Unbiased history/information sources?

[Miki101]

Hi Fuzzy,

 

I'm glad that it was Sampson. Keller's tone is much more accusatory of BP in the Seton v. BP controversy. It is not a very evenhanded criticism.

[Fuzzy Bear]

PS

God was in it from the beginning.

There has always been the Universal goal.

Looking backward, the two appeared to have aligned.

Looking at it from your prespective, it may seem to have wavered.

 

Miki,

And then, there was Major Frederick Russell Burnham, D.S.O.

FB

 

[Miki101]

Yep, God has always been there. I'm not quite sure what you mean by my "perspective."

 

Seton was not a "Christian" for most of his life, but he was very spiritual. He was a worshipper of the outdoors and an admirer of the Great Spirit. That is completely consistent with the Scouting doctrine and what BP had in mind from the start.

 

As for Burnham, he always gave credit to BP for the idea of Scouting although one "author" has stated the contrary. That "author" is dead wrong. If you want to discuss that issue off line then that is fine.

 

As for Burnham himself, he and BP were consistent letter writers to each other from the early 1900's through BP's death, and even afterward Burnham wrote frequently to Lady BP. BP greatly admired Burnham and referred to both he and Buffalo Bill Cody in AIDS TO SCOUTING. In fact, BP refered to Cody as the greatest Scout alive (in 1912) and Burnham was given that mantle by BP after Buffalo Bill's death.

 

Irregardless, BP surely learned military scouting tactics from Burnham like Burnham probabaly did from him.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Miki,

 

PS= Prairie Scouter. It was his perspective that I was speaking about. God was in Scouting from the beginning but moreover it was BP's thought that a person should attend church regularly instead of making a confession of belief in God. Most likely he felt that one would follow the other because he may have realized that people grow into their faith.

 

The idea that BP was alone in the development of the Scouting program was the next thought. An occurrence in 1905 by Einstein started another movement but as he said, "I stand on the backs of giants". Einstein readily admitted to using other people's work to build on. BP is sometimes given complete credit for starting the program and for it's development. There were many involved but I believe that BP provided something that nobody else could and that was his image which was the stimulus for childrens imagination world wide. He was the focal point and he had much to share.

 

 

FB

[Miki101]

You are correct.

 

BP provided his unequaled famed that he received from the Mafeking defense and shone it upon his next fancy, scouting. As you know, he was the most famous Englishman in the world at the time. Whatever he did was followed and imitated by his throngs of followers.

 

Although Seton tried, he could not get the worlds interest in his vision of woodcraft as BP did, which BP seemingly did with ease. In December 1903, BP wrote a letter to the editor of the Eton College Chronicle in which he laid out his first seed of Scouting. It was more or less based upon the Chivalric Code, which held duty to God and country as its goals (I would quote from it but I do not have my texts with me right now). He acted little upon those thoughts up until November 1906, after he had the Savoy Hotel meeting with Seton. At that point, BP had a framework for his program, unknowingly provided by Seton at the time. The genesis of what we have today began to take shape then. In retrospect, BP wrote in his 1929 SCOUTING AND YOUTH MOVEMENT pamphlet,

 

Our object in the Scout Movement is to give such help as we can in bringing about God's Kingdom on earth by inculcating among youth the spirit and the daily practice in their lives of unselfish goodwill and co-operation. . . . In our Movement for youth we do not give preference to any one form of religion over another where all are working for the best in accordance with their respective beliefs."

Now, we know that BPs program was the model for the BSA, since the BSA rejected Setons Woodcraft Indian model after the Silver Bay Scoutmaster Camp in August 1910. However, the English Laws were only 10 in number at that time, which did not include any reference to Reverence to God. It was in there in spirit, but not so stated in a law.

 

In 1911, with James West at the helm and also being a former YMCA lawyer, he insisted that Reverence to God be included as an additional American Boy Scout law. Since the YMCA was wholly running the BSA in 1910 and into 1911, they did not have any hurt feelings at having a reference to Reverence to God. Therefore, Reverence was basically there from the beginning of the BSA, truly initiated at the point at which our program evolved away from the English model and was thoroughly Americanized.

 

So, if one were to say that BP is the responsible party for God being in Scouting, I would say, he wasnt as big on it when compared to the YMCA leaders of the BSA in the earliest years. In actuality, the BSA was a very convenient and highly organized way for them to expand their ministries, since they had been man building through scoutlike camps since the late 19th century, well before any one of the BSA founders got it going themselves.

 

 

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Miki,

 

It appears that the resolution to the problem of "church attendance" vesus "belief in God" during the early BP period was to leave it up to the Scout. BP seemed to have strong feelings about this issue. Do you agree?

 

FB

[Miki101]

Fuzzy,

 

I would have to consult his writings prior to 1910 to comment much further. I would rather quote from his writings than to make up some drivel that I thought that he said.

 

 

[Prairie_Scouter]

Eamonn,

Thanks again for your thoughts. Couple of thoughts....

 

In regards to why people who don't like BSA just don't find another organization...

I think that BSA, at the local level, does a wonderful job, and that work of the local units far outweighs the damage that I think is being done to BSA at the national level. It's matter of being able to live what I figure is the "5% bad" to get the "95% good". I can live with that, while I try to make change from within. I doubt that I'll have much impact because I don't think the I have the resources to dent the national hierarchy.

 

Regards your thoughts on what happened when the UK accepted gays....

Probably the same as what would happen here if changes were made to BSA policy. I think the vast majority of Scouters are kind of "middle of the road" folks who are willing to compromise. If BSA were to go from a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays, to a "all welcome if you support BSA" policy, some people at either extreme would probably quit, but the vast majority would continue on just as they have. I honestly believe that the same would happen if athiests were included. You don't have to remove "God" from BSA in order to do that, necessarily, I don't think. Athiest activists might consider that the only route acceptable to them, but if BSA were to enact a similar "don't ask, don't tell" policy there as well, I think most people would be ok with that.

 

Of course, BSA National isn't about to ask us what we think, I don't think.

 

There is a concern I have about particular religious groups forcing their beliefs on others, and how this might make some religions "more equal" that others in the eyes of BSA. What if you're a religious group that approves of gay inclusion, for example? The topic of gay marriage is a good example of this, I think. Let's say you're Catholic (not to pick on them, but only for purposes of example). The Catholic Church is against gay marriage. That in and of itself if fine, and they can rightfully say that the sacrament of marriage is not open to gay couples. No problem there. However, once the Catholic Church starts to use it's political clout to enact their beliefs into law, they are infringing on the religious rights of every other group that doesn't agree with them. I wonder sometimes if similar things are happening in BSA. Other groups have figured out ways around this dilemna; you would think that BSA could as well.

 

Regardless of what I think one way or the other, my original purpose of posting this question was to try and find some sources of information that were somewhat unbiased so that I could better understand how BSA got into this quagmire. The issue of God in BSA is pretty clear, although how they got there seems to be more a "political victory" during its founding than something that was done because it seemed "right". The issue of gays in Scouting seems less clear.

 

Thanks to all to their contributions to this discussion.

[Hunt]

"Regardless of what any Supreme Court ruling says, I teach my sons that discrimination is wrong. It's wrong in general society and it's wrong within BSA."

I want to challenge this a bit--I think what you really mean is that the particular discriminatory lines BSA has drawn are wrong, not that "discrimination" in general is wrong. For example, surely you don't think BSA is wrong for discriminating against would-be leaders with criminal records and the like. I assume also, for another example, that you would not criticize the Roman Catholic Church for discriminating against non-Catholics when it chooses priests. What people really mean when they say discrimination is wrong is "discrimination is wrong when it is based on characteristics that I don't think should affect the decision involved." To put it another way--any rational person would have to agree that BSA should discriminate in certain ways, at least in selecting adult leaders--the disagreement is over where to draw the line.

[acco40]

When most speak of discrimination they really mean prejudice. They are in error because the terms have vastly different meanings. When someone states that they don't discriminate - ask them how they chose their date partners!

 

I have a radical notion in that I think the BSA should judge others based on their actions, not thoughts.

[Prairie_Scouter]

Hunt and Acco....

You know, you're right. I wasn't sure what term would have been better, so used "discrimination". You're absolutely right that we discriminate all the time to protect our families, etc. And, BSA should discriminate against those who have a proven history of activities that could be dangerous to our Scouts.

 

But, I'll go with Acco's assertion that BSA would be better served by judging people based on their actions, not on some nebulous judgement of who's good and who's bad.

 

Kinda nice to have some folks around who seem to understand my thoughts better than I do! :-)

[Prairie_Scouter]

I think I'll try to steer back to my original question a bit.

 

I think I've got a better feel now for the position on atheists.

 

What about the position of BSA on gays? I know the court case is fairly recent, but was there a time when BSA started to actively move against gays, or is that a historical "thing" as well?

[Fuzzy Bear]

The actions of prejudice-willful acts against a class and discrimination- the acts of rejecting a class are learned. The idea of making cautious choices that provides a margin of safety for the individual is essential but may appear discriminatory. To live openly without caution of individual threats is an exercise in becoming a target. There is a tedious balance that takes time and effort to recognize when a person is being threatened and when a person is being arbitrary. It is similar to the idea of being found guilty prior to the act or without evidence. It is easier to live with the idea that certain classes of people are dangerous. This is a learned economy that short changes individuals from a class and short changes society. Untangling this fabric of discrimination appears impossible when observed from a distance. One must get closer to the individuals to begin to make a difference.

FB

 

[Prairie_Scouter]

Fuzzy,

 

Well said. I agree with those sentiments 100%

 

I think that the "gay issue" in Scouting has 2 segments to it.

 

One, there is the idea that gays are somehow a danger because of their lifestyle. That is to say, the thought that they are mostly pedophiles or are somehow otherwise dangerous to Scouts in a very objective way. I believe that this notion is almost entirely false; statistics just don't bear out these notions. I'm sure that some percentage of gays are pedophiles; so are some percentage of heteros. Everything I've read says that there is no difference in the rate of pedophilia in gays vs heteros. This is exactly the place where individuals should be judged on their individual merits, and not excluded as a class. If we were to use that same "class judgement" philosophy and apply it to any group that has any history at all of a "dangerous tendency", we'd have no leaders or Scouts at all.

 

Two, there is the religious belief in some denominations that there is something "wrong" with gays and are therefore not suitable role models. I've had one Scout leader tell me that gays are, quote, "an abomination". There's really no argument against something like this, because it represents a religious belief, which, by it's nature, is beyond the realm of logic. But, if BSA is the non-denominational organization it says it is, it absolutely cannot make a religious argument about the exclusion of gays.

 

A recent memorandum issued by BSA said that gays do not fit the part of the Scout Law stating that a Scout is "morally straight". So, the question becomes, where would something like this come from? (that's beyond the question of who gets to decide what "morally straight" is? According to a Time Magazine article a few years ago, the LDS Church said it would leave BSA and take its 400,000 Scouts with them if BSA were to change their stance on gays. If that's true, then particular religious denominations are pressuring BSA to take particular stands on these issues. Is that how Scouting should be run, I wonder? (LDS has its own problems, of course, given their history of discrimination against women and African-Americans, along with gays).

[NJCubScouter]

Prairie Scouter says:

 

But, if BSA is the non-denominational organization it says it is, it absolutely cannot make a religious argument about the exclusion of gays.

 

Bingo. I have been saying the same thing in this forum for three years. (Has it been that long? Time flies, I guess.) And others have been saying it for longer than I have, but we don't hear much from them, or from me, on this subject anymore. It is good to see someone fairly new to the forum who has not been "burned out" on the issue as some of us have been. It does get kind of tedious saying the same thing over and over.

 

But now, feeling slightly rejuvenated on this issue, I'll say it again: The Declaration of Religious Principles uses the expression "absolutely nonsectarian" which makes it clear that the BSA is not supposed to "take sides" in matters of religious belief. The BSA violates its own declaration by taking sides on the theological issues of whether homosexuality is immoral and whether gay people should be welcomed or shunned. The beliefs of some religions (or factions thereof) on this issue (such as the Roman Catholic Church, the LDS Church, Orthodox Jewry, some Methodists, some Presbyterians, etc.) are enforced as BSA policy, while the beliefs of others (such as Unitarians, non-Orthodox Jews, many Episcopalians, some Methodists, some Presbyterians, United Church of Christ, etc.) are rejected. How this can be acceptable in an organization that claims to be "absolutely nonsectarian" is beyond me.