All I want is an explanation.

[acco40]

The BSA is aware of the marketing power of what it uses to promote itself. Look at who "the market" is for them. Look at who charters the most units.

 

Heck, the KKK was a "values based program" and if I want to get even more snarkier - some of those values could be thought of as traditional (the superiority of the "white" race, denigration of Jews, Catholics, etc.). It just happens that those values, no matter how traditional, don't float my boat.

 

Now, when an organization touts "values" it makes most warm and fuzzy. Certainly they must mean the things that I value and hold dear - most believe. For me, the term is mere pablum. If they were more specific and stated that they believed in the values represented in the Scout Oath and Law - that is quite different. I'd be behind that 100%! But, I would say that to be reverent one would need to only revere something. That something could be the great outdoors. Therefore, the declaration of religious principle is (to use a common phrase in Scouts) "adding to the requirements" of the Scout Oath and Law.

[Rooster7]

some of those values could be thought of as traditional (the superiority of the "white" race, denigration of Jews, Catholics, etc.). It just happens that those values, no matter how traditional, don't float my boat.

 

This is a distortion of what most believe to be traditional values.

 

But, I would say that to be reverent one would need to only revere something. That something could be the great outdoors.

 

Gee, why stop there. One could even revere a port-a-john. It fits your criteria one would need only revere something.

 

Therefore, the declaration of religious principle is (to use a common phrase in Scouts) "adding to the requirements" of the Scout Oath and Law.

 

Thats funnyI seem to remember something about duty to God in the Scout Oath.

 

[ASM1]

And then you have our beloved President last night in his State of the Union Address speaking about how we need to form an organization to involve our inner city youth, young men in particular so they do not get involved in drugs, or crime.

 

Did he once mention the Boy Scouts of America? No he did not. He is the honorary leader of the Boy Scouts of America and all he has accomplished for our organization is to try to rid US military bases of Boy Scout functions and meeting places. Trust me, I know. Our cub scout pack just had a huge influx of membership from a cub pack that was disolved from a military base.

 

This president is non-concerned about our youth. Non-concerned about any portion of American life as we who live it day by day have to endure the unemployment and lack of healthcare.

 

And, out of left field, when is the last time you saw the space shuttle fly? When Columbia blew up. Now ask yourself when do you ever expect to see it fly again? As long a Bush is president it will never fly, and more important, the Boy Scouts of America will never see its goals of impowering Americas youth to our great program.

 

But we could rename our organization as the Oil Scouts of America and I bet we get a billion dollar grant to explore our geological environment.

 

ASM1

[packsaddle]

eagledad, my remark was not intended to be condescending and I apologize if you took it that way. I was curious to see how anyone would react to a suggestion of how Merlyn could possibly be admitted as a scout leader. Actually Rooster7 may have come up with a solution...port-a-john (sic) reverence. I might have to think on it a while though. Perhaps with a good magazine...?

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Morals can be with or without a Higher Power. Religion can be with or without morals, depending on your perspective.

 

A non-member can believe in a Higher Power and have morals and can also become the best kind of a citizen but the BSA cannot speak for them. A non-member that recognizes only morals can be the best kind of a citizen but the BSA cannot speak for them. A non-member that recognizes only a Higher Power can still be the best kind of citizen but the BSA cannot speak for them. A non-member that does not believe in either of the two may have a great deal of difficulty in becoming the best kind of citizen but it is possible and the BSA is not speaking for them.

 

The BSA recognizes morals and a Higher Power combined in its statement. The BSA recognizes that a MEMBER can grow into the best kind of a citizen by adhering to both of these principles in general. It is not a deprecating or a comparative statement but a view and/or a mission of intent.

 

Although for a Port-a-Potty believer to meet the BSA criteria he must have faith in a higher power, such as, a commode god that flushes. Now, let the dog roll over....

FB

 

[FatherJim]

As an old Army infantry grunt I must confess that after 1+ months in the jungle I considered a port-a-john a "higher being" and almost worshipped it!

If the Prez had mentioned BSA by name in his speech we probably would have had nashing of teeth from the other organizations that also work with our nation's youth, he was probably just being PC, although, I agree with you, it was a golden opportunity to mention the BSA. Maybe BSA should have given him a silver animal award. Did BSA give Prez Clinton a silver animal award?

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Most of us in the BSA have a blind prejudice that there is only one way to good citizenship, character development, and physical fitness. We fail to appreciate the millions of other good citizens all around us that make up America and the world that have these same qualities but achieved them in numerous other ways.

 

and yes, Clinton was awarded the silver dog award.

 

FB

 

[FatherJim]

FB,

Man you are either an "early riser" or a "atay up late" kind of person (according to your timed entry)!

Glad to hear that Prez Clinton got an award!

You're 100% correct about the other good citizens around us, may of whom perhaps owe no particular allegiance to any deity or religious system etc., but yet are decent upright citizens.

And as I can well attest to, may devout citizens who have a fanatical devotion to a religious system yet don't practice what they preach or teach and are less than, what you might call good citizens...go figure!

But as long as BSA has the membership guidelines I guess we are duty bound to adhere to them, doesn't mean they can't change.

mhager feels the BSA turned its back on him, BIMHO they were just following their own rules, what else could they do?

[Eagledad]

Boy, I must say I really enjoy your post Fuzzy Bear. You have a great grasp of all angles of this subject and have a gift into putting it all in words.

 

>>We fail to appreciate the millions of other good citizens all around us that make up America and the world that have these same qualities but achieved them in numerous other ways.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Dr. J.

 

I rise with my sons 3 and 1. Going to bed late allows for clean up and writing; the 1 year old wakes at 3 or 4 or 5 and I follow. After he returns to bed, I start the day.

 

I guess you know how Pres. Clinton earned his dog award...

 

This country of reds and blues mostly has good hearts, although there is always room for improvement.

 

As for those who talk it but can't walk it, their fear is greater than their depth of love. The shallows prevent them from seeing the distant goal.

 

mhagar wanted a grass roots challenge for change and complained bitterly that most us of were content sitting on it. The BSA does not consult its membership on their views for change or they havent asked me in the last 40 years. Change is inevitable but not immediate when tradition stands in the way. In my church, I am comfortable sitting in the pews with the sinners because that is where we are supposed to be. Segregated religions limit their catch by casting out those that dont meet their standards. Their judgment is based on the kind of god(s) they worship. They dont consult me either. Life without contradictions would not be normal.

 

As far as being duty bound to adhere to a policy, it does not prevent me from the freedom of thought and of personal belief. I know from experience that this program (BSA) helps to change many of the young men into better young citizens. The belief in a Higher Power is something that I personally adhere to and know can change rock into heart. Morals are without a doubt a force that brings us in direct contact with how best to live in peace. I am thankful for the BSA and I am glad to be a part of it. It is not perfect and does not postulate absolute truth. It merely points us in a good direction. It leaves absolutes to the church and to those that know about such things.

 

If the BSA turned its back on mhagar, it was not without an informed choice. He was also not asking to be understood but for immediate change. Many here disagreed with him because their belief system did not align with his. That was personal. His fight is not here but with the tradition. He was asking to change the institution and the morals that have become part of it for almost a century. This is not the place to try and win that proposal. The lions will win every time.

 

Barry,

 

Thank you for your compliment. There are so few floating around that my first inclination is to question.

 

Getting closer to God a stand alone goal of intent and practice. Kindness is something so recognizable that I doubt it could ever be hidden.

 

You are right about Scouting being boy sized. The young man that wrote your referral letter was highly impressed with how you approached Scouting and your life. I was once canned from a teaching job that I dearly loved because they decided to do away with unnecessary classes, mine being one worthy of such note. A young lady that had been in my class two years before wrote the Governor and complained. She felt that what she had learned exceeded the sum of the total. There is little justice in life but that is one that will remain written.

 

A failure to appreciate is actually a failure to get closer to God, so I know your location.

 

FB

 

[FatherJim]

Right On FB!

[Hunt]

With all due respect, Fuzzy Bear, BSA's statement is hard to interpret as anything other than comparative. It states: "The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God..." If it said something like "Recognizing his obligation to God helps a member grow into the best kind of citizen," I might agree with you, but it doesn't say that. As stated, BSA wouldn't recognize some of the Founding Fathers as "the best kind of citizen."

But as I said, I think BSA has good reasons for maintaining its religious requirement other than morality. If I were given the opportunity to rewrite the statement of religious principle, it might go something like: "The members of the Boy Scouts of America share the belief that life has a spiritual dimension, and that fulfilling his obligation to God is an important part of a Scout's development as a whole person."

Let me put it this way--religion (in my view) isn't important because it makes people behave more morally, or because it makes them happier, or because it helps society run more smoothly--it's important because God is real and people do have obligations to God. Being more moral isn't a reason to be religious (although it may be a reason to want other people to be religious). If you lived in China, performing your obligation to God would not make you a good citizen--in fact, it could make you an enemy of the state and send you to prison. But that doesn't change the obligation.

I think things would just be simpler if we said, "Hey, BSA is a club of and for people who believe in God, just like the Roman Catholic Church is for people who share the beliefs of that faith, and the Britney Spears Fan Club is for people who like Britney. You might have reasons you'd like to join one of those groups without accepting the shared views of the members, but you can't. You'll just have to find another group that fits your views, or start your own."

[Fuzzy Bear]

Hunt,

 

Disagreement and opinion are closely associated but are only spelled differently. I fear any attempt at agreement on this issue will stretch well beyond these 11 pages without so much as an approximation of a final answer. So, my response is not in any way an attempt to convince you of a different position but more of a clarification of mine, just in case we happen to agree but neither of us knew it.

 

The Boy Scouts do not compare or disparage religions or gods. Their general statement about religion/God is like asking somebody if they believe in popcorn. Most can say yes even if they dislike it. Or, their statement is so general, that the Port a Potty god would acceptable, if one were to view it is a higher power.

 

The Founding Fathers knew full well the problems that religion had caused in their own lives and met the establishment with a new rule of freedom of religion or from religion. My own hero, Thomas Jefferson simply cut out the parts of the Bible that didn't meet with his approval. It was his expression of aligning his personal beliefs with his life. Most today keep their book in tact but ignore the parts that give distress, so in comparison he could be trusted. As far as the BSA recognizing some of the Founding Fathers, that has never been a BSA action toward any person at any time. They inform the person about their organization and their view. They do not judge anyone or their beliefs but if the person is to join they must have a belief in a God/Higher Power, so the recognition and the choice come from the individual not the organization.

 

The view or the mission or the intent of the BSA statement is that God is an important element in becoming a good citizen for those that become Scouts. The BSA does not try to put forth their view as a public standard in how to become a good citizen. It is not global. It is meant for those that voluntarily decide to join the BSA. The BSA stands as far away from comparing religious imperatives as possible and does it quite well without a rewrite, IMO.

 

FB

 

[packsaddle]

FuzzyBear, I have considered your words and tried to find disagreement but I can't in any substantial way. However, BSA could take a small step further and eliminate the issue. BSA could leave this question solely to each individual's own conscience.

By staking their claim on being a "religious organization" BSA also accepts a responsibility for providing a clear policy, one that evidently is lacking, except that persons of conscience who are labeled as atheists are excluded. I understand the fact that BSA painted themselves into a corner on this issue. But BSA chose to do that and I must believe they knew what they were doing. So my sympathy is reserved for those persons of conscience who are needlessly excluded...I think to the detriment of us all.

We can react to Merlyn by taking a victim stance, but as I have observed before, that approach doesn't work well for those who are not actual victims. We can stand in the corner raging at the surrounding paint, but we did that to ourselves. Neither the action nor the rage exactly covers us with glory.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Pack,

I do not defend the BSA but moreover attempt to explain by way of my understanding of their policy. It is their policy. The BSA has not asked me once in all of my experience with them about what I would like for them to do and I doubt ever will. I admire their ability to write a policy that appears to have substance, yet appeals to the core of so many to define and find God. Clarity is not the intent of such a statement because the appeal to perspective members and members is to their nature, so a rewrite is presently out of the question. (*The Republicans recently used a similar strategy to their advantage.)

 

The small step you are asking of them is not inconsequential. It has to do with tradition and the word(s) in the Law and the Oath. It has to do with the acceptability of a large portion of their supporters within and outside the organization. It is also tied inextricably to the belief system of members that interpret their religion and their life with absolutes. Change will eventually occur but not until the social fabric changes and that is the small step that must happen first.

 

The BSA does not claim to be a religious organization and would not admit to painting themselves into a corner. Rather, it asks that its members bring their personal religion with them when joining the organization, remain neutral while implementing the program and have it quietly in the background while achieving the BSAs goals. It also allows for religious groups use of the program while openly engaging in their religious practices, a kind of in-house openness. One must appreciate the curious adaptation to religion that the BSA asks and allows of its members.

 

Leaving the religious issue to ones own conscience is actually what the BSA does but it is tied to a belief in God. The issue of God will continue to separate us from many that would otherwise be of support to the organization. The issue of God will also bring many to the organization that are useful. Reversing the situation by eliminating the issue of God, would reverse the situation and make membership for many untenable. The question of unification is tied to the social fabric, tradition, and the ideals; all barriers not easily breached.

 

I believe I understand your sympathy for those that are on the outside but most are good citizens with character and are fit but achieved those goals a different way. Try as we may, leaving this life in glory is futile. Attempting to do ones best while alive is a most worthy goal.

 

FB