11 year old not allowed to join Scouts as atheist

[Peregrinator]

They aren't allowing him to be an atheist when the SA says atheist youth can join, but then turn around and say he has to pretend to be religious by taking a god-oath.

 

I don't see where it says that atheists may join. For example, they specifically mention statelessness but not a lack of religious belief.

[Moggie]

Some bits seem to have been missed from the POR statement, the following also applies:

"no person volunteering their services should receive less favourable treatment on the basis of, nor suffer disadvantage by reason of:

age;

class;

ethnic origin, nationality (or statelessness) or race;

gender;

marital or sexual status;

mental or physical ability;

political or religious belief.

Note: Paedophilia is a bar to any involvement in the Scout Movement.

Note: With reference to religious belief, the avowed absence of religious belief is a bar to appointment to a Leadership position."

 

and from Religion in Scouting

 

"The Scout Association is not directly and immediately concerned with the religious education of its Members.

 

That responsibility is with the religious families to which the Members belong, although some sponsored Groups will have a more immediate responsibility towards their Members' religious development.

 

However, the purpose of The Scout Association includes 'to promote the spiritual potential of young people'. This responsibility is a fundamental part of The Scout Association and needs to be achieved through the programme, method and structure of Scouting.

 

There are two types of members: a Member and an Associate Member. Different roles require being a Member, such as a Leader or Commissioner.

Members

 

The Scout Association is a diverse organisation that welcomes Members from all backgrounds, as long as they are able to make their promise. Part of the promise 'To do my duty to God' requires that the person taking the promise believes in a higher being - this can be called 'God', 'Allah' or 'Dharma'. Therefore when we have new adult leaders we ask that they believe in a higher being so that they can help the young people under their care to fulfil the promise they make as Scouts.

 

Associate Members

 

Associate Members are adults support Scouting through other roles such as a section assistant or a skills instructor, and they don't have to take their Promise. As long as a person is happy to support the fundamentals of Scouting, including the religious policy, they can become Associate Members.

 

Young people

 

The purpose of Scouting is to contribute to the development of young people in achieving their full physical, intellectual, social and spiritual potentials.

 

We encourage young people to explore their beliefs and develop their spirituality. This process can happen in many ways, but especially through the Programme we deliver.

 

Our policy states that to be a youth member of The Scout Association, a young person is required to make the promise."

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[SeattlePioneer]

>

 

 

It's very simple, Merlyn: Look in a mirror.

 

 

And frankly Merlyn, your behavior on these forums on behalf of atheists is ample good reason why they should be excluded.

 

A certain number of atheists are always going to resist any degree of religious expression in a program. Intolerant atheists have an agenda to drive religion out of the public square, and out of any private square they can sqauk about.

 

So while I have no objection to having tolerant atheists in Scouting programs, I would be the first to boot Merlyn out of Scouting if he showed up in a unit where I was a leader.

 

He just can't help being perpetually disruptive about this issue, and the best way to resolve it is to exclude him.

 

(This message has been edited by seattlepioneer)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

It's very simple, Merlyn: Look in a mirror.

 

Well now you're just lying.

 

And frankly Merlyn, your behavior on these forums on behalf of atheists is ample good reason why they should be excluded.

 

And if I were black, that'd be a good reason to exclude ALL blacks, right?

 

You can't even come up with good excuses now.

 

A certain number of atheists are always going to resist any degree of religious expression in a program. Intolerant atheists have an agenda to drive religion out of the public square, and out of any private square they can sqauk about.

 

You're still mouthing off with no actual examples. What have I said or done to be "intolerant"?

 

So while I have no objection to having tolerant atheists in Scouting programs, I would be the first to boot Merlyn out of Scouting if he showed up in a unit where I was a leader.

 

And vice-versa. I wouldn't allow bigots like yourself who justify prejudice against an entire group because of the actions of one member of that group.

 

He just can't help being perpetually disruptive about this issue, and the best way to resolve it is to exclude him.

 

I'm still waiting for you to come up with actual statements I've made or actions of mine that make me "intolerant." So far, all I have is your bigoted raving.

[SSScout]

 

Merl, my friend, I wonder at the facility you display (as others herewith do) in how you manage to turn another's words to your argument. I just watched the Colbert and Stewart shows, and, man, you do have some competition.

 

From your 10/23 post:

 

""SSScout writes:

Agnostic folk aren't sure, atheists are sure it isn't a being that can't be seen or felt or sued for fault.

 

Nope, atheist means "not a theist," which merely means the person doesn't believe any gods exist. It does not suggest any particular degree of certainty. ""

 

Of course it suggests ALOT of certainty! GOD(s) does not exist! And that is where our argument starts!

If my "authority" for my actions is that I have discerned God's will for my life, then we must ask, what is the "authority for the actions in YOUR life?

 

Again, I say ""atheists are sure it isn't a being that can't be seen or felt or sued for fault"" How is this not true for you?

 

I see you claim a non-belief in the existance of "any gods".

Fine, does that mean you claim the authority for your actions to be from anything other than yourself? My point was that people of faith seek to do the "will of God", whether that means caring for and curing the leper or killing all the infidels. People of athiest bent seek no such Higher Authority, trying to do the "right thing" from ... umm , what authority? Am I correct in feeling the only authority an athiest would claim must be (therefore) palpaple and (dare I say it) human in source?

 

This is why the Conscientious Objector must show some "authority" as proof of the sincereness of their claim. Even if they do not claim a religious/faith basis, they must convince the military and governmental officials that the CO assertion is not merely their own flippant, convenient to the times, claim.

 

So I believe the athiest MUST have a physical, personally confrontable being, to be there, to disagree with, to 'sue'.

Can't do that with a (the) g(G)od.

Perhaps we here are a part of Merlyn's god against which he rages.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

SSScout writes:

Agnostic folk aren't sure, atheists are sure it isn't a being that can't be seen or felt or sued for fault.

 

Nope, atheist means "not a theist," which merely means the person doesn't believe any gods exist. It does not suggest any particular degree of certainty. ""

 

Of course it suggests ALOT of certainty! GOD(s) does not exist! And that is where our argument starts!

 

No.

 

A theist believes one or more gods exist; an atheist is someone who is not a theist, i.e. does not believe one or more gods exist.

 

Note that neither the theist nor the atheist has necessarily made a statement that they are certain; it only describes their beliefs. Of course, either one can SAY they are certain, if they like, but that's not a requirement of being a theist OR an atheist.

 

If my "authority" for my actions is that I have discerned God's will for my life, then we must ask, what is the "authority for the actions in YOUR life?

 

I don't have one. Deal with it.

 

Again, I say ""atheists are sure it isn't a being that can't be seen or felt or sued for fault"" How is this not true for you?

 

I haven't said if it's true for me or not; I stated that your definition of "atheist" isn't correct.

 

An atheist is someone who is not a theist.

 

I see you claim a non-belief in the existance of "any gods".

 

That's correct; I don't have a belief in any gods existing.

 

Fine, does that mean you claim the authority for your actions to be from anything other than yourself?

 

I don't even claim "authority" for my actions from myself.

 

My point was that people of faith seek to do the "will of God", whether that means caring for and curing the leper or killing all the infidels.

 

Sounds like a rather poor guide then.

 

People of athiest bent seek no such Higher Authority, trying to do the "right thing" from ... umm , what authority?

 

I give up; what authority? You keep bringing it up.

 

Am I correct in feeling the only authority an athiest would claim must be (therefore) palpaple and (dare I say it) human in source?

 

Some might, but it's not intrinsic to atheism either. Atheists can believe in any number of platonic ideals or supernatural things, as long as gods aren't part of it.

 

[Peregrinator]

Respectfully submitted for your consideration - are these examples of tolerance, or intolerance?

 

Well now you're just lying.

 

You're still mouthing off with no actual examples.

 

I wouldn't allow bigots like yourself who justify prejudice against an entire group because of the actions of one member of that group.

 

So far, all I have is your bigoted raving.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Peregrinator writes:

Respectfully submitted for your consideration - are these examples of tolerance, or intolerance?

 

Keep in mind I've been asking SeattlePioneer for examples of atheist intolerance; as he put it: "Intolerant atheists will actively object to any kind of religious expression."

 

Well now you're just lying.

 

You're still mouthing off with no actual examples.

 

I wouldn't allow bigots like yourself who justify prejudice against an entire group because of the actions of one member of that group.

 

So far, all I have is your bigoted raving.

 

None of the above indicates that I object to any kind of religious expression.

 

The "lying" remark was where SeattlePioneer accused me of being an intolerant atheist ("Look in a mirror"); since I actually do NOT object to every kind of religious expression, his accusation is a lie.

 

The "mouthing off" remark is because SeattlePioneer hasn't provided any actual quotes to support his accusations.

 

SeattlePioneer is clearly a bigot as he feels it's OK to judge an entire group of millions of people by the actions of one.

 

And the last line just summarizes his ranting.

[SeattlePioneer]

Apparently I WAS mistaken when I suggested that Merlyn could look in a mirror to see an example of an intolerant atheist.

 

Looking is clearly not enough, judging from his remarks. An extensive course of therapy would apparently be necessary for him to be able to recognize his own biases and prejudices.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Well SeattlePioneer, as usual, when I want you to back up your mouth with actual examples of your accusations against me, you don't. All you have are your baseless slurs with nothing to back them up.

 

Feel free to somehow show that I "actively object to any kind of religious expression"; this will be rather hard, as that isn't my actual position.

 

You're just lying about me.

 

PS: Here's a thread I started to complain about Gov. Perry lying about whether kids can pray in public schools:

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=334410

I'm clearly arguing that kids CAN pray in public schools, and you were the first person to reply to the thread, so you have no excuse for your lying about me.

(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[Cambridgeskip]

I haven;t read this entire thread. There's so much bickering I frankly can't be bothered.

 

Suffice to say though that the UK Scout Association has a PR disaster on its hands with this one.

 

In terms of the official line see Moogie's post above this, sets it out pretty clearly. What appears to have happened is that the kids flatly refused to make the promise.

 

What's worth adding is that this is something that the TSA has been tip toeing around for sometime. Essentially WOSM rules say you have to have a religious promise. TSA has trodden a very fine a line in terms of trying to bend the rules. Moogie's post refers to members and associate members. I have a couple of ASLs (like ASMs) and 3 troop assistants. The latter are associate members due to a lack of religious belief. But there is no way you can tell the difference. They were the uniform, do everything the ASMs do, just don't make the promise.

 

The world is changing and I think push may soon come to shove either WOSM having to change its rules or someone like TSA or another western European country going openly against them.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I haven;t read this entire thread. There's so much bickering I frankly can't be bothered.

 

Mitchell and Webb can summarize:

[Outdoors]

While I could not possibly disagree with BSA policy more than I do I do support their right to do whatever they want. Nobody is forced to join. dont like it? Don't join. You will NEVER get BSA National to change, they are stubborn and set in their ways. So quit and join another organization that provides everything BSA does but without the stuff you don't like. We're not welcome here anyway, so why waist the time. You can't have a rational conversation with an irrational person. Unfortunately people often cant agree to disagree when it comes to religion. Just think, if instead of spending all that time arguing on this forum about an issue that you will NEVER agree on, you instead spent it on improving the local program for your kids, how much better would the kids be?

 

B-PSA, Navigators, Spiral Scouts, Campfire, etc. Lots of options, with B-PSA being the most like BSA in my opinion. More than likely some of those are going to be better fits, some not, but I bet at least one is. And for those in the UK, BPSA is over there as well, WFIS has hundreds of thousands of members. No need to join and keep supporting organizations you don't believe in.

 

 

[BadenP]

SP

Well it looks like you got your wish with the BSA endorsement article in the latest Scouting magazine touting the praises of the American Heritage Girls. An organization that excludes non Christian girls and indoctrinates/conditions their members in their own particular/peculiar brand of Christianity. Still with these perversion files scandals and a total lack of accountability or future vision by the National BSA they are still batting zero, and the extent of the fallout remains to be seen. By the way a friend of mine in Seattle has his daughter in the GSUSA there and he is openly and warmly welcomed to help out by them for all kinds of events and occassions, so you really don't know what you are talking about. I think your rather brusk and controlling personality probably was the real reason the GSUSA told you no thank you.

[AZMike]

SeattlePioneer, you really shouldn't yank BadenP's chain like that.