All I want is an explanation.

[Hunt]

Look, it's just absurd to say BSA doesn't think it's better to be religious than not to be religious. Its own words make it clear that it does think that. Furthermore, any honest religious person would would have to admit thinking that it is better to be religious than not to be religious (or at least it's better to believe in the true religion than not to). As I see it, there are two possible basic reasons for thinking it is better to be religious:

1. God, or at least something divine, is real, and there really is a religious obligation. If this is true, it's obviously better to be religious so you can perform your obligation.

2. While God may or may not be real, being religious provides benefits to the individual or to society. From this point of view, religion is like midnight basketball--it keeps people off the streets. (Or it's the opiate of the masses.)

Currently, BSA's statement of religious principle suggests that it believes in the second reason--that religion is necessary to become "the best kind of citizen." I'm just saying I think the first reason is a better one, and doesn't require claims about better morals that are awfully hard to prove given world history.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Fuzzy Bear writes:

The BSA does not claim to be a religious organization and would not admit to painting themselves into a corner.

 

The BSA, the courts (and even Bill O'Reilly) disagree with you:

 

in 1995, when the BSA kicked out Buzz Grambo in Maryland for being an atheist, BSA national spokesman Richard W. Walker was quoted in the Washington Post:

"It's no secret we have a duty to God," said Walker, from Boy Scouts of America headquarters in Irving, Tex. "We're not a religion, but we are a religious organization."

 

In the Balboa Park lease case, the judge ruled that the Boy Scouts were a religious organization, based in part on the BSA's own filings in the case where they stated they were an organization with a "religious purpose" and had a "faith-based mission to serve young people and their families."

 

Bill O'Reilly even figured this out:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108666,00.html

...

On October 21, 2003, Greg Shields, a national spokesman for the Boy Scouts of America, said this to Fox News: "The Boy Scouts are not a religious organization. We cannot be described as a religious organization or a religion."

 

However, in several legal briefs, including one in a 1992 case in Kansas and another in 1998, lawyers for the Boy Scouts put in writing that the Scouts are a religious organization. Here's the quote in '98:

 

"Although Boy Scouts of America is not a religious sect, it is religious, and, while the local council is not a house of worship like a church or a synagogue, it is a religious organization."

...

 

[i'm pretty sure the above quote is from the Pool/Geller case]

 

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.

 

It's certainly going to cut the BSA off from about 5% of its current troop chartering organizations and 12% of current pack chartering organizations that are government agencies. It looks like at least three state-level ACLUs are interested in this situation, and possibly the national ACLU.

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Hunt,

 

There is a difference between a global statemment aimed at the world and a statement that is intended for those in the BSA. The BSA is directing their statement to those in the BSA. It is not saying that everyone else in the world cannot be a good citizen.

 

Global statements are made by those believeing in absolutes and that state that all that do not believe in one thing will be banished forever.

 

(I challenge you to an absurdity match.)

 

Merlyn,

 

Note the yearly progression of your quotes.

(*rearranged)

 

"It's no secret we have a duty to God," said Walker, from Boy Scouts of America headquarters in Irving, Tex. "We're not a religion, but we are a religious organization." Washington Post 1995

 

"Although Boy Scouts of America is not a religious sect, it is religious, and, while the local council is not a house of worship like a church or a synagogue, it is a religious organization." BSA 1998 legal Brief

 

On October 21, 2003, Greg Shields, a national spokesman for the Boy Scouts of America, said this to Fox News: "The Boy Scouts are not a religious organization. We cannot be described as a religious organization or a religion."

 

The BSA does not claim to be a religious organization and would not admit to painting themselves into a corner.- Fuzzy Bear- Scouters Forum 2/07/05.

 

FB

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Fuzzy Bear writes:

Merlyn,

 

Note the yearly progression of your quotes.

(*rearranged)

 

 

I'll note the context of the quotes:

 

 

"It's no secret we have a duty to God," said Walker, from Boy Scouts of America headquarters in Irving, Tex. "We're not a religion, but we are a religious organization." Washington Post 1995

 

 

BSA spokesman talking to the press.

 

 

"Although Boy Scouts of America is not a religious sect, it is religious, and, while the local council is not a house of worship like a church or a synagogue, it is a religious organization." BSA 1998 legal Brief

 

 

An official legal statement made under penalty of perjury by the BSA and its attorneys.

 

 

On October 21, 2003, Greg Shields, a national spokesman for the Boy Scouts of America, said this to Fox News: "The Boy Scouts are not a religious organization. We cannot be described as a religious organization or a religion."

 

 

BSA spokesman talking to the press.

 

 

The BSA does not claim to be a religious organization and would not admit to painting themselves into a corner.- Fuzzy Bear- Scouters Forum 2/07/05.

 

 

A personal opinion of someone who does not represent the BSA

 

Note that only one statement is made under the penalty of perjury. Also note that official BSA spokesmen contradict each other depending on whether they want to be considered a religious organization (so they can kick out people), or not be considered a religious organization (so they aren't kicked out themselves). That's the BSA being dishonest. Again.

 

And you completely omitted the judge's opinion where he ruled that the BSA is a religious organization.

 

The BSA has said a number of times in court that they are a religious organization. Your opinion to the contrary carries no weight.

 

You're simply avoiding reality. You don't win court battles that way.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I left out the judge's opinion because the BSA doesn't care about it. They do not want to be "painted into a corner by their own words" because they most likely dont care about that either. They would rather appear to be a victim of a bad decision. They are allowing public opinion decide who is right. It also appears that the publicity generated from these inconveniences has worked in the favor of the BSA.

 

You are also mistaken about my opinion. I am not attempting to represent the BSA and my opinion carries even less weight than even you suppose. Avoiding reality by way of explanation is not the correct definition of my position. The BSA has never allowed me any in or output.

 

FB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I left out the judge's opinion because the BSA doesn't care about it. They do not want to be "painted into a corner by their own words" because they most likely dont care about that either.

 

Ah. So the word of the BSA is worthless. Gotcha.

 

Judging by Alabama and the Circle Ten Council, I'd agree. It's still not a way to win court cases.

 

I'd also suggest you refrain from making obviously wrong statements like "The BSA does not claim to be a religious organization". They DO.

[Fuzzy Bear]

My point was that the BSA has evolved, if you note again the dated sequence of their statements about religion. It a legal maneuver for defense. It could be said that the BSA is learning as they get to know themselves. It reflects the change that has occurred within.

 

The frustration of Hunt when he noted the lack of clarity in the policy on religion is one indication that; if the statement of belief is too complex, then it cannot withstand the public test of acceptance.

 

BP wrote the Scout Law and James West added the last three points, the last being reverent. Tradition is on trial.

 

In this forum of opinion, I reserve the right to be wrong.

 

FB

 

 

 

[Hunt]

I don't think there's much more to be said about how to interpret "best kind of citizen," so I'll turn to the question of whether BSA is a "religious organization."

 

Look at the two following definitions of "religious"

 

"adj 1: concerned with sacred matters or religion or the church; "religious texts"; "a member of a religious order"; 2: having or showing belief in and reverence for a deity; "a religious man"; "religious attitude"

 

In my mind, BSA fits the second (but not the first) definition. Clearly, BSA is not a religion (such as Roman Catholicism), nor is it a religious organization in the sense of an organization primarily devoted to religion, such as, say, Campus Crusade for Christ, or the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. However, as an organization, it is "religious" in the sense of the second definition. Perhaps another example of an organization that is "relgious" in this way would be Alcoholics Anonymous--its main focus isn't religion, but it does invoke a "Higher Power." I think there has been some confusion in this thread and others between these two kinds of "religious organization." I think that confusion can be seen in the controversies in the courts, too--BSA emphasizes its "religious" character when it wants to justify its religious membership requirements, but emphasizes its non-sectarian character (and the fact that religion is not central) when it resists removal of government support. I actually think it's a moot point, because the religious membership requirement alone is probably enough to make government support unlawful. It would be better for BSA to simply agree that it is "religious" in the sense of supporting religion in a non-sectarian fashion.

[Prairie_Scouter]

I think that there's a certain reality that has be considered as well. BSA is not going to change it's policies easily, regardless of whether they are right or not. The move of BSA headquarters to the Bible Belt should have been an indicator of where things were going. The BSA leadership seems to be insulated from the opinions of the local units; I really don't think they care what we think one way or the other. I've been a leader for about 7 years now, and I used to think that it was possible to enact change from within. I've come to believe that that's not possible with the BSA. So, I largely ignore BSA national as much as I can. The work done at the local level is overwhelmingly positive for the Scouts, and, in my mind, offsets the damage that, in my opinion, the national office is doing by it's political stances (which, by the way, in at least some cases, are contrary to nearly every other national organization that is part of the worldwide Scouting movement).

 

For those who think that the Supreme Court victory was some sort of vindication of BSA policy, think again. Supreme Court decisions reflect the opinions of the Court in place at that time. If the Court changes, the decision regards BSA could change as well.

 

And, lastly, regardless of what BSA says, it's pretty clear that they are not as "non-sectarian" as they'd like you to believe. Western religions are clearly predominant, and even amongst those, if you happen to be a religion that differs from BSA on topics such as gay inclusion, you are basically "on the outs". Didn't a couple of the religious awards get "cancelled" for awhile because the religion it pertained to didn't agree with BSA policy? I thought I read that somewhere. My unit is chartered through a local church that has a policy of gay inclusion, and every year, there is a big debate over whether they will continue to support us. Luckily, they see the value we offer as a local unit, and have kept us on even as they grapple with the problems of BSA policy. But, I think it's just a matter of time before they ask us to leave, really.

[packsaddle]

Prairie_Scouter, welcome to the forums! The religious award of which you speak continues to be out of favor with BSA. Unless there is another such instance out there somewhere, it is the Unitarian Universalist religious award and as long as the UUs decide to exercise their right to free speech, BSA will likely decide to exercise their right of association. At least that's how it has been explained in other areas of this forum. BTW, you might be interested in this site:

http://www.inclusivescouting.org/

Fuzzy Bear, I don't want you to think I was fussing at you about all this...I wasn't. I try to fuss at BSA but am reluctant to because of their track record for kicking people out when they exercise their freedom of speech. You state that the 'small step' is consequential. I agree. The consequence is that BSA would place their trust on individuals to make the best decisions that their individual consciences would allow. BSA would have to cease trying to exercise central control of our thoughts and behaviors.

You also mention that BSA is evolving. I now note that 12 February is approaching - Charles Darwin's birthday. I hope everyone will celebrate one of the greatest minds that has existed and the tremendous contribution to science and humanity that he made with the theory of evolution.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Fuzzy Bear, if the BSA wins court cases based partially on their claims that they are a religious organization, and now they say they AREN'T a religious organization, their earlier court victories no longer apply, because they were issued on the basis that the Boy Scouts ARE a religious organization.

 

But the courts don't put up with such nonsense, which is why Judge Jones found that the BSA was indeed still a religious organization in the Balboa Park case.

[acco40]

First, welcome to the forum Prairie Scouter and how about the Fighting Illini!

 

With BSA membership cutting across a wide swath of Americans, there are bound to be differences - political, religious, etc. - between members. Many of us do have our issues with the national council. But like you say, change from within is difficult.

 

In time, the BSA will change, as it always has.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Hunt, You make good sense by differentiating what constitutes a religion. It still appears to me that the BSA wants its membership to individually embrace their own personal religion/god but since the organization cannot embrace all religions, it therefore cannot be considered religious and must be a non-sectarian business.

 

Prairie, If your CO is a UUF struggling with sponsoring a Boy Scout Unit, it needs to reflect on its own policy on inclusion. If they begin to exclude those that have some aspect of their system that they dont agree with, then there is really no stopping. I am unsure of which group can pass a test of being non offensive.

 

Pack, I agree that there wasnt a fuss. I also agree that the rule of diminishing returns applies to working in positions other than those close to the unit. Charles Darwins law of Natural Selection is one of the stellar achievements of science. He was studying for the ministry at Christs Church in Cambridge prior to his start. I suppose he struggled with some of these same issues.

 

Good point Merlyn. I still believe that their policy double binds them as they wrestle with change.

 

FB

 

[Torveaux]

What a long thread....

 

One of my problems with most athiests I have encountered is that they seem to believe that they are de facto more intelligent than anyone who still clings to what they see as primitive belief in a higher power. This concept of self-actualization actually places the athiest in the position of really believing in themselves as having transcended God. When those deemed less intelligent actually dare to challenge the intellectual superiority of the athiest mind, the result is very predictable. Discourse turns to name-calling and diatribe, followed by the tried-and-true actions of a five-year-old wherein the ball is picked up and the athiest goes home feeling intellectually superior, yet emotionally hollow.

 

As for the semantics of a religious organization. It is easy to twist words for one's benefit. What most people really know is that the Boy Scouts are a religiously principled organization that is not rooted in any one religion. That can make the BSA simultaneously a religious organization and a non-religious organization depending upon whether one means religious in the organized religious sense or religious in the 'principled belief in a higher power' sense.

 

Arguments such as mhager's and Merly_LeRoy's are specious and intended not to enlighten or broaden one's understanding, but to lash out at something they either do not understand, or have embittered themselves against.

 

Fortunately for them both, God is eternally patient. Many who claimed atheism during their middle years returned to God as they approached their final rest.

 

mhager spent his first post trying to convince himself (and us) that he was still living up to the ideals he professed as he earned his Eagle. What he never understood is that the morals that he has formed were formed in a religious context. His conversion to atheism could not restructure the moral ground upon which Scouting and his family built his adulthood.

 

Any good scientist could never reach the conclusion that there is no higher power. At most they could reach a state of confusion. Since matter can be neither created nor destroyed in our limited understanding of physics, then we could not really exist as the matter which makes us up could never have been created.

[packsaddle]

I'm curious as to what you think constitutes a good scientist. Or is the inability to make a conclusion regarding a higher power the defining quality of a good scientist? I would submit that a scientist wouldn't attempt to address such a question at all...because science simply can't address it. Period