religion as a core component of the BSA

[Kudu]

Hunt writes:

 

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 focusing on the basic question of whether it is reasonable for a religious organization to restrict its membership to religious people.

 

Six-year-old Mark Welsh is not a "rhetorical device," he is a human being with a heart that the BSA sought to capture in a public classroom and then break. The rhetorical device here is your attempt to shift the discussion away from the true meaning and practice of the BSA's "Religious Principle."

 

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.

 

The more "fairy tale" a religion is, the more vicious its practitioners act toward children who reject the supernatural. The reason that the parents of these children are forced to make such a decision about Scouting is because the state established a religious organization with a monopoly on Scouting.

 

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.

 

Apples and oranges: the DRP "religious requirement" for membership is religious fundamentalism, the strict and literal forced submission to a set of basic religious principles; whereas advancement that includes religious book learning is what Baden-Powell defines as "instruction," the opposite of Scouting.

 

Note that in the "Final Judgement" of Matthew 25, Buddhists and other atheist Boy Scouts who practice B-P's "Practical Christianity" (Service to Others) would fare pretty well:

 

http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Matthew+25

 

"By 'character' is meant a spirit of manly self-reliance and of unselfishness -- something of the practical Christianity which (although they are Buddhists in theory) distinguishes the Burmese in their daily life" (Baden-Powell, Scouting for Boys).

 

Kudu

 

[Hunt]

Kudu writes:

 

"Six-year-old Mark Welsh is not a "rhetorical device," he is a human being with a heart that the BSA sought to capture in a public classroom and then break. The rhetorical device here is your attempt to shift the discussion away from the true meaning and practice of the BSA's "Religious Principle.""

 

No, I'm sorry, the rhetorical device is your misstatement of the Welsh case. "BSA" did not tell him that anyone can join; a person did that, and that person was wrong. In fact, not everyone can join. While it is regrettable that a boy's feelings were hurt, I don't think a national organization should have to change its membership requirements just because one of its members mistated them. This case is not really relevant to the argument about whether everyone should be allowed to join, and it is your use of this single emotion-laden incident that diverts the discussion from the real issues. I mean, we could talk about whether BSA should admit girls without talking about poor little Susie whose heart was broken when her brother joined and she couldn't.

 

"The DRP "religious requirement" for membership is religious fundamentalism, the strict and literal forced submission to a set of basic religious principles."

 

The DRP is a far cry from what anyone would recognize as "fundamentalism," since it is broadly non-sectarian. Repetition of this point really takes away from your argument. Indeed, your devotion to Baden-Powell's ideas is a much more obvious form of fundamentalism.

 

"...whereas advancement that includes religious book learning is what Baden-Powell defines as "instruction," the opposite of Scouting."

 

OK, I guess you'd be against addition of religious program content, as well. I understand that you think a return to the basics of Baden-Powell's approach would result in the inculcation of "Practical Christianity" in scouts. Would you object to the use of the term "Practical Christianity" in BSA materials to describe the values of the organization?

[Kudu]

packsaddle writes:

 

I tend to stand right alongside Kudu on this...although 'militant Universalist' seems to be an oxymoron.

 

Yeah, I couldn't find an emoticon for the image of a kindly grey-haired octogenarian driven to suicide-bombing to assert her belief that a just and loving God would never condemn a human being to eternal damnation :-/

 

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.

 

And please them they do with the fundamentalist joining requirement: absolutism is the "advocacy of a rule by absolute standards or principles" or "an absolute standard or principle." The rule that you absolutely must sign the Declaration of Religious PRINCIPLE sounds a whole lot like an absolute rule or PRINCIPLE to me, and (just in case Hunt missed it) religious fundamentalism is "a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLEs," so the BSA as a MOVEMENT that stresses the STRICT adherence to signing the Declaration of RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLE, sounds a whole lot like religious fundamentalism to me.

 

But I agree: after you meet the BSA's religious fundamentalist joining requirement then anything goes in your local unit as long as your little atheists do not start issuing their own press releases :-)

 

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 likelihood for many of us who ignore the DRP, to take further action and vote with our feet.

 

Religious fundamentalists should assume that religious moderates who are willing to sign the DRP will in the end reason themselves into accepting almost anything that is packaged well.

 

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!"

 

Ugh, religious zealots willing to go to court to turn their backs in public on six-year-olds may be many things, but cowardly is not one of them; and from George W. Bush we should learn that "Bring it on!" bravado can motivate religious fundamentalists into action :-/

 

Kudu

 

 

[Hunt]

"BSA as a MOVEMENT that stresses the STRICT adherence to signing the Declaration of RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLE, sounds a whole lot like religious fundamentalism to me."

 

You want to characterize an organization that includes Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Wiccans, Unitarians, etc. as practicing religious fundamentalism? The religious principle is about as vague and general as you can get and still be religious. I mean, seriously, what does this part of your argument gain you? I assure you, if BSA were truly run by religious fundamentalists, they wouldn't let in adherents of all those false religions.

[Kudu]

Hunt writes:

 

No, I'm sorry, the rhetorical device is your misstatement of the Welsh case. "BSA" did not tell him that anyone can join; a person did that, and that person was wrong. In fact, not everyone can join. While it is regrettable that a boy's feelings were hurt, I don't think a national organization should have to change its membership requirements just because one of its members mistated them.

 

According to Mark's father, Elliott Welsh, the flyer was professionally designed in color with space to print or copy in a local time and place: the "any boy" portion was pre-printed. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume that it was produced by BSA national for local councils to use for recruiting in schools and the like.

 

This case is not really relevant to the argument about whether everyone should be allowed to join,

 

We agree on that: I believe that the state should not establish a MONOPOLY for a private religious organization with a fundamentalist joining requirement: Americans should have the religious freedom to join the Scouting association of their choice.

 

and it is your use of this single emotion-laden incident that diverts the discussion from the real issues.

 

It is not a single emotion-laden incident, it is a precedent: whenever parents question whether the BSA has the right to exclude their son from Scouting, their lawyer will look up the relevant rulings and explain that if the BSA went to court to force volunteers to turn their backs on a boy as innocent as six-year-old Mark Welsh, then they certainly will use their unlimited resources as a state-sanctioned religious monopoly on Scouting to go to court to force local volunteers to turn their backs on their child as well.

 

I mean, we could talk about whether BSA should admit girls without talking about poor little Susie whose heart was broken when her brother joined and she couldn't.

 

Don't forget to belittle the feelings of the little homos: Limiting membership to only those whom affirm in writing that good citizenship is limited to people who recognize "God" as "the ruling and leading power in the universe," is how the BSA talks like a fundamentalist duck; and discriminating against Girls, Gays, and Godless six-year-olds is how the BSA walks like a fundamentalist duck.

 

Indeed, your devotion to Baden-Powell's ideas is a much more obvious form of fundamentalism.

 

That is a variation of the assertion that to prove religious tolerance, you must be tolerant of religious intolerance.

 

I understand that you think a return to the basics of Baden-Powell's approach would result in the inculcation of "Practical Christianity" in scouts. Would you object to the use of the term "Practical Christianity" in BSA materials to describe the values of the organization?

 

"Practical Christianity" is the term Baden-Powell uses to explain to Christians why people in cultures that do not believe in Christ or God can still be of good character through good works alone, as in the Final Judgement of Matthew (where, by the way, those who turn their backs on the weak are cast into eternal fire): as such Practical Christianity describes exactly the opposite values as those of the BSA, doesn't it?

 

Kudu

 

The Final Judgment

 

31 When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me. 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you? 40 And the King will answer them, Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, [6] you did it to me.

 

41 Then he will say to those on his left, Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me. 44 Then they also will answer, saying, Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you? 45 Then he will answer them, saying, Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me. 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

 

http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Matthew+25

 

 

[packsaddle]

Kudu, Outstanding! That's sure one of my favorites of all time. It was precisely the passage I thought of as a child when my old Presbyterian church dug its heels in on the issue of racial integration and I've used it more recently to shame a CO into greater support of the unit they charter. It was met, BTW, with stunned silence...and a little more support, at least for the time being. H'mmm maybe there IS something to this 'hell' thing.

[evmori]

Do you really think God wants the BSA to abandon their principles and admit anyone? Did Jesus abandon His principles? I don't think so.

 

Great passage that really affirms the BSA's position.

 

Thanks Kudu.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle]

Ed, My answer to the first question is, 'Yes'. Do you really equate BSA with Jesus? Just curious.

[evmori]

pack,

 

I would say your answer is wrong. The purpose of the second question was that Jesus never abandoned His principles so I don't think He wants the BSA to abandon Him.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[DanKroh]

"Do you really think God wants the BSA to abandon their principles and admit anyone? Did Jesus abandon His principles? I don't think so."

 

"The purpose of the second question was that Jesus never abandoned His principles so I don't think He wants the BSA to abandon Him."

 

You know, Ed, I never considered myself someone who was easily rendered speechless, but you seem to have a knack for it.

 

....

 

Ok, now that I'm over that, I've got a couple of questions regarding your posts:

 

What exactly is the nature of the relationship between the BSA and Jesus that He might feel abandoned by the BSA? Has the BSA accepted Jesus as it's personal savior? Do you feel that the BSA abandoned Jesus when they started admitting non-Christians?

 

Since you seem to know what God and Jesus would want, could you ask Him if He also wants the Red Sox' to win the World Series this year?

[BrentAllen]

Kudu writes: ""Practical Christianity" is the term Baden-Powell uses to explain to Christians why people in cultures that do not believe in Christ or God can still be of good character through good works alone,..."

 

But did not B-P not say that, "No man is much good unless he believes in God and obeys His laws. So every Scout should have religion."

 

 

[Kudu]

Yes, with a little wiggle-room for English Scouts in the words "man" and "should" :-)

 

Despite all his contradictions it was always his mission to inspire boys to action, not to sanction them.

 

"He never put us in a position where we felt awkward or silly." (Terry Bonfield -- one of the boys who accompanied Baden-Powell to Brownsea Island in August 1907)