The atheists thing again

[John-in-KC]

Lisa,

 

To me, which "norms and mores" is a family decision to make. The parents of a family join a community of believers... be it a synagogue, church, temple or ???. When they join that body, there are expectations.

 

Much of Christendom distills its beliefs from the whole of the Bible to the Ten Commandments, the Apostle's/Nicene Creed, and the Lord's Prayer. Even there, some protestant units substitute NT scripture verses for the creeds.

 

If you believe, as I do, that faith in a God above is the bedrock of human society, then the essentiality of that faith in your life is part of what holds the fabric together. As you reduce the importance of faith, its role in the fabric of life changes.

 

That's why I enjoyed the thread about a mandate in the Boy Scout program to earn the age-appropriate religious award. My looking around my friends and community lead me to think faith is not the bedrock for too many.

 

So, Trev, yes, your response to me:

"I interpret your final logic statement to mean that Scouts need a sense of awe and reverence for the numinous. I agree."

 

... is spot on, for me.

 

YIS

[LongHaul]

Straighten me out here folks. This thread was concerned with the DRP an inconveniently named joining requirement of the BSA. One essentially must believe in the concept of God. Atheists don't and therefore can't join. Religion is what we do about or with that conceptual belief and religion has nothing to do with the DRP. We were talking about dropping or not dropping the DRP. We were talking about whether dropping the DRP would have any real effect as opposed to a definite affect on the Scouting Program. If we want to discuss whether Dan and his Wicca groups should be allowed to charter units lets spin it off so we can finish discussing DRP and do Dan and his Wicca groups justice.

Just a thought

LongHaul

 

[DanKroh]

"If we want to discuss whether Dan and his Wicca groups should be allowed to charter units lets spin it off so we can finish discussing DRP and do Dan and his Wicca groups justice.

Just a thought"

 

Well, while I certainly appreciate the nice thought, I gotta say, HUH? I don't recall posting in this thread at all.

[packsaddle]

In the fabric of LongHaul's life (kind of like the cobwebs of my mind) I think a couple of threads got mixed up.

[scottteng]

Maybe we should do the generic thing and say higher power. Most atheists or agnostics seem to be ok with it and it is not objectionable to the religious.

 

[LongHaul]

Even I don't know where that post was supposed to go I remember writing it so I guess that's a plus. Guess I need a "time out" See everyone on Sunday evening.

LongHaul

[Aquila calva]

On my honor I will do my best

To have a sense of awe and reverence for the numinous,

Do my duty to my country

and to obey the Scout Law;

To help other people at all times;

To keep myself physically strong,

mentally awake, and morally upright.

 

[Trevorum]

hmmm...

 

Mixing prose and poetry rarely works. But I like the attempt.

[packsaddle]

John-in-KC, I want to go back to something you wrote: "Much of Christendom distills its beliefs from the whole of the Bible to the Ten Commandments, the Apostle's/Nicene Creed, and the Lord's Prayer. Even there, some protestant units substitute NT scripture verses for the creeds."

While I can't disagree with what you wrote, I add that the various flavors of Christendom pick and choose which parts of the above best reflect their preconceived notions or interpretations. Such differences have, in fact, led to the fractionation into more and more flavors (whatever). Logically, if the sources you listed formed a tight, coherent, and clearly written document, there would be less disagreement among those who call themselves Christians - they don't. But also logically, since the disagreements exist (as with Sunni and Shiite Moslems and various flavors of other religions) the lack of any absolute becomes obvious. ALL of them can't be absolutely correct. Only ONE of them can. And there is no way to sort this out since belief is based solely on faith and not on objective evidence that can be tested.

If I were to be very charitable to the people who make BSA policy, I would say that they recognize this and therefore have great difficulty in composing a tight, clear, coherent policy that is non-sectarian and as inclusive as possible.

 

If your argument is that the ability to have faith in something is of value in and of itself, I am sympathetic to that notion. It is, after all, part of 'trustworthy'. However, I would not restrict this quality to faith in the supernatural and especially not to a particular supernatural belief. There are plenty of other things in which to have faith.

 

Trevorum, Aquila calva is doing a good job...be nice to him. Removing the 'God' thing would work nicely, I think. After all, if God is all that is claimed, God should be big enough to be able to handle a change like that. On the other hand if God can't let it go by, then God is exhibiting some rather dark and human qualities that make it, well, less than god-like...and more like an imaginary or illusory invention or something...that reflects more of the qualities of the inventor(s) than something that is really there.

As Ronald Reagan would say, "...there you go again, Packsaddle.":)

[John-in-KC]

Packsaddle,

 

Lisa asked a question in this thread:

"Which personal values, and what are "religious concepts" anyway?"

 

My post, and its thesis sentence, was a direct response to the question:

"To me, which "norms and mores" is a family decision to make. The parents of a family join a community of believers... be it a synagogue, church, temple or ???. When they join that body, there are expectations."

 

I am a Christian, so I used its history and developed belief system to demonstrate the "norms and mores" as well as expectations:

"Much of Christendom distills its beliefs from the whole of the Bible to the Ten Commandments, the Apostle's/Nicene Creed, and the Lord's Prayer."

 

Now I did goof: I meant to use "churches," not "units:"

"Even there, some protestant units substitute NT scripture verses for the creeds." In other words, as a Scout leaders I cannot define faith for a family. That is done in direct context of their own faith and worship lives.

 

To sum up: My argument is the family affiliation in faith defines the specific belief set I would hope a Scout is learning and practicing as he grows through youth, adolesences, and young adulthood.

 

Did I get to your question? Does my explanation give you the information you needed?

 

Feedback is a gift

 

YIS

[packsaddle]

John-in-KC, I think I didn't actually have a question anywhere in that but thanks for the reply. I understood what you meant by 'unit' BTW.

Your inclination to leave these matters to the families is just fine with me and a good way to be inclusive. Prospective (and current) families in BSA might view the policy with confusion, however. I wish they could view it as being more inclusive.

[Lisabob]

Looking again at the aims of scouting and the purpose of scouting as defined by the BSA (see my last post, I'm not re-pasting it), I don't see how being an atheist precludes a boy from achieving those aims or meeting that purpose. Even if we suppose that achieving those aims requires exposure to the notion of faith (of whatever sort), why can't we allow atheist children to join the program and benefit from that exposure through whatever religious elements currently exist in our program? We don't necessarily require that scouts become believers even as things are now - they can be "unchurched" and have no particular affiliation, have exceedingly vague and unvoiced beliefs (rocks?), and still be scouts.

 

If we take that one phrase about personal values based on religious concepts, this still doesn't appear to require that people buy into any religion, but rather, only that they acknowledge that many "personal values" can be extrapolated from religion in some manner.

 

Even many atheists would probably accept the notion that bedrock values - trust, loyalty, compassion, patience, a sense of right and wrong, courage, honesty, etc.. - are often rooted in historical religious texts. This does not necessarily require a belief in those religions, but rather, simply an understanding of the themes and ideals that various religions espouse. Sort of like studying religious texts as literature can be done, even by people who do not take those same texts as religious truth.

 

For those whom this approach offends, let me ask this: if your religion is the one true religion, and if the purpose of the DRP is really to ensure that scouts and scouters become the "best sort" of people, rooted in faith, then aren't all those scouts and scouters of other religions destined to fall short of the mark, being wrong in their religious beliefs? Does it matter which "wrong" answer people chose, whether it is the wrong faith or the lack of religious faith?

 

 

 

[Gonzo1]

Lisa,

I agree that many atheists may benefit from the program. The problem is, they don't qualify for membership. See my post about the "Tall Club" that is, short people couldn't join. With BSA, non-believers can't join either. I'm sure non-believers would enjoy camping, tying knots, lighting fires, cooking, etc.

 

 

You went on to say: "why can't we allow atheist children to join the program and benefit from that exposure through whatever religious elements currently exist in our program?" This is pretty simple, because the BSA doesn't allow it. I'll conceed that your suggestion may provide an opportunity to "witness" or be a positive testimony to atheists, but atheist can't join. Kindly read the attached link for the membership application. The application states membership requirements and gives a note to parents that adult leaders subscribe to the DRP and also give an excerpt of it.

 

At the beginning of your last post, you said "I don't see how being an atheist precludes a boy from achieving those aims or meeting that purpose." The aims as we know are character, citizenship and fitness. I'll conceed that being an atheist doesn't preclude himself and may actually gain character, citizenship and fitness skills by being in the BSA. HOWEVER, he can't measure up to the first Method - Ideas. The BSA website says "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." Accordingly, he can't do his Duty To God if he doesn't believe in some God, not necessarily some branded, organized religion.

 

Here it is, the application for a boy's enrollment.

 

http://www.scouting.org/forms/28-209.pdf

 

The boy states that he wants to be a scout by putting his name on the application and the parents are aware as they sign the application.

 

I'll even agree that atheists have sound bedrock values too. They just don't believe in God.

 

Sorry, but I wanted to quote chapter and verse, so to speak. For a while, I felt like I was getting beat up pretty bad. Lisa, I haven't met you in person, but I feel like I would like you in person. You normally have excellent comments and sound advice for folks here. In this case, I just disagree with you.

 

It's not my intent to offend, if so, please accept my apology.

 

jg

[Lisabob]

Hi Gonzo,

 

No problem, no offense taken. One of the things I like about this forum is that (usually) we can discuss these sorts of touchy topics in a reasonable fashion. Never in a million years would I want to have some of these conversations with certain people in a specific unit or district, for fear of the repercussions it might have! Angry adults make for bad programming for the boys.

 

At any rate, I understand what the DRP and the membership requirements are. I accept that the BSA has a right to impose those requirements. As a scouter and the parent of a scout, I have signed those documents, although I admit I didn't even know they existed at the time, and so I agreed to abide by them. That doesn't mean, however, that I necessarily like them.

 

My point here - as this thread began - was not to dispute what the DRP and membership requirements ARE, but rather to question WHY they are.

 

If the purpose is to keep atheists out then yes, the current requirements achieve that goal. But why is this the purpose? If it is because the BSA has a religious character that atheists don't support, fine. Be clear about that fact and then let individuals make the decision about whether or not to join, rather than the BSA telling them they cannot join. Let them - not the BSA - determine what to do about the religious duty as described in the Oath and Law, just as we allow people of all different religious groups to interpret these particular phrases without BSA guidance. People often say "it can't be done" but look at what Hunt says about this (though he doesn't advocate for it) in the third post in this thread. It could be done, though I accept that not everyone would be open to such an interpretation.

 

As you say, atheists might benefit from being members too. Not in the sense of conversion (which I do not believe is the goal of the BSA anyway - otherwise we couldn't be a non-sectarian organization) but rather, in the sense of having a more well-rounded understanding of the role religion plays in the lives of a great many people in our society. Looking around at the religiously-motivated violence we see in so many places today, I'd say that this sort of awareness is good for all people.

 

If the goal of the BSA is to help youth develop personal values (again, this comes straight from the BSA's description of its purposes) then sure, these values can be developed among all youth regardless of their religious background. So here too, atheism doesn't make a lot of logical sense as a barrier to membership in my view.

 

Understand, I recognize the RIGHT of the BSA to set its own membership guidelines. I just don't think that in this case the restriction makes much sense. In fact, I don't think dropping the DRP would have an appreciable impact on scouting as we know it, except to remove from debate one of the major sore spots for scouting these days (leaving us with only the "other two G's"). Units would go on doing whatever they're doing now. Some atheists would sign up their sons and accept that whatever religious aspects of the program are in place, they'll have to deal with. Other atheists would choose not to join a religiously-oriented group such as the BSA claims to be, but then it would be their decision and not the BSA's policy.

 

Realistically though? I have very little hope of this actually happening.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Gonzo1, I'd be interested in what your reaction was back in 1998 when, at the stroke of a pen, the entire Explorer program dropped the old Explorer code and admitted atheists.