Is "Belief in a Supreme Being" an Actual Rule by Now?

[sailingpj]

... DWise refers to himself as an "atheist" which is understood to preclude belief in God. ... BSA has magnanimously and reasonably taken a stance that allows for the widest interpretation of "duty to god" to the inclusion even of philosophical belief systems that don't have a god, like Buddhism; it's bad form to turn that around on BSA and try to use it against them.

 

Sorry, the above makes no sense at all. If a Buddhist or a Unitarian or a Wiccan or a Jew can be an atheist and a member of the BSA, then a god isn't needed, and an atheist who just calls himself as an atheist should be able to join, unless the "duty to god" requirement is so shallow that a label makes all the difference. But that's just stupid.

BSA's "official" definition of God is whatever the person wants it to be at the time. We "sneak" Unitarians' date=' Native American spiritualist, Pagans, and even Muslims into our troop; We may even have atheists, though none have proclaimed to be such .[/Quote']

 

First off, please don't paint all Pagans with such a broad brush. There are quite a few different belief systems that fall under the name Pagan. Some believe in one god, some believe in many gods, and some don't believe in any. There is no need to sneak us anywhere.

 

Second, Muslims most definitely have a God so they too do not need to be sneaked in.

 

If your district or council is kicking people of those faiths out then someone needs to push that a bit higher up the chain of command. Individual units on the other hand, they can set their own membership standards based on their CO.

 

Khaliela, I apologize for jumping on you there. I read more later that changed my mind. Your district and council need a rude awakening, and if this wasn't a scouting forum I would have quite a few other words to describe them.

 

meta, why doesn't this forum support strikethrough?

[sailingpj]

Khaliela, my guess is that you didn't run into an official policy from National (though I have heard stories that there are people there who are actively hostile to neo-pagens), but into a group of bigoted volunteers. You should appeal it up the chain, even if it's only to get it on record.

 

Also, which council was this, and how long ago?

Wow Khaliela, that is crazy.

[DWise1_AOL]

... DWise refers to himself as an "atheist" which is understood to preclude belief in God. ... BSA has magnanimously and reasonably taken a stance that allows for the widest interpretation of "duty to god" to the inclusion even of philosophical belief systems that don't have a god, like Buddhism; it's bad form to turn that around on BSA and try to use it against them.

 

Sorry, the above makes no sense at all. If a Buddhist or a Unitarian or a Wiccan or a Jew can be an atheist and a member of the BSA, then a god isn't needed, and an atheist who just calls himself as an atheist should be able to join, unless the "duty to god" requirement is so shallow that a label makes all the difference. But that's just stupid.

sailingpj, at bsa-discrimination.org's page, http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/lambert.html, they state:

As BSA found out in 1985, not all faiths define God as a Supreme Being. With this insistence on the use of the term in this incident, BSA is finally signaling to non-Abrahamic faiths that there is no place in BSA for them. Given BSA's propensity to exclude those it does not consider to be good American citizens, it is only a matter of time before BSA defines God to be the Christian Trinity, thereby excluding Jews and Muslims from the BSA.

Before the Love administration, BSA took the position that religion and religious teachings was the responsibility of the family, not BSA. The definition of who/what God is rested with the youth's family or religious leaders. BSA did not want to become embroiled in religious arguments. (They spent considerable time and effort in their early years to prove that BSA was not an Evangelical Protestant youth organization. It seems they've decided that they are!)

When Ben Love became Chief Scout Executive, BSA decided to wrap itself in the Protestant flag, which curiously occurred at the time the Religious-Right emerged as a player in American politics.

Coming within a couple of years of the Dale decision, this reversal in religious policy indicates that BSA has decided to marginalize more American youth - Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, and yourself in the future.

They may well have overstated a few things there, but a push to impose a particular sectarian interpretation is clear. In 1985 when the "Supreme Being" wording caused the expulsion of Life Scout Paul Trout, BSA backed down when faced with hundreds of letters of protest and CSE Ben Love explicitly declared that wording a "mistake". Six years while still under Ben Love, that "mistake" was being enforced again to expel non-theists and thousands of letters of protest, as well as objections raised by national churches (OK, by the UUA, which BSA then unilaterally kicked out).

 

I think that site is on-track with what BSA's goal appears to be, to become a Christian organization, even with nominal acceptance of Jews and Muslims. In the meantime, they still have to placate their donors who have nondiscrimination policies, so they parade their officially published rules while in private they violate those rules completely.

 

While not a pagan myself, I do realize that there is a range of beliefs in that faith. OK, so I do appreciate the concerns of old-school Unitarians when pagans were welcomed into our big tent, much the same misgiving they had about merging with the Universalists. I also followed the communications of a UU who was involved with the Crescent and Hart religious award. They presented their application to BSA and BSA started adding on one new requirement after another, none of which had ever been required of any other religious award. And each and every new requirement was not only satisfied but exceeded. After many iterations, the ante finally got upped to having 25 units chartered, which the pagans easily did. At that point, they were flat out informed that their religious award would never be accepted. And the reason given was that the Baptists didn't want the Wiccans in BSA.

 

The BSA's early 1990's PR proclamations were "our values are not for sale!". They even took out a full-page ad in the local newspaper, where the Randall trial was in progress. The hypocrisy of that ad was astounding, because they admitted in court that they had indeed sold their values, to the Mormon Church. And then with respect to pagans, they sold out their values to the Baptists.

 

In the meantime, Buddhists are atheists. The goal in Buddhism is to gain Enlightenment and the Buddha taught against believing in the gods, because that would only hold you back from Enlightenment. Most Buddhists would not self-identify as atheists, but only because that term sounds too materialistic for them. When I asked my minister about Buddhists speaking out on the matter, he told me that the Buddhists he talked with just wanted to keep a low profile to avoid being noticed by BSA.

 

Of course, that was in the 1990's. This thread is seeking to learn what has changed since then. No information has been presented yet.

[sailingpj]

... DWise refers to himself as an "atheist" which is understood to preclude belief in God. ... BSA has magnanimously and reasonably taken a stance that allows for the widest interpretation of "duty to god" to the inclusion even of philosophical belief systems that don't have a god, like Buddhism; it's bad form to turn that around on BSA and try to use it against them.

 

Sorry, the above makes no sense at all. If a Buddhist or a Unitarian or a Wiccan or a Jew can be an atheist and a member of the BSA, then a god isn't needed, and an atheist who just calls himself as an atheist should be able to join, unless the "duty to god" requirement is so shallow that a label makes all the difference. But that's just stupid.

Hmm, well perhaps in this area of things it is a good thing that Sea Scouts are not really noticed by anyone. If they wanted to enforce any of that with the Sea Scout leaders in my area they would end up losing units due to having kicked out most of the leadership in the Area. Now that may be a slight exaggeration, but I personally know of at least 5 adult leaders that don't conform to BSA's officially published policies, and are quite upfront about it. I could probably name another half dozen that are a bit more discrete. All of them are great scout leaders. I would not still be in scouting if I hadn't met at least 3 of those first 5.

[DWise1_AOL]

... DWise refers to himself as an "atheist" which is understood to preclude belief in God. ... BSA has magnanimously and reasonably taken a stance that allows for the widest interpretation of "duty to god" to the inclusion even of philosophical belief systems that don't have a god, like Buddhism; it's bad form to turn that around on BSA and try to use it against them.

 

Sorry, the above makes no sense at all. If a Buddhist or a Unitarian or a Wiccan or a Jew can be an atheist and a member of the BSA, then a god isn't needed, and an atheist who just calls himself as an atheist should be able to join, unless the "duty to god" requirement is so shallow that a label makes all the difference. But that's just stupid.

Conforming to BSA's officially pubished policies is one thing. Conforming to BSA's flagrant violations of its own rules is another. I'm not sure where the leaders you mention reside.

 

BTW, I was "outed" by a BSA National spy on CompuServe, so you might want to consider COMSEC.

[sailingpj]

... DWise refers to himself as an "atheist" which is understood to preclude belief in God. ... BSA has magnanimously and reasonably taken a stance that allows for the widest interpretation of "duty to god" to the inclusion even of philosophical belief systems that don't have a god, like Buddhism; it's bad form to turn that around on BSA and try to use it against them.

 

Sorry, the above makes no sense at all. If a Buddhist or a Unitarian or a Wiccan or a Jew can be an atheist and a member of the BSA, then a god isn't needed, and an atheist who just calls himself as an atheist should be able to join, unless the "duty to god" requirement is so shallow that a label makes all the difference. But that's just stupid.

I'm not all that worried about that. At least in my council, the few people paid people that interact with Sea Scouts on a regular basis already know who these people are and their beliefs.

 

Where I live Sea Scouts is a very different community that the other scouting organizations. There are several adult leaders now that were basically born into the program. Their parents met as scouts, then grew up to be adult leaders and had kids that they brought around the program all the time. Those kids grew up and met people in scouts and are now doing the same with their kids.

 

Then we have all the adult leaders that have been friends with each other since they joined in high school.

 

The whole community is crazy tight. It makes for interesting political games within the area, but politics and religion are never brought into it.

[Huzzar]

Khaliela, my guess is that you didn't run into an official policy from National (though I have heard stories that there are people there who are actively hostile to neo-pagens), but into a group of bigoted volunteers. You should appeal it up the chain, even if it's only to get it on record.

 

Also, which council was this, and how long ago?

>>That explanation doesn't seem to flush with BSA's direct service units in plenty of foreign countries.

 

The BSA units in foreign countries are providing American Scouting to American boys in those countries. AFAIK, BSA cannot recruit locals for a BSA unit.

[Peregrinator]

Well, if you post BS you shouldn't act surprised when you get called on it. Like your kangaroo analogy, which stinks of the BSA BS lie of "we're not excluding anybody, but rather they are excluding themselves."

 

But at least you now appear to be trying to actually discuss.

 

Here's what I've garnered from what little BSA training I've had. Their definition DOES NOT MATTER. An attempt to lead a plaintiff to leverage a relativistic-argument DOES NOT MATTER. What matters is if when asked' date=' one can say they are living a life answerable to God. The asker may not understand the breadth of that as well as the person being asked does -- or maybe it's the other way around. But, the choice of that word allows for that kind of latitude. At least what I've been taught through BSA's instruction on the matter, is that a person's willingness to say they are doing that is all I need to know.[/quote']

You're headed in the right direction, but there's still a problem. BSA's definition does not matter, that is true, because officially BSA has no definition nor does it allow itself to form any definition or interpretation for "God", "belief in God", or just what "Duty to God" must entail, though it does define what "Duty to God" is, no part of which includes any specific theological requirements such as "belief in God". And as a Scouter, that is what you need to follow.

 

But then you come up with "What matters is if when asked, one can say they are living a life answerable to God." Meaning what exactly? Then you dissemble by effectively saying that it doesn't mean anything and yet that person's membership depends on it. What you are doing here is, as in your earlier post requiring "belief in God", is that you are creating and applying additional requirements that are not required. If you read the Advancement Guidelines, you will see something that you should have also been told on your training: you cannot add or subtract from the existing requirements. Officially, BSA does not require "belief in God" and yet you have added that requirement. Officially, BSA does not require "Duty to God" to entail "living a life answerable to God" and yet you have added your own personal interpretation as an additional requirement.

 

The reason why BSA attempts to define "God" is important, besides because it exposes BSA's violation of its own rules, is that that word has been loaded within our culture as referring specifically to one very specific supernatural being, YHWH. So even if you say that it could mean anything, the reality is that hardly any non-YHWHist would normally use that term to describe his own religion or belief system. So without a proper and undoubtedly lengthy discussion of what the official rules are really looking for under "Duty to God", most non-YHWHists would undoubtedly deny any belief in or allegiance to YHWH. That not at all mean that they do not do their "Duty to God" as is really required, but rather that they would deny that YHWH has anything whatsoever to do with it. And they would be perfectly right and would qualify for membership, but you would deny them that membership because of that one word, "God", and because of the additional requirements that you are imposing on them because of your own sectarian interpretations.

 

Try this little experiment. Replace every occurance of "God" with "Allah", or even better with "Vishnu". As a believing practicing Christian, wouldn't you be taken aback by being required to do your "Duty to Allah" or "Duty to Vishnu"? Especially if the gung-ho Scouter you're dealing with also requires to to declare that you believe in "Allah" or in "Vishnu". Would you as a believing practicing Christian normally express your religious beliefs using "Allah" or "Vishnu"? Are you starting to see what it's like to walk a mile in another man's shoes?

 

 

 

So why should any of this matter of BSA religious discrimination matter to you? Well, it should for several reasons, assuming that you are actually dedicated to Scouting (ie, not all volunteers register because of their support for Scouting and I'm just just talking about Mormons being drafted).

 

To start with, as the organization responsible for providing Scouting to US youth, BSA should at least be setting the example and leading by example by living by the principles of Scouting, rather than willfully violating those principles, most fundamentally Scout's Honor. In so refusing, BSA is setting the wrong example and sending the wrong message and public support for Scouting has suffered for it.

 

For example, as positive a face as I tried to put on everything, my son still could see what BSA was doing to his father and to others like the Randalls and he could plainly see how wrong their were. He's about to turn 32. When he returned home for Xmas from out-of-state university and I was driving him and a friend of his home from the airport with a minor detour so he could get a Del Taco burrito (not available in ND). As we drove past the BSA council office, he pointed it out to his friend and described it as the most evil place in the county. And the number of people who think that of BSA is growing with every dishonorable act by BSA.

 

Oh, you may think that this is a rare problem that hardly ever happens, but that is because you only hear what BSA tells you (which will be nothing) or what appears in the local news, which will only show up if somebody tries to fight their expulsion. But the numbers of children and adults subjected to BSA religious discrimination is quite large. Eagle Scout Steve Cozzo who saw the same hypocrisy in BSA that I've been describing founded Scouting for All (http://www.scoutingforall.org/). He reported receiving hundreds of phone call every year from scouts who had been expelled, about 60% for being gay and 40% for being atheists. It is not a minor problem.

 

BSA has wasted millions of dollars in court battles that it created itself and very easily could have settled out of court simply by talking with its victims. The results of those court cases, while finding that the laws cited did not apply to a private organization like BSA, did also find that BSA discriminates. And it became quite clear to the public following the news that BSA discriminates, as it also became clear to BSA's sponsors and donors who have very definite anti-discrimination policies. This has resulted in many of them dropping their support for BSA, which impacts BSA's budget which should impact their ability to promote Scouting in the USA (disregarding what's diverted to their self-inflicted legal costs and the CSE's really huge compensation package). I'm not sure, but in the reports of the recent decision to include gay youth I recall reading that BSA's main motivation in even considering the matter was because of its ever-growing loss of sponsors.

 

Scouting is also losing chartering organizations and hence units, because of those former COs' own anti-discrimination policies. The US military used to be a big supporter of Scout units, but they are being ordered to not sponsor any units because of BSA discrimination. And a number of public schools are no longer allowing BSA access to their students because of BSA's claim of being a secret religious organization (a legalistic lie they started using in the 1990's court cases, but which is coming back to bite them). This much further reduces the availability of Scouting to US youth, particularly the children of military families living overseas.

 

There's also the problem of the continuing loss of membership, which in turn concerns BSA because the donations it receives are tied to the number of youth that they are serving. Even though they have opened up programs to a wider range of members (eg, Tiger Cubs) and even though that segment of the population is still growing, membership is still shrinking. http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/bsa_membership.html examines the numbers and finds that for the year ending December 31, 2012, BSA has lost over 643,566 registered Cub Scouts since 1998. Total youth membership in BSA's traditional programs has declined by approximately 27% (965,244 members), since 1997! The author of that page points to the fact that BSA is catering to the prejudices of older generations while the younger generation, the parents of boys of Scouting age, are largely repulsed by BSA's virulent discriminatory policies. Another reason that the parents of boys of Scouting age are rejecting BSA is because so many of them have friends and family who are gay or non-theists, so they know that there is nothing wrong with such people and that there is no real reason for them to be discriminated against. And the number of non-believers is steadily growing, fueled in part by the children of fundamentalist/evangelical/conservative Christians who had been raised in the faith and are leaving it -- no, running from it -- in droves, the numbers ranging from 60% to 80% who leave religion altogether by early adulthood. While that last one is a problem for the churches which they have been doing their best to ignore, it also increases exposure to BSA religious discrimination and further erosion of public support for BSA and for Scouting.

 

BSA's sole purpose, its sole reason for even existing, is to provide Scouting to US youth. It is instead endangering Scouting in the USA. How could anyone who actually believes in Scouting possibly support what BSA is doing to it?

 

"Even though they have opened up programs to a wider range of members (eg, Tiger Cubs) and even though that segment of the population is still growing, membership is still shrinking."

 

Scouts Canada is also experiencing a membership decline despite being open and inclusive. So I'm not sure that one can conclude that the BSA's membership decline is because of BSA discrimination. (I don't think one can conclude anything in the other direction either, by the way -- Scouts Canada has lost 50% of its membership since 1998, but it had been declining for several years before that.)

[skeptic]

Maybe the loss in membership is very simple. Our society no longer holds things like honesty, truth, real altruistic actions or thoughts, or other more traditional moral ideas as important. The ego -centrism of so much of our population and the mocking attitude towards idealism is reflected in the sneering comments such as "he such a boy scout". That in itself is reflective of the problem. That is not to say that some people, maybe even a majority, still respect these things; but they tend to no longer feel as comfortable expressing it a lot of the time, due to the tendency for so many people to make light of them. Just an observation of an old guy.

[sailingpj]

Maybe the loss in membership is very simple. Our society no longer holds things like honesty, truth, real altruistic actions or thoughts, or other more traditional moral ideas as important. The ego -centrism of so much of our population and the mocking attitude towards idealism is reflected in the sneering comments such as "he such a boy scout". That in itself is reflective of the problem. That is not to say that some people, maybe even a majority, still respect these things; but they tend to no longer feel as comfortable expressing it a lot of the time, due to the tendency for so many people to make light of them. Just an observation of an old guy.

I think that could be part of it, but It probably has more to do with all the other options that people have of things to do now. I am ti young to know what it was like way back when, but I can tell you now that there are a ton of things to do and many of them are much more exciting than scouting.

[Khaliela]

Khaliela, my guess is that you didn't run into an official policy from National (though I have heard stories that there are people there who are actively hostile to neo-pagens), but into a group of bigoted volunteers. You should appeal it up the chain, even if it's only to get it on record.

 

Also, which council was this, and how long ago?

Scouter 99:

You can be a member of BSA if you are an American Citizen or live in the United States.

You cam be a member of Scouts Canada if you are a Canadian Citizen or live in Canada.

You can not be a Member of Scouts Canada if you are not a Canadian citizen and DO NOT live in Canada.

[sailingpj]

DW, if you cuss. You secure my contentment at National's dismissal of your claims.

 

For the other folks that may be in your predicament. I'm just a guy in the trenches.

 

Just thinking about the depiction of events:

 

.... At one point, the BSA attorney asked me about "God". ... I said that I was confused by his question and I needed to know the official BSA definition of "God" that he was applying, .... I saw the plaintiff attorneys wake up just then, though sadly too late. I also saw the BSA defendent attorney back-pedal furiously to get himself out of that quagmire ....

 

Again ...

 

He said, "God is whatever you say it is." So, knowing something about some non-theistic religious traditions, I offered an idea. "No, that's not it. But God is whatever you say it is." So I offered another well-considered idea and he again responded with, "No, that's not it either. But God is whatever you say it is." After a few more iterations of this nonsense, I stated, "Well, obviously my own ideas are 'God' are not the same as yours." at which point he terminated the conversation, obviously satisfied that he had gotten what he had wanted.

 

I gotta, say. It sounds like asking a kangaroo, "Can you do something about this kick-me sign?" There is nothing but pain in that line of inquiry.

 

Here's what I've garnered from what little BSA training I've had. Their definition DOES NOT MATTER. An attempt to lead a plaintiff to leverage a relativistic-argument DOES NOT MATTER. What matters is if when asked, one can say they are living a life answerable to God. The asker may not understand the breadth of that as well as the person being asked does -- or maybe it's the other way around. But, the choice of that word allows for that kind of latitude. At least what I've been taught through BSA's instruction on the matter, is that a person's willingness to say they are doing that is all I need to know. Then again, all that was in the context of taking care of youth -- not in the context of selecting adult leaders.

 

I don't think the folks who would take action to reject an adult leader are on this forum, so a straight answer as to how things are being done now (or iff there is any method to the madness) is not forthcoming. Although Khaleila's testimony indicates that at least at the council or area levels, there are lines drawn in the sand.

DW' date=' if you cuss. You secure my contentment at National's dismissal of your claims.[/quote']

 

Are you saying that people who swear should not be leaders in scouts?

[AZMike]

I'm always amazed at the mean spirited abuse others inflict on others by throwing around the word discrimination. It's not about clearly communicating. It's hate speech. BSA has always had a faith component.

 

Now we can debate if BSA should change that, but it's not discrimination any more than my neighbor discriminating against me when he doesn't want me entering his house without permission.

 

Personally, I think BSA should leave membership to the charter orgs because it's the only way to avoid the ugly interactions of people we've seen flood these threads for years.

Merlyn, you wrote, "Once you start bringing in arbitrary actions that gods want, even killing other people (that god wants you to kill) magically becomes an ethical act. This doesn't mean I'm going to consider it ethical." As best I can recall, none of the ethical actions that believers can do that unbelievers can't (which I describe) included killing those whom God has commanded us to kill, nor are they arbitrary. By the same token, however, an atheist can argue for the murder of the unborn, the murder of the aged, or the murder of the deformed using the cloak of, say, Utilitarianism or the Dictatorship of the Proletariate or Improving the Human Breeding Stock or what have you, if there is no objective system of value that isn't, at base level, simply a cultural or personal aesthetic choice. Now THAT'S arbitrary.

 

That's one of the big problems with atheist-based "morality" and "ethics," Merlyn.

 

Moosetracker also has some problems relating to her idea that we do moral acts such as described because "God likes it" but it's also "Self-Interest." As I said, one could be wrong in one's premises and still be committing an ethical act in many circumstances. None of the things I describe harm anyone and would tend to promote the well being of those outside myself. That seems to be a workable definition of "moral" or "ethical" by anyone's description, I don't think anyone would argue that one must be correct in all one's beliefs to be "moral" or "ethical." I disagree with much of the theology of the Salvation Army denomination, but would be unable to say that their daily actions, which flow from those ideas, are not both moral and ethical.

 

You also seemed not to have read the post before you formed a snap opinion, MT - "I also loved how you worded it.. "Tithing to the evangelical fund for one's religion."... Hmm.. so giving to LDS if you are of that religion doesn't count, nor a Jewish temple? If you are atheist and give to an orphanage or to the community soup kitchen, that doesn't count??.It is you AZMike who try to move the goal post into your narrow definition."

 

Clearly, I noted that atheists CAN act morally, and the reason why is that the that the relative correctness of one's starting beliefs has little to no impact on the morality of one's actions, if the action is consistent with our (objective, transcendent) view of morality - which is why an atheist's actions can still be moral even if he or she denies the objective, transcendent nature of morality (Huh!...So that could lead us to believe that, um, ethics are objective and not subjective....and that would mean that Hitchens', or Merlyn's, or Moosetracker's subjective parameters of morality are not applicable here, and that Sam Harris is full of hooey.) To continue the example, I may disagree with the Salvation Army's theology, but even if I am correct, it is a moral act for me to drop some spare change in their collection bucket outside Target. Would it be moral for me to contribute to a fund for, say, a Jewish temple? Sure. They are more right than wrong, in my view.

 

Obviously, not ALL actions are moral if the starting premises are wrong, or even right - deciding that one must massacre the Vendeans in pursuit of the atheist goals of the French Revolution, or the massacre of the Christeros in pursuit of the atheist goals of the Mexican Revolution, or the genocide of the Kulaks in pursuit of the atheist goals of Communism, some actions are clearly wrong whatever the rationale for them - but this is more evidence that a Christian view of morality is most likely to be correct.

 

So on the contrary, Moosetracker - my views are broad and expansive and quite a lovely thing to behold. My goalposts are wide, but remain firmly and objectively fixed.

[NJCubScouter]

AZMike says:

 

"Would it be moral for me to contribute to a fund for, say, a Jewish temple? Sure. They are more right than wrong, in my view."

 

Ha. Well, I suppose, relatively speaking, especially against the long backdrop of history, that counts as a "positive review."

[Jeffrey H]

As long as don't declare you are an outright "atheist", you can pretty much declare anything you want about what you believe about "duty to God" in the oath and be a BSA member. Even an "agnostic" might not have a problem because he can simply declare what "duty to God" and "Reverence" means to him and that will pass for many units.

 

At the inception of the BSA in 1910, it was commonly understood what was meant by "God" in the context of the Judeo-Christian belief of a Supreme Being. Many Scouters, like myself, still hold to this ancient belief. The Declaration of Relgious Principle has been with the BSA from the beginning and can be found in the first edition of the Boy Scout Handbook (Handbook for Boys - 1911, Ch. VI-Chivarly, p. 250). Nothing new.

 

 

 

Which part is not true? The BSA is not Christian because it does not have a Christian confession of faith, nor any confession of faith. The only thing that could considered faith-oriented is the "duty to God" component of the Scout Oath.