many of your comments in this thread that you are going into this with a good sense of fairness, and that your intention is to see whether the young man meets the requirements, no more and no less. I know you will give him the benefit of the doubt... though perhaps "doubt" is a poor choice of words here. Maybe there could be a discussion in "Issues and Politics" about whether someone can do their "Duty to God" as defined by the BSA while still having doubts, uncertainties, questions etc. about the existence of a higher power. Which gets us back to the subject of "agnostics," but as I say, I think that discussion probably does not belong in the "Cub Scout" topic because there is room for some fairly sharp disagreement. It is a subject I am not sure we have ever had a thread about in the three years I have been in this forum, which makes it a rare subject indeed.

 

Your basic premise in this thread has been that you can't sign off on the requirement unless the boy talks to you about it, and that is obviously correct. Apparently now the boy's parents have recognized this, which is good news.

 

There are strict definitions of agnostic and atheism that the BSA upholds.

 

Where? Let's say that is true of atheism, I don't think it is true of agnosticism. Where is the strict definition of agnosticism? I had that question even before I saw Vicki's post, which pretty much demonstrates that the issue is anything but clear. Plus I am not sure that there is even an official BSA rule or policy (aside from what appears to be a "throwaway line" on bsalegal.org) that deals with a boy who is an "agnostic," much less providing a clear or strict definition. On several occasions people have posted several paragraphs from an official BSA publication (I believe it was an advancement publication) that basically says how to deal with issues of religion (or the absence thereof) in terms of advancement. I do not believe it mentions agnosticism or even atheism specifically. I believe it is stated more in terms of what the Scout DOES believe than what he does NOT believe. I don't know exactly where to find it right now.

 

After a discussion with mom and dad last night, my interview with the boy is this Sunday.

 

Good luck.

 

[Bob White]

I missed this the first time through and thought it was worth re-visiting.

 

Packsaddle wrote "My point was an exercise in logic, nothing more. If the application settles the question of atheism, and if nearly any answer satisfies the advancement requirement, then there may be little meaning to the exercise."

 

I don't believe the application does settle the question. At least not the youth application. The Declaration of Religious Principles he refers to is on the Adult Application only and does not appear on the youth applications. So it is not relevant to this situation.

 

BW

[Scoutndad]

I don't mind keeping my forum topic up, but I think NJ has a great idea...

 

Spin a new thread under Issues and Politics since there is more I would like to hear about over and above my original topic that would have a better forum...we need to label it Faith in Scouting

 

You bring up a great point about the application while Vicki has a great and unique perspective on agnosticism.

[packsaddle]

Apologies to everyone, I just can't seem to get the question out of my mind:

Would that be a 'Maltese Bippy'?

[Scoutndad]

packsaddle...

 

u r scaring me man...

[dsteele]

Actually, the declaration of religious principal is included in the youth application. It is on the second page behind the cover. It is the same statement as is found on the adult application.

 

In fact, when the parent signs the application, they are approving the boy's application. The print about the parent signature reads, "I have read the parent information and approve the application."

 

On a Venturing application, the youth sign for themselves, but the same information is provided.

 

Unc.

[packsaddle]

Fear me if you dare:

http://www.shrek2.com/downloads/wallpaper/shrek2_wp03_800.html

[Bob White]

But what it says is that in order to be a leader the parent will have to accept these principles. I do not believe at any part of the application ther scouts beliefs are established. Isn't that correct?

 

BW

[GopherJudy]

Scoutndad,

 

I've read everything here & I can't think of anything to add so I wish you the best of luck on Sunday with this Scout. Let us know how it turns out! I sure hope that it goes well so that he can advance.

 

Good Luck

Judy

[Fuzzy Bear]

The Mother approved the discussion that she had earlier disapproved. The DL first said he "wanted the Scout to advance" and now it appears the Mother wants the Scout to advance also. The Dad appears to be neutral but supportive of the advancement issue. I have accepted it all along that the Scout wanted to advance. There appears to be confusion on everyones part about the BSA's position on advancement and the religious requirement.

 

As I see it, the issue is not on advancement and should not be confused with it. The issue is about respecting a family's right to their beliefs. If we violate the right to their belief system, then we will eventually fail to protect the rights of others that do not believe a certain way. It needs to be pointed out that a belief in a Supreme Being is the policy of the BSA. It is not a debate and it is not a discussion that is needed about how to abridge that policy.

 

We seek to inform people at the time of application and at each stage of the process, especially when the ideals are stated on a frequent basis. When a family or an individual must endure the constant usage of the Ideals, then we have abridged the right of the individual to believe otherwise and in essence have hurt them in a spiritual way. The goal of Scouting is not to proselyte or convert people to a belief in God and should not be used to do so. It sounds like a good secondary gain to use it as thus but it abridges another basic right and that is one to be truthful.

 

If a person feels lead to convert an individual outside of Scouting, based on their personal belief, then it should be done as a believer, not a Scout(er). Some believe that using the process of argumentation to sway a person to believe in God is the best method to do so. Most of the time, it creates an enemy and few times brings one to God. God changes a person's heart not because of us or the arguments that we use but God changes the heart in spite of our feeble efforts.

 

Respecting and protecting the family's right to their personal beliefs is the issue and not advancement nor keeping quality leaders in the unit. If they decide to separate themselves because of their beliefs, it is always done with sadness and regret but is necessary. None will escape the hurt.

 

 

FB

 

[Vicki]

Scoutndad>How do I in good conscience, advance the Scout and not lose two of the best resources and poeple that I and the Pack have? I know it sounds selfish, but any help would be greatly appreciated. >

 

Fuzzy, from the original post I have thought Scoutndad was in a quandary and trying to see a way out. An ethically and morally straight way out. While your post is a good reminder, I don't see him as trying to "get around" the requirements nor trying to proselytize. I'm not there, I don't know for sure, but if I was in his situation - Mom an agnostic, Dad a (assuming here) lapsed Christian and son a ? - I think I'd try "in good conscience" to do what I could to figure out what was going on before I decided I had to boot 'em out.

 

Vicki

[Fuzzy Bear]

Vicki,

 

It appears that this issue was obvious for several years and nobody wanted to talk about "the elephant in the living room". It is also not a matter of "booting" somebody out but bringing their attention to the Ideals of Scouting and allowing the person/family to settle this issue for themselves. No matter which direction this answer goes, there will be hurt feelings all around. It is most unpleasant and unavoidable.

 

FB