religion as a core component of the BSA

[John-in-KC]

From the Fact Sheet "What is Boy Scouting?" Bin #02-503F:

 

Ideals. The ideals of Boy Scouting are spelled out in the Scout Oath, the Scout Law, the Scout motto, and the Scout slogan. The Boy Scout measures himself against these ideals and continually tries to improve. The goals are high, and as he reaches for them, he has some control over what and who he becomes.

 

From the Scout Law as quoted on the Fact Sheet:

REVERENT: A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.

 

I think the major issue is where do we perceive attacks on the values Scouting holds dear in modern American society, and where we can counteract the attacks through using tools of the Scouting Program? For me, I like Lisa's idea, and I think we do need to look at how we approach the non-theist families which are out there, exposing our young men to faith, but being careful not to evangelize or prosletyze.

 

The other challenge is how we can integrate this into the Grand Game. Kudu comments to the "religion of the woods", but the fact of the matter is, if you read Robert SS Baden-Powell's writings, he is expressly and overtly a Christian. He had the wisdom to understand that not all youth in the Empire would be Christian, so he gave substantial latitude. As I read his writings, though, I think he expected young subjects of the Crown to be inside Christendom in one form or another. In other words, "Religion of the Woods" is NOT, imo, a construct to get you almost to an agnostic sorta godhead; it's a tool in the toolbox to get the young man to the Almighty God he already believes in.

[packsaddle]

John, your statement, "In other words, 'Religion of the Woods' is NOT, imo, a construct to get you almost to an agnostic sorta godhead; it's a tool in the toolbox to get the young man to the Almighty God he already believes in."

implies something that I am not sure was meant by Kudu.

 

You imply that 'religion of the woods' is intended to "get you almost to an agnostic sorta godhead". This is not the way I understand it. I believe this was not Kudu's intention.

 

I think that the 'religion of the woods', as a concept, is a way for all boys (and adults) to experience the outdoors in a way that brings more meaning to whatever religious feeling they have. It is a way for scouting to be inclusive, not divisive...as things are right now.

 

Kudu is right. Want to create a nasty, divisive social interaction? Play the 'religion card'. It's worse than the 'politics card'.

 

Unfortunately, while I strongly sympathize with Kudu's feelings on this subject, I am not optimistic. I think we will continue to waste lots of time addressing the "hypocrisy of religious fundamentalists who inflict this policy". The policy is divisive. It's is hypocritical. It is irrational. It limits access by boys who could benefit from scouting. It spawns units who rationalize a 'local option' approach which, while effective for religious beliefs, might be tragic when applied to safety. And it divides...us.

 

I have asked the question many times and no one has supplied an effective answer: What is the benefit to a boy who is excluded because of his religious faith or worse, the faith of his parents? The absence of answers is, in fact, the answer: None.

But I'm also realistic enough to understand that, having rendered unto Caesar, conservation of my energy involves applying it to one of those 'local option' units, and not to BSA. Except, perhaps, for spending some time recreating on these threads.

 

Edited part: oops, typo(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Eagledad]

>>What is the benefit to a boy who is excluded because of his religious faith or worse, the faith of his parents? The absence of answers is, in fact, the answer: None.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

The well-known cases like Rick Sherman, the Randall twins, and Remington Powell are well-known only because they were reported by the media. I've seen a few anecdotal cases on the web where people have stated that they (or a friend) were thrown out for being atheists.

[Eagledad]

>>The well-known cases like Rick Sherman, the Randall twins, and Remington Powell are well-known only because they were reported by the media. I've seen a few anecdotal cases on the web where people have stated that they (or a friend) were thrown out for being atheists.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

On what basis do you say it was all their father's doing? From the accounts I've read, the twins themselves objected, and (of course) it was the national BSA that wanted them thrown out.

[Eagledad]

The same basis as you, reading the accounts and watching the news. That was some years ago, but I seem to remember it all started when they were cubs. They were forced out of the program when they were teenagers. Just how many boys in Cubs would go that far because they object to some part of the program? Boys don't think that way and don't have that kind of power. It was an adult thing.

 

And as for the BSA wanting them out, well sure, anyone when push comes to shove and every move they made was watched, recorded and scrutinized, you are forced to make the hard decisions. They were left with no choice, but I am sure that was a lot of effort to keep the boys in and prevent the situation from turning into the event it had. Boys don't have that kind of power.

 

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?

 

I personally know of several scouts who didnt know, but everyone was willing to let them have the scouting experience to learn. Most folks involved with the BSA are good noble folks, it just those self-serving few adults with a point to make that are willing to throw out the baby with the bath water.

 

Barry

 

[GernBlansten]

Out of curiosity, just how many boys can you name off the top of your head that have been officially excluded by the evil BSA, because I can name several with atheist parents who were not.

More than we can measure.  I've come across many parents who would will not even consider scouting for their sons because of the BSA fundamentalist religious image.  In fact, I joined reluctantly. My reluctance was primarily because of my impression that the BSA was just a youth organization for the religious right.   I didn't want my son being preached to, I didn't want him indoctrinated into a right wing syncopate.  I gave it three months to see if the image matched reality.  In the case of my troop, it didn't.  We stayed, I got involved in leadership.  If my suspicions had been confirmed, I'd have pulled my son out and found another venue.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Eagledad writes:

The same basis as you, reading the accounts and watching the news. That was some years ago, but I seem to remember it all started when they were cubs. They were forced out of the program when they were teenagers. Just how many boys in Cubs would go that far because they object to some part of the program?

 

They didn't object, they just omitted god when they said the promise, etc. Eventually, some adults in the program said they couldn't do that.

 

Boys don't think that way and don't have that kind of power. It was an adult thing.

 

I disagree.

 

And as for the BSA wanting them out, well sure, anyone when push comes to shove and every move they made was watched, recorded and scrutinized, you are forced to make the hard decisions.

 

They could have made a different decision (and, at first, they said the Randall twins could stay, they just couldn't advance. But later the BSA said they couldn't even stay).

 

They were left with no choice, but I am sure that was a lot of effort to keep the boys in and prevent the situation from turning into the event it had. Boys don't have that kind of power.

 

You know, for being in a supposedly-"boy empowering" organization, you don't seem to think they have very much.

 

My oldest brother challenged the high school's dress code when they said boys couldn't have long hair (this was the 1960s). Now, even though my parents paid for litigation, HE was the one who refused to cut his hair and made a court case out of it, not my parents. We won, by the way (the courts ruled that public schools couldn't mandate an irreversible change just to attend a public school, unlike other parts of the dress code that addressed clothing, etc, which could be changed outside school hours).

 

So far that is two boys in one family you can think of, who else?

 

Well, I gave you four, not two (Rick Sherman and Remington Powell are the other two), but is there a minimum?

 

How many boys does anyone know that werent given the scouting experience because they hadnt committed to god?

 

Isn't the principle important and not the numbers?

[packsaddle]

Again, no answer. Instead a question whose premise seems to be that no boys have been thrown out because of this policy. Merlyn answered your question. So did Gern. Even if only one boy has been turned away, my question remains the same. And it remains unanswered.

 

However, as Gern notes, the premise of your response - that there is no harm if no boy is ejected - is an incomplete premise and blind to the broader impact of BSA policy. Boys may not be in scouting as a result of a number of other reactions to the policy. Parents may quietly decide not even to consider allowing their sons to join because of the policy. I know a few of these.

Parents also may have considered scouting but later decided they are unable to agree with the DRP and therefore cannot sign the application. I know a few of these as well. Gern is quite aware of these situations and I agree with him.

Others 'hold their noses' while units turn blind eyes to their signature and the collective deception. This is the pragmatic 'local option' approach that is a predictable result of the policy. If BSA does nothing to vigorously enforce the membership requirements, their acquiescence might as well be a quiet endorsement of this 'local option' approach (and this seems to be the case). If BSA knows of the local option practice and does nothing then BSA itself is also an integral part of the deception.

 

I only know of personal instances. But the policy is the root of the problem for each of them. As a result, boys have missed scouting. The question remains the same. And it remains unanswered. What benefit to these boys has arisen from the policy?

 

Here's a new question since no one seems to have an answer for that one: What benefit is it to the boys who ARE in scouting for these other boys to be turned away for religious reasons? That one should be easy, right?

[Jeffrey H]

There are some here that claim the BSA is controlled by religious fundamentalists. Thats a strange and interesting observation. If this assessment true, then why does the BSA allow religious diversity among its members?

 

A Fundamentalist is generally defined and understood as someone who is intolerant to other belief systems and does not allow for diversity. I have never seen this in the BSA as a youth in the 70s and as leader today. Further, Im a part of a unit that is chartered by a conservative Baptist church and most of our boys are not members of the church.

 

I do realize that some use the term fundamentalists loosely and carelessly to define people who fall into these categories:

 

Those who are faithful and regular about their religious duties.

Those who attend worship every Sunday or Saturday.

Those who actually pray to the God they say they believe in.

Those who are actually trying to perform their duty to God.

You get my drift. Well, these are not fair and correct definitions of fundamentalism.

 

Its time to lighten up folks and have a good time as a Scout. I am.

 

[Hunt]

"I have asked the question many times and no one has supplied an effective answer: What is the benefit to a boy who is excluded because of his religious faith or worse, the faith of his parents? The absence of answers is, in fact, the answer: None."

 

"Here's a new question since no one seems to have an answer for that one: What benefit is it to the boys who ARE in scouting for these other boys to be turned away for religious reasons? That one should be easy, right?"

 

I answered both of these questions in another thread, but I guess didn't see or didn't like the answer. The answer is that there is obviously no benefit to a person who is excluded from a group by a membership requirement--the benefit is to those who are able to join, because the group is FOR people who share a particular value or experience. BSA, and many people in BSA, think that it is valuable for boys to be in a youth organization that promotes "duty to God" as a core value. You can't become a full member of a typical church without making a profession of faith--obviously, that requirement is of no value to a person who is not prepared to make such a profession, but the value to members is obvious--the whole point of membership in the church is to be part of a body of believers. The point of this particular thread is whether "duty to God" is, in practice, a core element of the BSA program--if it is, then it is perfectly sensible to allow as members only persons willing to accept it. Another analogy I've mentioned before: if you want to join an Elvis fan club, would you be shocked if they asked you to sign a pledge affirming that you like Elvis, or if they kicked you out if you declared that you hate Elvis? On the other hand, if the so-called Elvis fan club never discussed Elvis, didn't listen to his music, and focused entirely on outdoor activities that had nothing to do with Elvis, you might question the point of the pledge. To push the analogy one more step, my idea is that the Elvis fan club could allow anybody in as a member, as long as they accept that the club meetings will be focusing on Elvis, listening to Elvis' music, etc.

[Trevorum]

You know, there are people out there who think Elvis is God.

 

[evmori]

They didn't object, they just omitted god when they said the promise, etc. Eventually, some adults in the program said they couldn't do that.

 

They omitted the God part of the promise. Isn't that sorta like omitting the truth part when being sworn in at court?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I'd say it's like omitting 'god' when being sworn in, Ed. Perfectly acceptable except to those who want to enforce a religious litmus test.