The atheists thing again

[Fuzzy Bear]

The owners of Youth's Companion were selling flags to schools, and approached Francis Bellamy to write the Pledge for their advertising campaign to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Columbus arriving in the Americas. Francis Bellamy was a socialist author and Baptist minister. So, on September 7, 1892, the original Pledge was published and it read as follows: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. It was seen by some as a call for national unity and wholeness after the divisive Civil War.

 

Baden Powell's Scout Law had 8 or 9 Laws, depending on BP's own numbering and he later added Clean in Thought Word and Deed, which would be 9 or 10 but they were his own. God failed to make the list not because BP had forgotten either.

 

Tinkering with the originals have been short-sighted and inconsistent with the intent of both ideals. I suppose someone may lead us to a return to our heritage in these modern times. fb

(This message has been edited by Fuzzy Bear)

[evmori]

OK so let's dump the DRP & replace it with the Scout Oath & Law!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle]

Gonzo1, hello again. Students always put me in a good mood. I guess every single one of us has a personal view of this controversy and that is part of the problem itself. If I were to label your approach I would apply the 'fundamentalist' label because it attempts to take the literal meaning of the regulation and apply it in the strictest sense. That would be fine, of course, except that the regulation is not clearly written - it allows some different interpretations. I will only comment on a couple of those.

 

For some reason BSA actually DOES allow membership by persons who do not believe in God. Some of these BSA members are called, 'Buddhists'. I actually support this while recognizing that to allow Buddhists as members, BSA has to relax the strict interpretation of their DRP and the Oath. On this basis alone, the 'fundamentalist', absolutist approach is already rejected by BSA itself. So the thing called, 'God' in the DRP or the Oath is not necessarily the Christian 'God' but (for BSA purposes) could actually be a sacred 'rock' (thinking about the BSA statement on 'rock worship').

 

This is a logical conundrum for the fundamentalists and absolutists because BSA itself evidently interprets its own policy in very 'flexible' terms. The fundamentalists and absolutists are still free to apply their view to themselves but they are not free to apply their view to others because they have been 'trumped' (to use your card game analogy) by BSA itself, the real 'higher authority' in this case.

 

However, by opening the DRP to such interpretation BSA is showing a desire to be inclusive to the point of liberal interpretation of their own DRP and Oath. While I am at a loss to explain why BSA rejects Wiccans as COs unless it is based on a profound ignorance of Wicca, or worse, prejudice, the questions that remain are: how far can the organization go in this liberal interpretation? And if we have gone as far as rock worship, then why exclude anyone? (not that there's anything wrong with rock worship ) Why not remove the DRP if it's being widely ignored anyway? Why not remove the word, 'God', if it is being liberally interpreted or, worse, ignored, anyway?

Why not indeed?

My answer is pragmatic. If we already ignore this stuff (and I sympathize with desire to remove dead weight), it is just as easy to keep the status quo which is a de facto 'local option' approach. So while I support the removal of the DRP as ineffective or widely ignored and the word, 'God', on similar grounds,...as long as the de facto local option approach continues, I'm OK with that too. In effect, both ways amount to the same thing.

 

The fundamentalists and absolutists will not turn back the clock on this because the numbers are declining and BSA needs to be as inclusive as possible. And, given that the fundamentalists and absolutists are here still, in spite of the widely-practiced local option approach, they are not likely to leave because of it. They just flame off once in a while. And that's kind of interesting to watch too.

Edited part: typos, sorry(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Gonzo1]

Packsaddle,

 

Ah, fundamentalist. That's accurate.

 

I also know that BSA DRP is stricly flexible and ambiguous.

I'm aware and OK with people of others religions come to BSA. Also, if someone's God is a rock, I guess that's OK too, odd, but OK.

 

If you need a guest speaker or sub for your class, please let me know, I'm free Tuesday afternoons. I can put a world real (non-classroom) spin on things with a chiropractic angle.

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Hey Gonzo, did you attend the National College of Chiropractic in Lombard?

[Gonzo1]

OGE,

I grew up about 3 miles from National College, but I attended Logan College of Chiropractic in St. Louis. I earned a BS degree from the University of the State of New York.

 

It's ironic that Logan College comes up in this thread. Logan was built from a former monastery (sp) and the library was located in what used to be the chapel. Hmm, monks praying for whatever they pray about and chiropractic students praying for a C or better.

 

OGE, send me a PM, I'll explain more.

 

G

[Eagledad]

>>My answer is pragmatic. If we already ignore this stuff (and I sympathize with desire to remove dead weight), it is just as easy to keep the status quo which is a de facto 'local option' approach. So while I support the removal of the DRP as ineffective or widely ignored and the word, 'God', on similar grounds,...as long as the de facto local option approach continues, I'm OK with that too. In effect, both ways amount to the same thing.

 

The fundamentalists and absolutists will not turn back the clock on this because the numbers are declining and BSA needs to be as inclusive as possible. And, given that the fundamentalists and absolutists are here still, in spite of the widely-practiced local option approach, they are not likely to leave because of it. They just flame off once in a while. And that's kind of interesting to watch too.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Eagledad, as I recall, the national BSA was the organization that made "being exclusive" an issue by removing atheists, even if that went against the wishes of the local council, the chartering organization of the unit, and the other members of the unit.

 

And if you want to encourage prejudice and ignorance against members of minority religions like Wicca, by all means give in to people's uninformed fears about them so they'll likely never have to actually meet any. Xenophobia is so much easier.

[Eagledad]

Never the less, more boys (including boys from families of atheist and Wicca) had more access to scouting before the interference by those trying to force the program be more inclusive.

 

Barry

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Eagledad, removing public school charters wasn't an attempt to "force" the BSA to do anything; it was to force public schools to disassociate themselves from a program that required those schools to practice religious discrimination.

 

Non-governmental chartering organizations can ignore the BSA's religious requirements if they like, but public schools can't "pretend" to discriminate while allowing atheist students to sneak in and "pass" for theists in a school-sponsored club. Religious freedom is too important.

[Eagledad]

I know, I know, those are all fine Great words Merlyn, Im sure they bring you joy every time you recite them. Still, more boys had access to scouting before adults forced their legalistic idealism on the system.

 

Barry

 

[evmori]

Well, considering the recent ruling in Chicago, things could change!

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed, the decision today was only based on standing - it doesn't affect anything else, much less the BSA's announced decision to stop chartering units to public schools and other government entities.

 

Eagledad, if public schools still chartered BSA units, what do you think would happen if an atheist was kicked out of it for not being a believer? You chide my "legalistic idealism", but what happens when it's impossible to look the other way? What happens in this case?

[Eagledad]

Hey, Im with you brother. It is much better to build a system that forbids human actions of kindness and compassion for fear of that one thing that might possibly happen someday. Idealistic principles should trump common sense and logical reasoning so we can justify throwing out the baby with the bath water.

 

Preach man, preach.

 

Barry

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Eagledad, what's "kind and compassionate" about public schools practicing religious discrimination? Or do you think the BSA would allow public schools to admit atheists? I've actually talked with David Park in the BSA legal department, and he said no, atheists could not join a BSA unit chartered to their own public school.

 

So point out the kind and compassionate part; I can't seem to find it. I also can't seem to find your answer to what happens when an atheist is kicked out of a BSA unit chartered by a public school.