More on the politics of Scouting...

[SeattlePioneer]

I'm told that in theory the Pope would be entitled to have doubts about the existence of God.

 

I would suppose that the typical agnostic or even atheist might have doubts about the non existence of God.

 

If someone wants to get up at a Troop or Pack Meeting a give a lecture about Why There Is No God, I would not sign off on an Adult Leader App for them in my position as COR. But otherwise, people are entitled to their doubts as far as I'm concerned.

 

I tend to categorize atheists as being either tolerant atheists or intolerant atheists. Tolerant atheists don't make it their business to convert others to their faith. Intolerant atheists do make it their business to convert others to their faith. I would probably not have occasion to discuss religion with a pack leader who was a tolerant atheist.

 

 

[drmbear]

It may not be the purpose of religion to bring people together, but it is certainly the purpose of Scouting to bring people together. That's what I got out of B-P's objectives and purpose of the Scouting movement, it's what I get out of the Scout Oath and Law.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

perdidochas, I would not join the BSA, but some atheists would. But that's beside the point I was making.

 

Your definition of "atheist" doesn't matter; what matters is how the national BSA interprets their own requirements. What they have said excludes both atheists and agnostics, not just strong atheists.

[Mr. Boyce]

It's probably bad to put too much focus on this subject.

 

Most young people, young adults, will go through a period of doubt as they learn that it's probably best NOT to conceptualize God as an old, gray-bearded man sitting on a big gold throne high in a cloud.

 

And it takes a while, too, to shake off the purely "materialistic" view.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

That just begs the question why the BSA has metaphysical requirements in the first place.

[perdidochas]

Boy Scouts has metaphysical requirements because it's founder thought it was an important part of creating good men.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

If it's important, why can't people agree on what it even means? How could public school charters ignore it for decades?

[OldGreyEagle]

How could the US (land of the free) allow slavery for so many decades?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

The founders knew about slavery and supported it with things like the 3/5 compromise. I never knew of a single public school that followed the BSA's "no atheist" policy, or even knew about it.

[OldGreyEagle]

So Seattle, are you saying that its OK for a COR to knowingly not follow the BSA rules of membership because they want a specific person to be scoutmaster and if that person is gay/atheist and as long as no one finds out, thats OK?

 

Because if it is OK, we have just proven to Merlyn we are the pond scum sucking pigs he tells us we are and I cant argue the point

[Beavah]

Your definition of "atheist" doesn't matter; what matters is how the national BSA interprets their own requirements.

 

Yah, I think this is exactly correct, eh? We've tried and failed and are trying and still failing to get Merlyn to understand his own point here. I am certain that he will never understand it, because the only way to make his case against the BSA is to make our position simplistic, so that he can think himself wise by attacking it for being simplistic.

 

The way yeh tell how a people interprets their own laws is to watch how those same people act with respect the the law, eh? And in turn, to how their officials generally respond and use discretion.

 

To bring up an old thread, if yeh were just to read the letter of the law, a teenage girl who takes a suggestive picture of herself and sexts it to her boyfriend is engaged in the felony production and distribution of child pornography. But despite some cases of unusually zealous prosecutors, the way most people would handle it is in a more low-key fashion, talkin' to the kid, and/or to the parents. And when the issue does get into more formal arenas, things ordinarily get plead down and reduced to somethin' much less than a felony. Leastways, unless the girl insists it is her right to disseminate nude photos of herself and her friends to whomever she pleases, for hire. In those rare cases, the letter of the law may have to apply.

 

It's similar with the BSA and membership issues, eh? Our real position is nuanced, and subject to the sort of discretion that SeattlePioneer describes. Nobody is really runnin' around throwin' atheists out the first time they declare they no longer believe in God. Usually, when I ask scouts what they mean by "God" I have to agree with 'em, eh? I don't believe in that either! Even in times when things become more formal, the BSA uses its discretion and makes every effort to resolve things with understanding and good grace, in a way that is mutually respectful and allows folks to continue in the program.

 

Only in the cases that parallel those of the girl above does it ever come down to a membership decision, eh? In those rare cases where adult atheists want to use a young lad to proselytize, and so undermine our desire in the program to teach something about duty to country and more than country.

 

Beavah

 

[acco40]

I don't see any organization as purely black or white, good or bad, etc.

 

I supported my sons when they wanted to join the BSA. I supported my daughter when she wanted to join the GSUSA. Both organization has their supporters and detractors as indicated here. From a local point of view - I found out that if I got involved I could emphasize what I thought were the good points and de-emphasize what I thought were the bad points.

 

Overall, I think both programs were beneficial to my children.

 

Pick a school, religion, fraternal organization, youth organization, etc. and I bet you I could find some flaw with it. The problem with so many folks is they quickly gravitate toward polarization. Ask a Tiger Cub or Brownie what they think about abortion, contraception, etc. and if they have any opinion it is proof of brainwashing parents in my view.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

Yah, I think this is exactly correct, eh? We've tried and failed and are trying and still failing to get Merlyn to understand his own point here. I am certain that he will never understand it, because the only way to make his case against the BSA is to make our position simplistic, so that he can think himself wise by attacking it for being simplistic.

 

Nope, I just have this weird attitude that words mean things, and that "requirements" really are required, and not suggestions.

 

To bring up an old thread, if yeh were just to read the letter of the law, a teenage girl who takes a suggestive picture of herself and sexts it to her boyfriend is engaged in the felony production and distribution of child pornography. But despite some cases of unusually zealous prosecutors, the way most people would handle it is in a more low-key fashion, talkin' to the kid, and/or to the parents.

 

People who aren't idiots would also repeal such a stupid law, since its application is obviously at the whim of whoever is in power at the time. It's a tremendously bad idea to allow bad laws to exist.

 

It's similar with the BSA and membership issues, eh? Our real position is nuanced, and subject to the sort of discretion that SeattlePioneer describes. Nobody is really runnin' around throwin' atheists out the first time they declare they no longer believe in God.

 

Well, you should start by having the BSA change their requirements; as they are now, and as the BSA describes them, there's no "grace period" or anything.

 

In those rare cases where adult atheists want to use a young lad to proselytize, and so undermine our desire in the program to teach something about duty to country and more than country.

 

I've never heard of this happening; I think you're just lying now, Beavah.

 

By the way, you never did clear up this question of mine:

We also see it when school officials condone bullying of kids prayin' by the flagpole (the root of one of the first school shootings)

 

Which school shooting was that?

 

[SeattlePioneer]

Hello Old Grey Eagle,

 

 

>

 

 

When someone signs the adult leader application, I don't generally cross examine them about their belief in God or sexual orientation.

 

I've had Cub Scouts announce during pack meetings that they don't believe in God. I've just ignored that when it's happened.

 

If someone decides that they need to proselytize against God or in favor of homosexuality, it's unlikely that I will be raising the issue or preventing them from being Scout leaders.

 

 

In short, as a Chartered Organization Rep I have discretion in how I use my position. I tend to use it in ways that promote harmony and good will withing the unit.

 

But it might depend. A candidate to be Scoutmaster who was an out of the closet gay would probably not get my approval. An out of the closet gay who was willing to serve as a Committee member might get my approval.

 

 

If someone is unhappy with how I conduct that office, I would point them toward the Institutional Head of the Catholic Church that charters my Cub Pack. If they had guidance for me on membership policies they wanted me to follow, I would either follow them or resign.

 

Ditto if the Council were to raise objections, although they are unlikely to get involved unless a Gay Scoutmaster is advertizing himself in the newspaper.

 

So I aim to use good judgment in making appointments. I would also listen to the ideas and suggestions of parents and other leaders.

 

If you're not happy with that, then by all means, talk to the IH or Scout Executive and get me fired.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Seattle, you are not responsible for my happiness nor is your scouting position in any jeopardy that I know of, I wanted to be sure I understood what you were saying and now I do.

 

Is it just me or are we all a little "touchy" around here lately?