A better question

[tjhammer]

Welcome to the discussing, littlebillie.

 

As you'll find, I agree that the BSA should maintain "reverence" and "Duty to God" as fundamental lessons we teach Scouts. I often disagree with many on this board who interpret these lessons to mean a very strict, conservative Christian perspective only.

 

However, I have to comment on your assertion that the World Organization of Scout Movements (WOSM, the sanctioning body of Scouting over 216 countries) considers religion and spirituality to be a fundamental lesson. That's really not true at all, and I would encourage you to read their very well explained view on the Mission of Scouting at http://www.scout.org/wso/publications.html#basics

 

Even B-P didn't include a heavy religious emphasis in his original concepts of Scouting, or his Scout Oath and Law. Those were additions the BSA made to the Scout Oath and Law in the earliest days, based largely on the influence of the YMCA over formation of the BSA. I'm glad that the BSA added those items, as I believe spirituality is important to forming character. As NJCubScouter has pointed out often, the BSA does have a declaration of religious principles that embraces a Scout's Duty to God, but does so in a completely non-sectarian way. Unfortunately, both the BSA and many of the people on this discussion board have difficulty really honoring that declaration, or maybe even understanding it.

[littlebillie]

I based my comments on the World Org's Constitution and By-laws (available at the same site you cited), ARTICLE II, Principles, 1. The Scout Movement is based on the following principles [first mentioned is] 'Duty to God'. I was taking this as the source reference for the WO - is that incorrect? (I AM kinda new here.)

 

Seems to me that if you buy into WO membership, you buy into that. OR at least you say you do, thus passing the same test the Girl Scouts have established...?

 

 

 

 

[littlebillie]

and I guess an adjuct question would be, is spiritual atheism an oxymoron?

[Rooster7]

littlebillie,

 

There is One Who is a Shepherd of many flocks...

 

That's a provocative statement. I reserve further comment unless you want to elaborate. I hate to make assumptions about what you may have meant.

 

TJ,

 

I'm not sure I am one of those folks that you're alluding to... Nevertheless, I contend that most conservative Christians on this board are not trying to force their religion on anyone. There is a difference between supporting moral principles (regardless of its roots, or perceived roots) and promoting one's faith above others. For example, conservative Christians feel strongly that homosexuality is wrong and speak out against it within BSA and elsewhere. That fact does not prevent anyone from practicing his or her faith. That fact does not discourage others from participating in BSA. That fact does not place Christianity above all other faiths within BSA. Of course, an argument can be made that homosexuals are being excluded. Yes, this is true, but it cannot be said that Christianity alone is the reason. Many other faiths, in particular those most practiced and observed at the beginning of the previous century, speak out against homosexuality as well. This debate is more about the moral standards adopted long ago (and probably endorsed by most Scouters today) verses a "new" standard that others are trying to impose today. It's wrong to blame it on Christianity or those Scouts and Scouters who follow Christ. Certainly, when BSA was founded, they were a dominating force. They probably influenced many polices and positions of BSA. Still, if the majority is being driven by another majority, well that's a simple fact of life that one must learn to live with in a democracy or a representative republic (if you prefer). That fact should not nullify the will of the majorityit is still a majority. Before you address the Constitution (i.e., the rights of the individual) and the morality of BSA's stance, let's also remember these facts. BSA is a private organization. Our Constitution supports the existence of all lawful organizations. Our Constitution does not require the people (the citizens of our nation vice the government) to support all viewpoints. Furthermore, no government decree suggests that the people or private organizations should respect all viewpoints (in this case, what is moral or immoral). If the founders (and the current overseers) established an organization in which certain moral principles were to rein supreme despite the whims of future majorities in future generations, that too would be within their right. There is nothing inherently wrong with this concept or practice. Again, it's simply a matter of standing on moral principle. Whether those principles were originally rooted in a particular faith is not the point. As a private organization, BSA has a right to establish a code of conduct and to exclude those folks unwilling to support it.

 

So, while BSA invites all major faiths to join its ranks, it does not forfeit its rights to establish and maintain a moral code even if some of those same faiths disagree with it. If you join BSA, the onus is upon you to reconcile your faith with the organization's code. It is not BSA's responsibility or moral duty to reconcile its moral code with the faith of each potential member. Nor is it BSA's responsibility to explain or justify how its code was adopted.

 

Lastly, most members apparently agree that BSA's positions on these issues are morally proper. BSA is not being controlled by a conservative Christian conspiracy. BSA is standing firm on these issue because they believe in moral principles, which were established long ago and happens to be supported by a majority of its members. You are seeking to nullify the will of the majority simply because you believe that majority is supported by a large group (conservative Christians) which you do not care for. Nevertheless, even if the majority does not support BSA's stance, it is legally and morally acceptable for the organization to embrace a moral code that other's may not subscribe to.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[llwyn]

It sounds like everyone has a handle on the declaration of religious principle, and that's good. Two brief remarks:

 

Merlyn, you said,

Ernest Seton, the first chief scout of the BSA and writer of the first BSA handbook, didn't. Judging by his autobiography and his other writings and public statements, I doubt he would be allowed to join to BSA today. He was quite skeptical about gods.

 

I have read much of ETS and spent hours in the library at Philmont and the first thing that came to mind was actually an incident that happened yesterday. I was reading a magazine that was really a schedule of Pow-Wows in 2002 throughout the U.S. and came across an editorial in the back that was stressing the importance of delivering spiritual values to the next generation of pow-wow dancers. To my surprise and delight the writer was using ETS's book, The Gospel of the Red Man, which as you probably know, is all about God. I'm sure that "black wolf" would be allowed into the BSA today, and I'm equally convinced that he was no skeptic about God.

 

And little billie, you said,

 

(Actually, there's an avenue for abuse here that may be seen as an unwitting temptation to the atheist child to lie, but that's another issue)

 

This is a good point, but I think it is precisely the issue: The GSUSA seems to be the unwitting party here, not the little atheist girl. And the avenues for abuse are wide and smooth. One reason I like the Religious Awards Program is that, though there are many, they are quite specific and the religious institutions must carefully plan their application to be included. There is no room for dicker in the 12th point of the Scout Law - and an atheist, in my experience, will wittingly say whatever it takes to achieve their desired outcome. At least they can't get a God & Country Award for some crudely crafted religious system that they made up or that they overheard from some woosey-headed New-Ager.

No, my friend, I have to disagree - this is not a "position the BSA should consider ..."

 

YiS,

llwyn

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

llwyn wrote:

>...and an atheist, in my experience, will wittingly say whatever it takes to achieve their desired outcome.

 

Let's see how that looks with some slight changes:

 

>...and a Jew, in my experience, will wittingly say whatever it takes to achieve their desired outcome.

 

>...and a Catholic, in my experience, will wittingly say whatever it takes to achieve their desired outcome.

 

Doesn't look any better to me; looks like you're just defaming atheists.

 

Merlyn LeRoy

[llwyn]

Merlyn,

You're right, of course, it does sound like I'm just defaming atheists. I am sorry if I have offended. Are you an atheist? Can you explain this?

little billie said:

"they've just really opened up what can be

meant by God, god, or spirituality"

 

llwyn:

I think that if an atheist makes a declarative statement regarding "God, god, or spirituality", it must be either a denial of these things or it must be a lie

 

lb:

"- as well as leaving it up to the conscience of the individual to decide if they want to say that they meet the requirement"

 

llwyn:

I think that to "say that they meet the requirement" when really they don't is a lie. If they do "meet the requirement", they would say so, but then they couldn't be atheists. Could they Merlyn?

 

lb:

"(Actually, there's an avenue for abuse here that may be seen as an unwitting temptation to the atheist child to lie, but that's another issue)"

 

llwyn:

I ask who is the unwitting party here? The tempter or the tempted? I think neither. If an institution has a clear requirement to affirm their stated declaration of religious priciples, it would seem contradictory to those priciples if said institution were to tempt someone to lie - wittingly or no. Furthermore, any atheist kid that lies in order to join said institution, does so wittingly. Not to put to fine a point on it Merlyn and billie, but atheists are telling a big fat lie here.

Finally, Merlyn, your defaming straw man fails because those little jews and catholics [and protestants, too] have something in common that our little lying atheist lacks: a God that commands them each [and their parents] to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. He also commands them not to lie.

Atheists defame themselves. They lie when they say there is no God and they know they are lying. Me defame them? Yup.

 

YiS,

llwyn

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

>...If an institution has a clear requirement to affirm their stated declaration of religious priciples, it would seem contradictory to those priciples if said institution were to tempt someone to lie - wittingly or no. Furthermore, any atheist kid that lies in order to join said institution, does so wittingly.

 

Let's say a kid wants to join a cub scout unit chartered by his public school; he knows that his public school can't discriminate on the basis of religion, so he assumes the 'god' part is optional. When he makes the promise to join (along with 5 other kids), he omits the god part, and nobody notices. Sound possible?

 

And what would you say about the honesty of a scout council that charters scout units to public schools? The scout council knows that public schools can't practice religious discrimination.

 

 

[llwyn]

Merlyn,

Does it sound possible? Yes, and even probable - it's what I predicted: the little atheist kid lied [in this case, as you say, by ommission]. Pretty sophisticated little shaver, though, wouldn't you agree?

 

As for the Council, what is your question? What do you mean by "what about ...?"

I must be too sleepy, sorry.

Must sleep ...

Can't ... seem .. to understand ...

)

[littlebillie]

So help me out here. The GSUSA says it acknowledges a spiritual component in the life of the scout, but they're supported by atheists?

 

I really DON'T understand why the BSA gets flacked for this and the GSUSA doesn't...?

[OldGreyEagle]

Good quesiton littlebillie and if that weirds you out, consider that GSUSA also allows lesbians to be leaders and yet they are not viified for being a blight on the soul of American culture. I dont understand why conservative religious factions dont assail GSUSA for allowing gays to be leaders.

[Rooster7]

OGE,

 

Believe me...they do! It's just that GSUSA is so far to the left; few feel it's worth the effort. BSA powers-to-be are strong supporters of traditional values. Conservative Christian want to fight to keep it that way because 1) It's worth fighting for, and 2) It's a battle most feel can be won. While GSUSA may be worth fighting for, few folks believe that it is a winnable battle. The very people who oppose traditional values are running the organization. This is tantamount to pounding one's head against the wall. Smart people tend not to do it.

 

[OldGreyEagle]

And yet we still argue here, what does THAT say about us both?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

>Does it sound possible? Yes, and even probable - it's what I predicted: the little atheist kid lied [in this case, as you say, by ommission].

 

Nope; read it again. A scout troop chartered by a public school can't exclude atheists, and (in this case), the kid thought that the 'god' part was optional, just as it's optional in the pledge of allegiance.

 

>As for the Council, what is your question? What do you mean by "what about ...?"

 

Don't you consider it dishonest for a BSA council to charter a cub scout troop to a public school? The council knows that public schools can't practice religious discrimination, yet running a cub scout unit requires such discrimination.

 

[littlebillie]

I always find myself concerned about the Cub Scout who belongs to a two-dad or two-mom family, whe then sees his parents marginalized, turned into second class citizens w/in a Pack.

 

Oh - and it does happen!

 

Whaddaya do?