True Religion

[packsaddle]

"The BSA has NEVER endorsed racism."

I never said they did. I said that I felt that the actions I observed were an implicit nod, not an explicit one. This is the way I felt at that time, and in retrospect, I still think I was correct.

 

"There is no way that you as an individual had enough exposure to enough situations involving enough people to paint the entire program with so broad a brush."

I reported what I experienced personally as a boy, not rumors or headlines. Of course an early teenager in the South could not judge beyond his experience. I did not intend to paint the program with a broad brush, only to point out that such things did happen in the past.

 

"But do not for a minute try to say that the BSA in any way condoned or allowed such behavior."

I was a young boy, soaking up all I saw and experienced. I listened to volunteer and professional leaders engage in racial and other types of hate-speech. They were not just a few. I lived my life in the South, so when I observed the professional scouters setting those examples, is it not reasonable to conclude that this was the intent? It was certainly known at the council level (since pros were doing it), and evidently condoned.

 

"You have no more reason to make that claim than the racists who slandered the BSA's image had in unwarranted behavior."

I claim to have personally witnessed something that, given the nature of the individuals involved, had to be known at higher levels. I admit my conclusion is an opinion. But my experience is unassailable.

[Bob White]

I do not question your experiences only the exaggerated conclusion that you are trying to draw from them.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I am not sure that racism, prejudice, or poor judgment will ever go away. It will always be implicit or explicit because we are humans that find it easier to love our own. Learning to love our neighbor is a higher goal and to achieve it is almost beyond imagination. The brotherhood of Scouting has been a help. I have witnessed this over the years from my little corner.

 

FB

 

[Twocubdad]

Putting in 15-18 hours a day at day camp last week I didn't have much time to follow this. It is an interesting thread, despite all the recent baloney. Sorry for jumping in on the tail end of the discussion.

 

But I can't think of any question which separates the sheep from the goats better that, "Do you believe that yours is the one true religion." Let's set aside for the moment the possibility that one day The Truth will be revealed to each of us (a I think many of us are in for a surprise, especially those of you who think you won't be surprised) and deal with what we know and believe here and now.

 

Personally, I can't think of anything much more arrogant than for someone to think that their religion is the One True Religion to the exclusion of all others. I believe what I believe. I can separate those things which I believe as a matter of faith and those things I know as a matter of experience or physical or scientific fact. My beliefs are based on my experiences, what I've been taught, how I was raised and the conclusions I have reached based on my own study and thought (and some would add prayer). People with different experiences and upbringing may and often do come to very different beliefs. But who am I to conclude that your beliefs are wrong?

 

There's an old saying which sums this up: If you don't believe, no proof is sufficient. If you do, none is necessary.

 

A more practical answer to Hunt's original question is to ask how BSA would go about determining what a "True Religion" is. Who gets to decide? And how fine of a distinction do we make? Is Christianity the True Religions? Just Baptists? Heck, one of our local CO's is tearing itself apart trying to decide what it means to be "True Baptists." Which half of the congregation should their Scout troop side with?

 

BSA walks a fine line becase they very pointedly do not want to get into the business of deciding which religions are true. As Bob White wrote early in the thread, all BSA requires is that a Scout do his duty to God and be Reverent. If a Scout sincerely believes in the "spirit of all humanity" as his supreme power and that he does his duty to that power by helping other people and being positive force in the world -- or whatever other non-traditional faith you want to describe -- who are we to judge?

[dsteele]

I'm with Twocubdad on this one. Well said!

 

Unc.

[boleta]

Twocubdad has it right. Look at the scout is reverent thread. Now "they" want a Religious Life merit badge- required for Eagle!

REDUNDANT!

[Rooster7]

But I can't think of any question which separates the sheep from the goats better that, "Do you believe that yours is the one true religion."

 

I agree. Indeed, this is an excellent question to ask.

 

Personally, I can't think of anything much more arrogant than for someone to think that their religion is the One True Religion to the exclusion of all others.

 

Now thats an interesting reaction to that response. Mine is quite the opposite. If you are not confident that you believe in the one and only true God, why stake claim to your so-called faith? To me, the Scout that stands up and confidently says, I know the one and only true God - is demonstrating a STRONG faith. To be sure, your statement is insulting to those who truly posses such a faith, and demonstrates a weakness in your own.

 

I can separate those things which I believe as a matter of faith and those things I know as a matter of experience or physical or scientific fact.

 

As can I. But it is interesting how often the two intersect one another.

 

My beliefs are based on my experiences, what I've been taught, how I was raised and the conclusions I have reached based on my own study and thought (and some would add prayer). People with different experiences and upbringing may and often do come to very different beliefs. But who am I to conclude that your beliefs are wrong?

 

You are a man with a heart, mind, and soul, who according to your own words - has experiences and training in religious faith. You have studied, meditated, and prayed about your faith. Given these things, Id say you are at least qualified to determine whether or not you know God. If you do, then its only logical and reasonable to conclude that those who believe in a god or gods that contradict your understanding of Him are wrong. But even if you are not confident, how does that make you qualified to say others cannot be (i.e., that these folks are arrogant). Id like to remind you Being confident, even in matters of faith, is not evil or even necessarily arrogant. In fact, some would say, a man who is confident about his relationship with God has been blessed.

 

There's an old saying which sums this up: If you don't believe, no proof is sufficient. If you do, none is necessary.

 

Thats just another way of saying - Faith is a matter a personal inspiration. Sadly, that is the opinion of many. My faith was divinely inspired, and I thank God for it.

 

A more practical answer to Hunt's original question is to ask how BSA would go about determining what a "True Religion" is. Who gets to decide? And how fine of a distinction do we make?

 

The BSA has a simple premise for duty to God. Believe in GodYou decide who you think he is, and what your duties should be. Im probably over-simplifying it. But thats the gist. I dont know what criteria they use to determine acceptable religions. Whatever the criteria is, it seems to be working for the BSA and several million boys.

 

As Bob White wrote early in the thread, all BSA requires is that a Scout do his duty to God and be Reverent. If a Scout sincerely believes in the "spirit of all humanity" as his supreme power and that he does his duty to that power by helping other people and being positive force in the world -- or whatever other non-traditional faith you want to describe -- who are we to judge?

 

There are two problems with that idea:

 

1) The BSA requires a belief in God, not humanity. Theyre not even close to being the same.

 

2) Since we (adult volunteers) are not the ones empowered to direct the BSA organization and its policies, your question is irrelevant.

 

On the other hand, those currently overseeing the BSA are free to judge "the spirit of humanity" as being completely unacceptable as a "belief in God". In this case, I would agree with that conclusion.

 

[boleta]

Rooster says:

To me, the Scout that stands up and confidently says, I know the one and only true God - is demonstrating a STRONG faith.

I am curious as to how you would deal with the Eagle Scout candidate at his BOR who is Hindu. Since this religion clearly violates your idea of an acceptable belief (as determined by your previous posts), does this Scout's duty to God pass your muster?

[evmori]

Rooster7,

As always, excellent post! I would concur.

 

boleta,

It really makes no difference if the Scout's religion violates my idea of acceptable belief as long as it doesn't violate the BSA's idea of accepted belief.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)(This message has been edited by evmori)

[Rooster7]

Since this religion clearly violates your idea of an acceptable belief (as determined by your previous posts), does this Scout's duty to God pass your muster?

 

Ed Mori obviously understood my post, for he stated it perfectly. My beliefs and those of the BSA do not have to be in sync. My sons and I can function within their framework. It was never our mission to force the BSA to believe in the same things that we do, much less make them change their policies.

 

[Hunt]

Rooster, I'd be interested in your reaction to the questions I was pondering when I started this thread--from your point of view, is it better to believe in a false religion than to believe in no religion? No matter how you slice it, BSA's position suggests that a belief in God--any God (or gods) is better than no belief in God. I understand why a person who thinks various religions are different roads to the same truth might think this--but why would one think this if you believe that your religion is the only true way?

[Rooster7]

Hunt,

 

Strictly speaking on a personal note (i.e., I am not lobbying to have BSA change their policies, nor do I necessarily believe they should change), I will attempt to answer your question.

 

If a boy does NOT believe in God, and refuses to even entertain the possibility of His existence, then I feel these things are reasonable to conclude:

 

1) This boy has great potential to negatively influence the faith of other boys. Especially as he becomes an older Scout and younger impressionable boys enter the troop.

 

2) This boy does not respect the power and authority of God, only that of whoever or whatever he puts in His place. He only knows, understands, and trusts the physical world.

 

3) While the boy may embrace a set of morals, they will only be as stable as the institution or person from where they were derived.

 

If a boy believes in a false god, then we can safely conclude these things:

 

1) This boy believes in a power and authority greater then humanity.

 

2) While his faith is not placed in the true God, he understands that our existence goes beyond the physical world.

 

3) His morals beliefs do not rely on the stability of an individual or an institution.

 

4) As long as hes examining the world spiritual and physical, there is hope that he will open his heart to the true God.

 

So, I tend to like the BSA policy although not necessarily for the same reasons as those empowered to make policy.

 

Separate from the BSA policy discussion, I want to say - While some might judge my belief in God to be that of an elitist, my attitude does not affect anyone elses ability, in or out of the BSA, to pursue and/or practice his/her own faith. We can all sit around the campfire believing that we know something that maybe the other guy doesnt know or understand. But, what is wrong with that? As Ive tried to state in other threads, my confidence in knowing who God is, does not preclude others from having the same kind of confidence in their own faith. I find it amusing (in a sad kind of way) when self-proclaimed people of faith are offended when others express their faith in a strong manner. There seems to be a consensus among some folks (posters on this forum) that says something like this, Its okay to have a faith different from mine, so long as youre willing to express doubt in your faith as being the only way to God. What kind of faith is that? Is that the kind of faith you have? It seems to me, these folks are looking for validation of their own faith, through the faith of others. Why else would they take offense by my confidence or that of someone else who does not agree with them? If this is true, then by definition, I think one would have to say their faith is weak. Belief in God ones faith, should not waiver because someone might find reason to take offense. If these folks are not looking for validation, then they should not take offense to the level of confidence that others might display about their beliefs.

 

Having said the above, I realize theres a huge difference in maturity, between us (i.e., adult leaders), and that of a teenaged boy (i.e., Scouts). Hence, my previous statements support the BSA policy, which I believe, helps create the right environment for boys to develop a godly character.

[Twocubdad]

To tell you the truth, Rooster, I kinda had you in the back of my mind when I wrote my post Monday night. Your response makes my first point that this is an either/or, black-or-white question. Consequently I don't feel the need to debate our respective answers. Although I respect and understand your position, neither of us are going to change any minds.

 

Nonetheless, I'd like to follow up on a couple things. First, in your original reply to my post you wrote that "the Scout that stands up and confidently says, 'I know the one and only true God' - is demonstrating a STRONG faith. To be sure, your statement is insulting to those who truly posses such a faith, and demonstrates a weakness in your own. " First of all, if I insulted you, I apologize. But likewise I think your statement is the kind of condecention we goats (or are we the sheep and you the goats? I loose track.) find offensive. Not that I'm trying to bust your chops over it, just food for thought. The way you made your case in you last reply to Hunt is better stated.

 

Secondly, in that reply to Hunt you said you think a concensus of posters here believe that Its okay to have a faith different from mine, so long as youre willing to express doubt in your faith as being the only way to God. Just the opposite. I don't pretend to tell you how or what to believe. I saying that MY faith has room for the possibility that there are different paths to the truth. In my mind that doesn't show a weakness or doubt in my faith, only a different understanding of the nature of faith.

 

 

[scoutingagain]

I see nothing wrong with the concept of one believing that their's is the one true faith, as long as they accept and respect that someone of another faith may have the same conviction about their faith or belief.

 

 

SA

 

[Hunt]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Rooster. Although I don't necessarily agree with all of the points, I can see there a colorable argument for the idea that any religion is better than no religion--the most persuasive point, to me, is the idea that boys (or leaders) with no religious faith might be a negative influence on religious boys. I'm not convinced on the morality point, because my observations show little difference, on average, in the moral behavior of non-religious and (nominally) religious people. I also don't agree that adherents of another religion are more likely to switch to "true" religion than those with no religion--again, my observations suggest that the opposite is true. I confess that I was thinking of you and others who expressed similar views when I started this thread.