religion as a core component of the BSA

[dan]

You know, there are people out there who think Elvis is dead!

 

 

[evmori]

Don't agree Merlyn. The God part of the Scout Oath isn't optional. The God part of the oath taken when being sworn in at court is optional.

 

If you don't subscribe to the tenets of an organization, don't join.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

As packsaddle has pointed out, there are units that ignore the 'god' requirement, Ed, and I already mentioned the Randall twins (who were awarded Eagles while their case was going through the courts).But yes, officially, atheists can't join, which is why the BSA still has to avoid chartering units to public schools. Some people question the wisdom of having a "core component" that is, at best, vague to the point of meaninglessness ("My god is this rock!" "You're in!"), and at worst, divisive (both in severing ties to public schools, formerly the largest single charter of packs, and in excluding boys who are atheists, or whose families are atheists, or whose friends are atheists, or who don't want to associate with an organization that discriminates against atheists).

[evmori]

As packsaddle has pointed out, there are units that ignore the 'god' requirement

 

So ignoring the truth part of the oath when sworn in at court is OK?

 

Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Those units should be held accountable.

 

A public school chartering a BSA unit is in violation of nothing.

 

Hey the National Guard is looking for a chaplain! Doesn't that violate something?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[GernBlansten]

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?

 

Because of the legal battles and public stances taken by the BSA in enforcing the DRP, it comes across as a religious fundamentalist organization to those who do not know the inner workings and policies. Perception is reality. I am not a religious fundamentalist and I choose not to associate with those organizations. When I was young, scouting was not what I thought it had become. But, the recent court battles tainted my view. Why was BSA fighting so hard in court to be a religious organization? Did they change since I was a youth member?

 

Had I not been open to give scouting a 3 month trial period when my son joined, I would have retained that perception. Not many people are willing to do that, but my son really wanted to join. American families have plenty of activities competing for their children's time and interest. My experience with my unit has changed that perception. Now that I'm inside looking out, I can understand why I felt that way, but it wasn't warranted. But perception is reality.

 

BSA does itself a disservice forcing the DRP on membership, especially since religion is not a core component to the program, IMHO. They should drop the DRP, but retain everything else.

[Trevorum]

For the sanity of all the rest of us ...

 

Brian, please insert, "In my opinion, " before Ed's posts.

And Ed, please preface your opinions with, "In my opinion, "

 

Maybe we can avoid the constant bickering ...

[OldGreyEagle]

"Maybe we can avoid the constant bickering ..."

 

And in the words of the immortal Wayne Campbell; "... and monkeys might fly out of my butt!"

 

Party On Ed

 

Party On Merlyn(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[packsaddle]

Hunt, my apologies, I do remember that reply now. However, NONE is still the answer to the first question. In the grand spreadsheet I was hoping for more than a "0" or an "n/a" in the 'benefits' column, you know, something 'positive'.

And if you read it carefully, I think you didn't actually answer the second one. On the surface your response appears similar to the 'tough luck' approach to benefit that you articulated in your first answer. Your answer is also reminiscent of another poster whose identity was a type of quail. Merely explaining the facts of how membership in private clubs works is not necessarily an explanation of benefits. Here's why: If membership requirements are crafted in a manner that actively excludes certain persons for specific reasons, there must be some perceived positive benefit for doing this (health, safety, profit, better crops?) or else perhaps the benefit is the good feeling of having excluded someone. Hard to quantify, I grant you, but I could see it as perceived as a positive thing by some groups. Jim Crow laws, for example, were definitely seen as positive by some who offered explanations to me that were similar to yours when I questioned them as to their reasoning. If only they had thought of the Elvis example, that would have made it OK.

I concede...the concept of 'positive' may merely be a matter of perception?

 

I don't believe that I have accused BSA of being controlled by religious fundamentalists although that might be a parsimonious way to explain their decisions. I'm not sure of what 'a fundamentalist' really is except a label that can be applied for some prejudicial purpose. The characteristic that comes to mind for me is that 'fundamentalists' think men and dinosaurs were alive at the same time. I haven't noticed mention of that in issues regarding membership.

IMHO, the BSA is most heavily influenced by the LDS faith, simply by virtue of their dominance in numbers. Are they fundamentalists? As already mentioned, it is a matter of perception, but LDS members have mentioned to me their personal ambivalence about the 'fundamentalist' label...depending on the specific issue, I suppose.

 

Elvis is not dead, he just went home. And finally, the only flying monkeys I ever see are the ones frequently unleashed on me by my wife.

[Eagledad]

>>Some people question the wisdom of having a "core component" that is, at best, vague to the point of meaninglessness ("My god is this rock!" "You're in!"), and at worst, divisive .....

[evmori]

For the sanity of all the rest of us ...

 

Brian, please insert, "In my opinion, " before Ed's posts.

And Ed, please preface your opinions with, "In my opinion, "

 

Who's Brian?

 

That wasn't an opinion.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Eagledad writes:

Yes, yes, the evil empire and all that;

 

Uh, no, that'd be your ridiculous exaggeration. I'm pointing out that the BSA insists that all members believe in a god, yet a rock is acceptable.

 

but as one who know several atheist parents that not only allow their sons to join the BSA, but actually encourage it, I just don't believe you paint an accurate picture of reality.

 

How does citing actual court cases diverge from reality in your world? Are the Randall twins imaginary?

 

In fact your words to me seem less of an idealistic activist and more the quick rantings of an angry man getting back at somebody.

 

No, it's the futility of trying to argue with people who don't think atheists have rights, or who tell atheists how they think.

 

We don't know each other, so I can't know your motivation, but I'm wondering just how many boys with atheist parents your activism has prevented from enjoying the scouting program.

 

How many atheist boys has the BSA's policies prevented from enjoying the scouting program? Or don't they count?

 

And what "activism" are you referring to?

[SSScout]

If the 'A' person believes that his/her "duty to God" is to NOT believe in him (my perception is of a more male image), then so be it. ( see also 'spaghetti monster')

 

The Scout Promise is not a "judicial oath", but never the less, I will remind them to whom it is important, that our Lord instructed us to "swear not at all, but let your yea be yea and your nea be nea". Hence, certain folks (please correct me if I am wrong in my naming) such as Quakers, Amish, Jehovahs Witnesses, Mennonites, Brethren, Hutterites, et al, will not swear either in court or else where. They will "affirm" that what they say will be (is) the truth.

And isn't that what we promise in the SO and SL?

'Course, not all the above will appear on the Scout rolls.

"On My Honor" is a declararation of intention, so hence a promise. What you say is what you'll do. "A Scout is Trustworthy". That's the core. The rest is extra sauce on the already richly merinated ribs. ((There I go again thinking of food))

 

The basic question, I think, is what is ones ultimate authority? If one wishes to declare themselves a "Conscientious Objector" for Draft Board purposes, one must convince the Board not only of ones beliefs and the sincerity behind them but of the origin of those beliefs and the "ultimate" authority one claims. It can't be a "belief of convenience", to use their term. Same thing here, to a lesser degree.

 

Now, if one thinks that ones god requires one (your "duty") to steal from 7-11s and knock over mail boxes, well maybe we need to imbue that one with knowledge of ANOTHER god...

 

 

Do we talk about the so-called Pledge of Allegiance here or on another thread?

 

YiS

[packsaddle]

SSScout, in this forum we make sport of plowing and then replowing the same field so feel free to Knock Yourself Out on the 'pledge'. Should be fun! BTW, I'm with you on that food thing...

Now, let me see....we're pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth (idol, graven image, craven image?) that represents something.....yep, serious business for sure. Sometimes it's just too much fun.

[evmori]

Golly, your honor, ya mean I really had to tell the truth even though I don't believe in truth?

[Hunt]

"If membership requirements are crafted in a manner that actively excludes certain persons for specific reasons, there must be some perceived positive benefit for doing this (health, safety, profit, better crops?) or else perhaps the benefit is the good feeling of having excluded someone."

 

I think you are too focused on the idea of excluding "certain persons." It is only the highly inclusive nature of BSA that makes you think this way. Again, if we were talking about the Elvis fan club, or a church's confirmation class, the benefit to the included of exclusivity would be obvious. The benefit (again) is the opportunity to be in a group of like-minded people who are committed to a common idea. It clearly benefits them to allow only people with a similar commitment. Although the Elvis fan club is a silly example, it illustrates my point well. Why would the fan club want to have Elvis-haters in the club? They may not want to spend their time defending the King's greatness, and they may want a membership that will all support Elvis-related activities, like, perhaps, putting up a statue of Elvis. It's a benefit to them to have ONLY Elvis fans in their club. Again, I think the problem with BSA is that there are different perceptions of just how central to the program the Duty to God element is. If it was an obvious, major program element that suffused all meetings and activities, the reasonableness of excluding non-believers would be more obvious.

 

(If all these analogies bore you, stop reading here.) A further thought: maybe one reason the Elvis fan club analogy seems silly is because it seems ridiculous to us that an Elvis-hater would want to join that club. But what if the local Elvis fan club was funded by a rich benefactor who built them a fancy clubhouse with a gym, pool tables, plasma TV, free food, etc.? Then, I suspect a fair number of people who are ambivalent about Elvis might join, and Elvis-haters might think it was somehow unfair that they were excluded. I think that this is the perception some people have of BSA: that it is "really" a camping club with lots of cool activities, and that the religion requirement is just a pretext to exclude some people. Again, that's what this thread is about--is BSA "really" about Duty to God or not? I recall reading about a town where the Little League was disbanded and replaced with a church-based youth baseball league with membership restricted to Christians. That seems wrong to me, and I guess the reason is that it seems like baseball was the core element, and religion was a pretext to exclude undesirable people. I don't believe that this is the history or intent of BSA's membership requirement, but I can understand why people might perceive it that way.