religion as a core component of the BSA

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Packsaddle, the "rock" god is from a 1991 internal BSA memorandum:

http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/bsa-god_policy.html

 

Q. Some people maintain that God is a tree, a rock or a stream. Would a person believing such be eligible to be a member of Scouting?

 

The BSA does not seek to interpret God or religion. The Scout Oath states a requirement for a Scout to observe a duty to God, and the Scout Law requires a Scout to be reverent. Again, interpretation is the responsibility of the Scout, his parents and religious leaders.

 

 

Eagledad writes:

There is no argument, morality is why God is in scouting.

 

Eagledad, the BSA does not require that a scout's god be the source of morals; in the case of a Deist, it's quite possible their god has no interest in the human race or in their morals. You seem to be assuming that your theology holds for everyone else's theology.

[BrentAllen]

Gern writes: "Scouting is too good to let it languish at the hands of a few misguided professionals. There are so many boys out there that we can reach. "

 

A few misguided professionals? I don't know what kind of unit you are involved with, but come on down to my area of the country and see how people feel about that statement. With churches being the largest group of CO's in the organization, do you really think the majority of the Scouting population shares your sentiment? I believe you are going to find you are in a very small minority.

 

Curious - does your unit recognize Scout Sunday? If so, what do they do to recognize it? Does your unit hold Scouts' Own Services on campouts?(This message has been edited by BrentAllen)

[GernBlansten]

Brent,

My unit is sponsored by a Methodist Church. Only one of our families is a member of that church. On Scout Sunday, our troop cooks a pancake breakfast for the parishioners then attends their service. On camp outs that bleed into Sunday morning, our scouts hold a scout's own service. Oh, and we say the Philmont grace before every meal.

 

My comment about misguided professionals does not pertain to the council/district level. They cannot make national policy. It is directed at the folks at National that do. IMHO, they chose poorly in making the DRP become the membership barrier. The litigation and public relations cost far outweighs any perceived benefit, which from the pro-DRP arguements presented in this thread are very weak.

[packsaddle]

Thanks Merlyn, that is about as clear a statement of endorsement for the 'local option' approach that I could have hoped for.

 

Brent, the CO for this unit is also Methodist but only two boys belong. For Scout Sunday we attend the morning service in uniform. No other special activity. The minister recognizes the unit, the boys, and the leaders (two of whom also are from the CO). The unit is quite diverse and the CO tries to make infidels as welcome as possible (we only eat the elderly ones). We almost never say grace as a unit, that is left for the boys privately and some of them do.

 

The previous unit I was with originally did something similar but we actually marched in as a unit with a full color guard and both troop and American flags. After the minister banned the American flag from the church (the church/state thing), we terminated Scout Sunday observances altogether. Most of the boys in that unit belonged to the CO and there was very low diversity in the unit. We occasionally held some kind of religious observance as a unit but we were ignorant of the Scout's Own service or the Philmont grace.

This was also the CO that strongly objected to both integration and the civil rights movement. Weird. Needless to say, I determined that I was never going to really be a Presbyterian. I think the feeling was mutual.

[Kudu]

Eagledad writes:

 

Scouting is not as cold and hard as some here would like to paint because the program is worked by folks with noble intentions for our youth.

 

You know what they say about "noble intentions," Eagledad, the road to hell is paved with them!

 

The boys in six-year-old Mark Welsh's public school classroom got pumped up over a flyer distributed by their teacher "Join Tiger Cubs, BSA, & Have Lots of Fun!" The flyer said "any boy . . . can join."

 

It turned out that NOT any boy can join. The "folks with noble intentions for our youth" were instructed to turn their backs on Mark Welsh despite his tears, because his father would not sign the "Declaration of Religious Principle," which requires that you affirm in writing that people who do not recognize "God" as "the ruling and leading power in the universe" are not "the best kind of citizens."

 

The BSA went to court to defend its right to reject Mark Welsh. By most non-BSA standards this is the "cold and hard" treatment of a six-year-old.

 

Now of course if your "noble intentions for our youth" do include the "cold and hard" treatment of six-year-olds, then you will be quick to point out that Mark's father is to blame because all he had to do was affirm in writing the state-imposed religious test for good citizenship.

 

I think this is where Lisabob's energies should be directed:

 

Rather than asking religious fundamentalists to please design advancement requirements for Boy Scouts so that they can learn to equate "reverence" with a cold heart, Lisabob should propose legislation that would require the BSA to make the kind of disclosure that you see on medical advertising on television. Something along the lines of:

 

"Join Tiger Cubs, BSA, & Have Lots of Fun!" "Any boy can join if his parents are willing to affirm in writing that family members, friends, neighbors, and all of the Americans who do not recognize "God" as "the ruling and leading power in the universe" are not "the best kind of citizens."

 

I think that is fair. If you believe that this "cold and hard" treatment of six-year-olds is what "Duty to God" and "reverence" is all about, then why not have the courage of your convictions and say so when you sell the BSA brand of Scouting to the American public?

 

So far that is two boys in one family you can think of, who else? How many boys does anyone know that werent given the scouting experience because they hadnt committed to god?

 

Um, only one single boy like six-year-old Mark Welsh is enough, Barry, if you really believe that whatever you do to the least of your brothers, you do to the Son of God himself (Matthew 25:40).

 

If I remember correctly, a dialogue a few years back between the Webmasters of the major anti-BSA-discrimination Websites indicated that a combined total of 3-4 families a month contacted them because they were in the same situation as the parents of six-year-old Mark Welsh.

 

"So, you see?" you may say, "That is not so many."

 

In a way you are correct. In my own experience, of the eight Scouts (including a couple of SPLs) that have told me over the years that they are atheist, only the family of one eleven-year-old, Timmy (who told me that "God is fake like Santa Claus"), actually spoke about suing the local Council if the BSA kicked their son out of Scouts.

 

People who are new to the BSA brand of Scouting and are therefore only lukewarm on breaking the heats of six-year-olds may ask, "What good does it do to go to court to turn our backs on little children?"

 

Six-year-old Mark Welsh made the perfect target for the BSA because by the standards of most non-Scouting Christians he was a truly innocent child, the kind that Jesus had in mind when he said to "Tolerate the little children and do not forbid them to encounter me, because their nature is the nature of the kingdom of heaven."

 

Religious fundamentalists who turn their backs on the kingdom of heaven by forbidding the very youngest of children to encounter Practical Christianity through Scouting tend to be more committed to their "values" than families that are just trying to decide with whom they want their children to associate for a few hours a week.

 

When a family like Timmy's learns that the BSA is willing to commit the unlimited resources of a state-sanctioned religious monopoly to go to court to exclude an innocent child like six-year-old Mark Welsh, they tend to believe that putting their own child in harm's way is not worth the price of fighting this state-imposed religious evil.

 

Wouldn't it be ironic if everyone who signs the Declaration of Religious Principle goes to hell unless they ask God for forgiveness for signing it?

 

To Satan the beauty of the DRP is that nobody who signed it will even ask for this forgiveness because they are so convinced that the BSA knows what it is doing when it equates "Duty to God" and "reverence" with exclusion.

 

Those who do NOT believe that joining the BSA is worth eternal damnation should get down on their knees right now and ask forgiveness for their involvement in the state-sanctioned religious monopoly on Scouting.

 

This will help you get right with the Lord:

 

Kudu's Prayer

 

Heavenly Father we beseech thee to forgive us for signing the BSA's Declaration of Religious Principle in our cold and hard-hearted contempt for the plain and simple message of love brought to us by your only begotten son, Jesus Christ. We have knowingly and willingly forsaken our duty to comfort the weak and powerless of society in our vain and erring efforts along the path of good intentions. Please forgive us oh Lord, and we beg thee to ease the pain that as members of the Boy Scouts of America we have caused the very smallest and most innocent of children like Mark Welsh.

 

Amen

 

Go ahead! You will all feel much better if you give up all of your excuses and simply allow God to shine the light of love on the dark wickedness of your cold and hard BSA heart.

 

And do not worry, none of the millionaires at BSA Headquarters or their fundamentalist masters will know that you secretly hedged your bets and prayed for forgiveness until they turn to each other in the Lake of Fire and ask, "Hey, where is Eagledad?"

 

When you do get to the gates of heaven and St. Peter sees your dress-designer BSA Uniform and he tells you that those who were so cold and hard to have signed the Declaration of Religious Principle are not permitted to enter the kingdom of heaven because it is of the very same nature as the six-year-old's heart that you turned your back upon, be sure to tell him:

 

"No, it's OK Peter, Kudu sent me!"

 

 

[Lisabob]

(Mff! mNff! PiTouie! Phew - there, that's better.) Now hang on a moment there Kudu, before you try to stuff any more words into my mouth - I've had enough, thanks.

 

I am not interested in proposing legislation of the type you suggest. If you are, great - do so. Personally I don't care much for the DRP. I think we do ourselves more harm than good on the rare occasion when the DRP causes people not to join, or to be removed after joining. I think that if it were to be taken seriously by most units, then the problem it causes would quickly become apparent, because then we'd see units turning boys away left and right. And if that happened, I suppose there might be enough of a ground swell to change or remove it.

 

As it is, few people, even among those active in scouting, know what the DRP is and even fewer care. Most scouters completely ignore it. Another reflection of the fact that (as far I as I can tell), religion really isn't that "core" to the program after all.

 

But I recognize the BSA's right to have the DRP. And the rest of us have to make a choice - accept it or don't. "Don't" means, don't join. Accept it could mean a range of things, as a matter of practical interpretation.

 

No, actually my thought is that if the BSA feels it is important for religion to be a "core" of the various BSA programs, then fine, there are ways to do that - as the cub requirements do reasonably well already - without being offensive to any given religion and by putting the responsibility for teaching/learning in the hands of the scout, their family, and community religious leaders, rather than with the scout leader . If the BSA leadership aren't interested in doing that, then they should quit pretending to the contrary, which opens the way to dropping or modifying the DRP too.

 

I'd support the former if it were done in a truly non-sectarian way which, I believe, is difficult but still possible. It might even be quite interesting. It could open up the way for boys to learn about A religion, not necessarily THEIR religion, and might provide an opportunity for "non-theist" (as I think John called them umpteen posts back) boys to understand why religion is important to so many people. I'd support the latter more, but I doubt it will happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Did the Distrcit Commisssioner or any of his hinchmen think to ask poor Little Mark if he believed in a rock before they sent him packing?

[Hunt]

You know, I agree that the teachers shouldn't have told a boy that "anyone can join" when it isn't true. But I'm nonplussed by the rest of Kudu's rant. Are you sure you don't want to take it back? I'm assuming you'd like to be taken seriously when you advance your other ideas on this board. As has been mentioned ad infinitem, BSA's religious requirement is extremely broad, and is hardly limited to fundamentalists. BSA makes no statements about who is or is not going to Hell, or what God to worship, or anything of the sort. What Lisabob keeps going back to is the idea that if "duty to God" is truly a core element of BSA's goals and programs, there is nothing wrong with having a program that reflects that element. We can debate about whether the best way to do that is with membership requirements or some other way, but if religion really IS a core element, then all this moaning and groaning about excluding non-religious people is essentially sour grapes by people who would like to join a camping club without accepting the other baggage of the club. The involvement of the government is a complicating factor, and I have always agreed that government entities, including schools, shouldn't be sponsoring units because that violates the Establishment Clause. BSA has taken steps to move out of those sponsorships, so this is becoming a non-issue. As for BSA being a "state-sponsored religious monopoly," this is nonsense, since the federal charter essentially gives BSA nothing more than ordinary intellectual property law would give it. Even if the charter were eliminated, nothing would change. MAYBE some courts would allow some other groups to call themselves "Scouts" of some kind (although not "Boy Scouts of America"), but the effect on BSA membership would likely be minimal.

[DugNevius]

its all about personal agenda. Some people in positions of power feel the need to force on others their beliefs and interpretations of things.

 

Religion is no more the core of scouting then being clean, brave or thrifty. Do scouts get turned away or denied rank because they are not physically fit? Maybe at BORs we should have the lads drop and do a set of twenty five push-ups?

[OzarksOsage]

Sorry if I'm repeating someone else's post -- I haven't read all ten thousand messages in this thread. . .

 

It's not an accident that the Scout Oath begins with a pledge to "do my duty to God," and the Scout Law ends with "a Scout is reverent." All the ideals of Scouting are neatly bookended by those.

 

In our pack and troop, we're not shy about promoting God. Some who see Scouting as simply a camping club (typically the same ones who don't bother to crack open a Cub or Scout manual) are a bit surprized, at least at first. We're certainly not overbearing about it, but we do ask a blessing on our meals, have Scout's Own services when our outings go into Sunday, and we encourage our boys to work toward the religious emblem of their faith, whatever that faith may be.

 

OzarksOsage

[Kudu]

Fuzzy Bear writes:

 

Did the District Commissioner or any of his henchmen think to ask poor Little Mark if he believed in a rock before they sent him packing?

 

BEFORE little Mark was allowed to declare his belief in rocks, his dad was required to affirm in writing that the "best type of citizenship" is limited to people who believe in the old-fashioned Middle-Eastern god named "God" who keeps all the planets spinning on their axes, and decides which sports teams are worthy of His favors and blessings:

 

"The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship...."

 

Hunt writes:

 

But I'm nonplussed by the rest of Kudu's rant.

 

You call it a rant because you want to avoid the central issue which is "how can turning your back on a six-year-old be consistent with the central message of Baden-Powell's Practical Christianity?"

 

Are you sure you don't want to take it back?

 

OK, Hunt, I will admit that a closer reading of Matthew 25:31-46 indicates that eternal life is based SOLEY on Practical Christianity (in other words, a Scout's Good Turns and NOT his professed creed: "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'").

 

Therefore, "Kudu's Prayer" (which asks for forgiveness for the wickedness of our endorsement of the DRP "'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me") may not be enough to keep we accursed goats from the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

 

Tell you what, I've risked the ire of militant Universalists over the subject of eternal damnation and laid out my beliefs on the spiritual meaning of the enforcement of the DRP, so why don't you likewise summon up the courage of your convictions and stand before your congregation at an appropriate time and announce to one and all that "Jesus wants us to turn our backs on six-year-olds," and report back to us? We can compare notes.

 

I'm assuming you'd like to be taken seriously when you advance your other ideas on this board.

 

Being taken seriously is vastly over-rated. If I sign off on the BSA's treatment of six-year-old Mark Welsh, is anyone going to say "Golly, Kudu is so reasonable on this issue that I am now compelled to agree that the so-called 'Eight Methods of Scouting' are NOT equal in theory OR in practice!"?

 

My job is to point out the most basic and astonishingly obvious principles of Baden-Powell's game.

 

As has been mentioned ad infinitem, BSA's religious requirement is extremely broad, and is hardly limited to fundamentalists.

 

It is limited to people who are willing to sign off on a religious fundamentalist test for citizenship.

 

religious - fundamentalism: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic religious principles

 

The "recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings as being necessary to the best type of citizenship" was transformed from a quaint old-fashioned, early 20th century piece of Scouting history when it was resurrected and added to modern BSA membership applications with its strict adherence enforced by going to court to exclude six-year-old Mark Welsh.

 

Boy Scouts of America: a movement that requires a strict adherence to the literal Declaration of Religious Principle

 

Perhaps you could understand this better if the DRP did not require that the quality of everyone's citizenship be tested by their acknowledgement of the god that YOU happen to believe in.

 

For instance, Jeffrey H writes:

 

What bothers me is when an OA member begins praying to the Great Scout Spirit or Great Spirit and Im supposed to accept that as my personal belief? Not. This is good example of the BSA promoting a religion I do not practice. In this scenario, their non-sectarian policy falls on its face. I have high respect for Native Americans and their religions, but I dont accept their religious views as my own.

 

Now suppose that to join the BSA Jeffrey must first affirm in writing his "recognition of the Great Spirit as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of the Great Spirit's favors and blessings as being necessary to the best type of citizenship."

 

He seems to understand why the BSA's non-sectarian policy falls on its face.

 

Would he sign it?

 

According to some sources, Islam, the second-largest religion in the world after Christianity, is also the fastest-growing religion. Suppose Muslims become the majority religion in the BSA and they forced everyone to affirm in writing that the "recognition of Allah as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of Allah's favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship."

 

Allah is the One and Only God but how many of the fundamentalist Christians who celebrate barring six-year-old Mark Welsh from being a Tiger Scout would affirm in writing their recognition of Allah as the ruling and leading power in the universe so that their six-year-old boy could join?

 

What Lisabob keeps going back to is the idea that if "duty to God" is truly a core element of BSA's goals and programs, there is nothing wrong with having a program that reflects that element.

 

As detailed above, what Lisabob keeps going back to is the idea that Baden-Powell was wrong about religion and that what active boys need is more indoor schoolmarm book learning.

 

if religion really IS a core element, then all this moaning and groaning about excluding non-religious people is essentially sour grapes by people who would like to join a camping club without accepting the other baggage of the club.

 

You don't understand, Hunt. Baden-Powell's Scouting IS all about a camping club that turns religion into a game that ANY boy can play. BSA Scouting is all about religious baggage in a monopoly Elvis club run by people who hate Elvis and make up phony quotes like:

 

"Britney Spears is Elvis with a Purpose" -- Baden-Powell

 

As for BSA being a "state-sponsored religious monopoly," this is nonsense, since the federal charter essentially gives BSA nothing more than ordinary intellectual property law would give it.

 

The BSA is a state-sponsored religious monopoly on Scouting. You are correct about the Congressional Charter actually establishing that monopoly. The idea that it grants the BSA exclusive rights to the term "boy" or "scout" (any more than the Red Cross's Congressional Charter grants them exclusive rights to the terms "red" or "cross") was made up by activist judges. We will be hearing more about that in the years to come as the YouthScouts case gains notoriety.

 

Even if the charter were eliminated, nothing would change. MAYBE some courts would allow some other groups to call themselves "Scouts" of some kind (although not "Boy Scouts of America"), but the effect on BSA membership would likely be minimal.

 

I agree. Baden-Powell's Scouting will always be just a small niche market. Americans prefer the One-Minute Parlor Scouting employment agency version where any boy can earn Eagle for his resume without ever walking into the woods with a pack on his back.

 

But like the Alaskan wilderness, it is nice to know that the real thing is out there somewhere.

 

Kudu

 

 

[Trevorum]

Whew! I'm so glad that Kudu thinks that "being taken seriously is vastly over-rated.".

 

Now we can just take him as comic relief.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(jk!)

[Kudu]

Trevorum writes:

 

Now we can just take him as comic relief.

 

Just be careful not to offend any militant Universalists in the process!

 

Kudu

 

[Hunt]

The phrase "turn our backs on a six-year-old" is nicely turned, and certainly implies something only a heartless person would do. But it's the kind of rhetorical device that is designed to avoid focussing on the basic question of whether it is reasonable for a religious organization to restrict its membership to religious people. While it's too bad that some six-year-olds will have parents who choose to teach them that religion is a fairy tale, with the result that those kids will not be able to join the religious organization, that is a decision the parents have the right to make. It seems to me that if BSA dropped the religious requirement for membership, but increased religious program elements, those same parents would either continue to keep their kids out, or would be complaining about the religious program elements.

[packsaddle]

Hunt, while I might have crafted the message in different terms, I tend to stand right alongside Kudu on this...although 'militant Universalist' seems to be an oxymoron. Perhaps 'militant' in the sense that one would have to defend against hurled counter-arguments?

 

While the phrasing of turning backs on a six-year-old may be nicely turned, it remains, nevertheless, an accurate rendition of the effect (if not the intent) of BSA policy.

I differ with Kudu in that fundamentalism also implies an element of absolutism that is absent from BSA (as described by Lisabob) in practice. The DRP, given that many units and members ignore it, is therefore a rather hollow statement - words more than substance - and this makes BSA less of a fundamentalist organization than it is an organization that wants to please (at cost to a six-year-old) some fundamentalists. In that case BSA is, then, as I have said many times, cowardly. I have also applied the term 'hypocritical' in this case, I think.

 

"It seems to me that if BSA dropped the religious requirement for membership, but increased religious program elements, those same parents would either continue to keep their kids out, or would be complaining about the religious program elements."

 

Perhaps. But probably not if BSA didn't add new religious elements to the program. However, the fact that BSA has not and is not likely to increase the religious program elements can similarly be interpreted as BSA's recognition of a liklihood for many of us who ignore the DRP, to take further action and vote with our feet. This is actually a nice little hypothesis. BSA can disprove my contention easily by, in fact, substantially increasing the religious program elements. As I said before, it would be interesting to watch. Alternatively, I have noted that BSA does have a cowardly element to its character. They could disprove that too, by substantially adding religious elements to the program. To quote W, "Bring it on!"