religion as a core component of the BSA

[John-in-KC]

Coming back to the original premise...

 

First, due diligence. I am a conservative Christian. My beliefs on faith, salvation, and evangelism are fairly well set at this point in my life.

 

When I put on a Scouter or Venturing Scouter uniform, I agree to let the family, and later, the young man/woman decide how to act out their faith. Now, I don't fully agree with National, in that I believe a young man who can age-appropriately discuss an issue of polytheism should be allowed to go there.

 

I KNOW FOR A FACT Scouting supports:

- Judaism

- Islam

- Buddhism

- Hinduism

- Christianity

- Ba'hai

 

As above, if a Scout has formed a polytheistic approach to life (certain native American tribes), and he can talk to it intelligently for his age, I can live with it.

 

As Lisa premised way back 100+ posts ago, should earning the emblem, or other active act of faith, be a direct program element? I SAY YES. As we listen and read the news, there is active intolerance in American society towards:

- Islam

- Judaism

- Christianity

 

in an array of forms. We need, imo, to equip our young charges to understand and act on issues of faith as they approach adulthood.

 

Yes, that places a challenge on the table for the family that is non-theistic (any god just isn't part of the matrix of their lives) and for the family that is a-theistic (there is no god). So be it.

 

FWIW, I do my part. Our Council Relationships Committee sponsors opportunities for young men and women to earn Protestant and Catholic religious awards. I've counseled in that program for several years now.

 

As a certain professor of theology in Wittenberg once said "Here I stand."

 

YIS

[Hunt]

"Hunt, what value does the DRP provide BSA besides creating the membership barrier?"

 

It, um, declares the religious principles of BSA. Really, that's what this thread is all about--if BSA believes that its religious principles are important, should they play more of a part in the program? In other words, the principle could shape what the program does, as opposed to who gets in. Right now, people who don't like camping or the outdoors typically do not become Boy Scouts--there is no need to make applicants sign a statement that they like camping and the outdoors. If exposure to religious program elements was a given, then people who didn't want that could decide not to join. To go back to my favorite silly analogy, you could certainly have an Elvis fan club without requiring potential members to sign a pro-Elvis pledge, and simply rely on your Elvis-heavy program to keep Elvis haters out.

[GernBlansten]

The DRP is the only religious based requirement in BSA. Once signed, its up to the unit to follow through with whether they wish to make religion a key component to the program. There is no universal application of religion to the program and many have stated it plays very little in their own units.

If the DRP were not used to restrict membership, it would serve no other purpose but to create a false impression of the role of religion in most BSA units.

If BSA wants to be a religious organization, then by all means retain the DRP and reinforce it by altering the program to make religion a core component universally delivered by every unit.

If not, then drop it and let the unit decide how they want to deliver it.

[packsaddle]

Heh, heh, just a quick declaration, here, from the Department of Redundancy Department...

When Gern asked his question about the benefit of the DRP, Hunt replied, "It, um, declares the religious principles of BSA." Now let's see....the benefit is that the declaration "declares" something. Yes, it is sure clear to me now.

 

Gern's logic is good. The problem is that BSA is afraid to take a stand one way or the other, or else BSA wants to have it both ways. If religion became an explicit core component - a requirement for advancement as well as membership - the execution of this component would be interesting to watch.

Which religion? Delivered by which theologians? To which boys? How? The component would nearly have to be fairly specific due to the contradictions between the faiths (I just read yesterday, another claim by some flavor of Christian that Mormonism was "just a cult")...poor Romney.

If a unit has boys of different faiths (like this one does) this core component will NOT be a unifying force. I could easily see our unit losing most of the boys as a result, seeing as how only two of them are members of the CO which would undoubtedly assert its place as the appropriate core religious component.

 

If BSA did indeed take this approach, and managed to find volunteer leaders who were competent to address the religious component (try not to laugh), at least there would no longer be any equivocation about membership.

 

I think BSA recognizes the mess this would be. I think they are trying to play the middle ground in some way to placate both sides of the view...so they don't otherwise lose one entire side and some of the middle. And for what benefit, Gern might wonder? To which I (and possibly Trevorum) would reply - the benefit would be the good feeling of being able to exclude those who don't think the same way, of course. I guess those of us who think they possess the absolute truth DO see this as a benefit.

[LongHaul]

Ive been staying out of this thread because it has become so circular and non productive. I doubt whether anyone besides Lisabob could reask her question from page one without looking. If we are going to continue this thread lets at least restrict ourselves to accurate representations. GB just said The DPR is the only religiously based requirement in BSA. Not true, read my post on page 2, we have had religious based requirements in the Cub Scout Program all along. GB state there is no universal application of religion to the program wrong again-same reason read the Cub requirements. If what GB is saying is that religion is not a part of ALL the BSA programs then maybe he did re read Lisabobs question. His contention that if it not part of every aspect of BSA then it should not an aspect of any part of the program is what this is actually all about. Imposing ones will upon others against their collective wills. Packsaddle thinks it would be fun to watch if religion were made part of the program, guess packman has never been involved with Cub Scouts. How has the Cub Scout program been surviving all these years? What have these "alternate religion" types been doing to fulfill the Cub requirements? This has very little to do with religion or core beliefs unless imposing your will upon others is a core belief. I would never volunteer my time nor enroll my children in a program which expresses views that were categorically against my principles. The fact that so many are voicing dissatisfaction from within, tells me that they really dont have a problem with BSA values. What they have a problem with is not being able to resist an opportunity to engage in the ever growing popular past time of forcing your views on others against their will. Its a power thing.

LongHaul

 

[packsaddle]

LH, I was a den leader for a few years before I was Cubmaster for a few more. I guess we were working on the 'local option' model. None of the packs I knew of had religion as a core component and neither the district nor the council seemed to promote religion in that manner nor did they seem to care about it.

The only encounter we ever had with BSA's policy on this was when a DE gave a fire-and-brimstone speech at our Blue and Gold banquet, excoriating gays and atheists. About 30% of the families quit after that speech, offended. We never allowed the DE to speak to the pack again after that and the complaints to the council eventually sent him packing. But I guess my experience is rather limited.

I have to admit, some of what you write is rather confusing. For example, "The fact that so many are voicing dissatisfaction from within, tells me that they really dont have a problem with BSA values." Huh? How does voicing dissatisfaction from within indicate approval of BSA values? That seems to be contradictory. Please explain.

 

But yes, it would be interesting to see BSA attempt something like that explicitly and forcefully across all units. I see no evidence that the result, locally expressed in enrollment, would not be the same as back when I was Cubmaster. Am I off topic?

 

Edited part: Just a fine point: 'interesting' isn't necessarily 'fun'. For example, I find the situation in Iraq very interesting. It is not fun. I could say the same thing for such events as genocide, deadly epidemics, shark attacks, terrorist bombings. I think you have attached an emotion to my idea that is incorrect. The 'fun' that you think you see in my message is your invention, but not what is in my mind.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[LongHaul]

Ok, when I referred to the disention from within I was trying to point out that these people were enrolled in Scouting. The problems didn't seem important enough to keep them from joining. Having been a Cubmaster you know that Cub Ranks have a requirement that is religion based. Does that make it a core value, depends on how you want to define core values. If the same requirement was written into the Boy Scout ranks why would it be any more difficult to administer for the adults or pass for the boy?

As for my useing the word fun rather than interesting is a big difference and I was inaccurate. As you so well point out the two are not synonomous.

The DPR does not affect me so I can't see the big deal about it. I think if it is that big of a deal then the person with the problem shouldn;t be involved with an orgaization that they have that big of a problem with.

LongHaul

[packsaddle]

LongHaul, thanks for the clarification. In the cub scout program, as I remember it (and I could very well be wrong, it's been quite a while) matters of faith were left to the individual families of the cubs. I, as cubmaster, certainly did not do anything more than make sure that the paperwork for advancement was filled out correctly by the den leaders. When I was den leader, I never questioned a cub about his religious beliefs. Was I supposed to?

 

I have said it many times that personal beliefs ought to be just that, 'personal'. This puts them out of bounds for examination by anyone else, whether unit leaders or religious zealots. And nearly all of my local scouts and scouters have expressed similar sentiments during our discussions. Only a few think that they have a duty to "bring the good word" or "to witness" to the boys, to quote that minority. That is why such a core component, if required, would have 'interesting' results, IMHO. This may not be a problem for those who, as I said, are in possession of the absolute truth. There are just so many of them...that disagree about what that truth is.

[LongHaul]

The religious requirement for Cub Scouts was signed off by a parent or Dl. Should a CM discuss religion with a boy, depends on CO policy actually. The WDL should depending on which option the boy chose for the religious requirement. In Boy Scouts it would be the boys religious advisor or anyone designated by the SM that signed off. For boys of Scouting age the religious advisor is usually a parent and later a member of an established religion picked by a parent. How many boys do any of us know that are of a different religion than their parents? IMO bringing the word to or witnessing to a boy is the option of the CO. If it is CO policy i.e. LDS, Church or Religious organization sponsored units, that should be spelled out but doesn't have to be. Having a unit adult take it upon them selves to discuss religion should be avoided unless the belilefs of the boy are formost. If I were to discuss Roman Catholic Doctrine with one of my Roman Catholic boys or Christianity in general with a Baptist boy no problem but addressing the unit as a group should never be sectarian in nature.

LongHaul

[SSScout]

Ladies and gentlemen,

 

I would ask that someone, after they read the following ramble, will respond and tell me what it is I am trying to get at.

 

The DRP is just that. If you can agree to it in good faith, you sign it. If you can't, you find a way to rationalize your fudging and sign it. If you REALLY can't, then you don't become a Scout/er. We had a wonderful lady sign up her son as a Cub and throw herself whole heartedly into the CS Day Camp. She was the best Nature person we ever had. After the camp, she came to me (wife is CD) and asked about the form she signed. What exactly was expected of her by her signing? She explained that she really wasn't religious, in fact they were careful not to teach their son about any religion. She said they found religion to be a real stumbling block in their teaching their son about the world and how it worked. And what about this "duty to God" in the CS promise? I had to say it was what it was. Scouting expected the parents to work with their son about their faith, whatever that was. I could not (would not) try to interpret the words any more than that. I did say that one's duty to God would be different for each person, and no one in Scouting (to my knowledge) would ever try to impose a particular faith on a Scout. She later resigned (formally!) and withdrew her son from the Pack.

 

"By their fruits ye shall know them"

 

As a first time Chaplain representing the Religious Society of Friends at the '05 Jamboree, I met many men and women of many different faiths (and some not so sure which, if any, to claim. More on that later.) The Jamboree had at least 25 different named faiths. We had Chaplains of many different flavors: Jew, Catholic, Mennonite, LDS, Methodist, Baptists, Episcopal, Congregationalist, RLDS, Lutheran, UU, Greek Orthodox, Christian Scientist (and Friend!). The only obvious absence were Presbyterian and Muslim and Buddhist. Us Chaplains worked surprisingly well together. Among other things, we established worship space for Muslim Scouts and a meditation space for Buddhist Scouts.

A Muslim Imam came by three days to visit, but did not stay on the grounds. The last Sunday (First Day in Quaker parlance), the first and only Buddhist Navy Chaplain came to lead that religious service. (no mention of the different flavors of Muslim was ever mentioned. I met several Muslim Scouts, one a young lady Venturer).

One of my duties was as a welcomer to the "Relationships " tent. Here were reps and exhibits of many faiths and service organizations. The Chaplains job was to guide the visiting Scout to the table of his/her faith, or, if there was none, talk to the Scout about his faith and thus fulfill the requirement for the "Duty to God" rocker for his/her Jambo patch. I have to say that I did meet several Scouts who honestly told me they weren't sure, probably did not believe in a god, let alone God, and had no idea what the purpose of "church" was. I listened but never cast guilt (?) on the boy for his searching. There are, after all, alot of choices out there.

I noticed that when the Chaplains got together, each was very polite when probing the others about their faith. The Greek Orthodox taught about Icons, the Baptist taught about water immersion, etc. I learned some "polite" jewish insults! But Catholic went to the hospital with Quaker, Mennonite set up Muslim prayer space with LDS Deacon, and everyone helped as they could the Alaskan Troops.

So what about the dozen or so doubting, unsure Scouts I met? 35 Chaplains times 12 Scouts equals 370 non-yet-believing Scouts? Out of 35,000 (at the Jambo)?? Are they to be summarily kicked out of the brotherhood?

 

We do, after all, have to find our own way. I became a Friend, because that is where my searching led me. That is where, I felt, God wanted me to be. Most Friends are said to be "discovered" rather than converted. The old Friends used the term "convinced", if one was not born into Friends. I certainly cannot argue that my way is appropriate for YOU. (like Paul, I often tell folks "come and see") One may be born into a certain tradition, religion. That is how one starts. After that, I believe one must decide for onesself what, exactly, is ones "duty to God". No one else can. Perhaps another can help one define that "duty", but it cannot, should not, MUST not be imposed by another.

 

At the Jambo, I met Troops that were totally Jewish, Catholic, LDS, one that was (I think) all Church of Christ. There were probably some more I was not aware of that were totally of one faith. Each of these homoginous Troops served their Scouts well, I've no doubt, I only hope that the non jewish Scout, say, who approached the jewish Troop was not turned away out of hand. Who am I to tell a Scout that HIS duty to God is not correct? It is, after all, not his duty to ME! But in conversation, perhaps I can understand HIS understanding and he can understand mine, and together we can see alittle more of what God might really require of us.

I think it was Gandhi who said something to the effect that the most Christian person he ever met was a Muslim? Something like that.

 

 

 

Could someone find the Kipling story about the blind men trying to describe the elephant to each other? I have to put away the dinner dishes and go to bed.

 

YiS

[GernBlansten]

LH, my comments were Boy Scouts specific. I have no training or knowledge of the Cub Scout program, nor Venture or LFL.

 

The only religious requirement to be in and advance in Boy Scouts is the DRP. After you sign the DRP (which isn't even spelled in complete text on the application), there are no other. A scout can advance to the highest honors of scouting and never complete a requirement that is religious based. The Duty to God in the oath is universally accepted to be too vague to measure for advancement. Didn't the chief scout state that believing in a rock was enough? Just imagine if Duty To Self had the same weight.

 

 

[Hunt]

"The only religious requirement to be in and advance in Boy Scouts is the DRP. After you sign the DRP (which isn't even spelled in complete text on the application), there are no other. A scout can advance to the highest honors of scouting and never complete a requirement that is religious based. The Duty to God in the oath is universally accepted to be too vague to measure for advancement. Didn't the chief scout state that believing in a rock was enough? Just imagine if Duty To Self had the same weight."

 

As you intimate, in fact there is a religious element to all rank advancements in Boy Scouts beginning with Second Class--to live the Oath and Law in the scout's daily life. Thus, there is an obligation to demonstrate duty to God and reverence. Although I agree that these are difficult to measure (and are usually measured with a few bland questions), the admitted absence of these would not be difficult to measure. But I do agree that these are vague, and there is a legitimate argument about whether they are a core element of the program.

 

I agree that BSA has a dilemma, but I would prefer to assume good faith on the part of the leaders. Let's assume that they really believe that religion in some form is an important value--that it really should be part of the upbringing of each boy--but that they really do want to promote this idea in a non-sectarian way. What should they do?

[GernBlansten]

"What should they do?"

 

Continue to deliver the program as they see fit.

I have no optimism that BSA would reverse its stance on the DRP and alleviate all the legal/social issues. Forums like this are read by the folks who can make the change. Planting the seeds of change is all we can do. Changing hearts and minds. 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.

[packsaddle]

Well said, Gern. It would be easier if BSA made that the policy rather than the "don't ask, don't tell" practice.

The absence of objections to the assertion that 'rock worship' is sufficient is interesting and leads me to more questions.

First, I've seen reference to 'rock worship' a number of times and I think I even referred to it once. But did someone actually say that? Did someone actually say that "believing in a rock" was enough to meet the DRP? Just curious because if that is the case, how is someone like Hunt or Trailpounder or Rooster 7 or me, for that matter, supposed to assess belief in rocks. I'd just ask the Lovin' Spoonful question, "Do You Believe in Magic?". If 'yes', approved. If 'no', no scouts for you!

 

Religion, in and of itself, is not a value. It might have a value system as part of its doctrine or it might espouse certain values but religion is means or a way of thinking, not an end - or am I mistaken? BSA seems to treat religion as an end with little regard for the actual beliefs (except, of course for those 'evil' beliefs ).

If rock worship (not that there's anything wrong with rock worship ) is ranked along with every other type of religion and belief, what I see is so loosely defined as to apply to just about anything unless someone wants to be more specific and say it has to involve supernatural magic or something.

But if the loosest definition is what BSA is allowing, why not allow atheists? Or is someone arguing that atheists have no systems of belief? I don't buy the morality argument because while some people seem to need their values dictated by a rule book, others can reason their way to the same values with no rule book.

 

Living by the oath and law seems to be hung up on one word, 'God'. Since we've already winked at the polytheists and the rock worshipers, by doing so we've already acknowledged that the word, 'God' is not meant to be interpreted literally.

OK, reflecting on what I was about to propose and Gern's last message, I guess that quietly doing what we see fit is the way it's going to be. Oh well, interesting thought.

[Eagledad]

>>I don't buy the morality argument because while some people seem to need their values dictated by a rule book, others can reason their way to the same values with no rule book.