The Future of the BSA?

[Kahuna]

The Declaration of Religious Principle is: "The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life.

Only persons willing to subscribe to these precepts from the Declaration of Religious Principle and to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of leadership."

 

So, without getting into rights and wrongs, it's very clear that if you can't support "an obligation to God" you can't be a member. Without doubt, people have expelled over silly BS, but those are the rules.

 

[Rick_in_CA]

The Declaration of Religious Principle is: "The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life.

Only persons willing to subscribe to these precepts from the Declaration of Religious Principle and to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of leadership."

 

So, without getting into rights and wrongs, it's very clear that if you can't support "an obligation to God" you can't be a member. Without doubt, people have expelled over silly BS, but those are the rules.

Incorrect, that is not the DRP, but an excerpt from it. The complete DRP can be found in the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America, and have been reprinted on various websites (I got this from http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/bsa-drp.html). The DRP reads:

 

The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizenship without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise the member declares, "On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law." The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members. No matter what the religious faith of the members may be, this fundamental need of the members should be kept before them. The Boy Scouts of America, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and the organization with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life.

 

ACTIVITIES. The activities of the members of the Boy Scouts of America shall be carried on under conditions which show respect to the convictions of others in matters of custom and religion, as required by the twelfth point of the Scout Law, reading, "Reverent. A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others."

 

FREEDOM. In no case where a unit is connected with a church or other distinctively religious organization shall members of other denomination or faith be required, because of their membership in the unit, to take part in or observe a religious ceremony distinctly unique to that organization or church.

 

LEADERS. Only persons willing to subscribe to these declarations of principles shall be entitle to certificates of leadership in carrying out the Scouting program.

[skeptic]

But, if someone chooses to directly challenge this as a member, they should be allowed to continue in membership because it is their right to force their beliefs on the others and demand it be change to accommodate them. Why? Because they say so. Exactly where does it say that ANYONE is REQUIRED to join the BSA or any other group for that matter?

 

The real sad thing with all of this is that the problems are brought on by adults in almost all the public cases. Few children have actually settled on personal faith or spiritual beliefs. When they claim atheism, it is usually a reiteration of a parent of other adult authority figure. In the case of the Randall twins, their father made sure that "his" being a lawyer was well noted and that HE was fighting for his kids right to echo his own beliefs. I have always found it amusing that when one reporter actually got a statement from one of the boys, asking about explaining natural phenomena and so, the boy said it was "mother nature" that made it. Again, it is the adults that cause the problems for the most part. What is wrong with simply letting others live their lives without your interference, and others doing the same?

[DWise1]

I am so hoping that this forum software accepts the mark-up tags in use by others.

 

So' date=' without getting into rights and wrongs, it's very clear that if you can't support "an obligation to God" you can't be a member. Without doubt, people have expelled over silly BS, but those are the rules.[/quote']

Yes, the rules are the rules. But precisely are the rules?

 

What exactly is "an obligation to God"? What is the officially published BSA definition and interpretation of that term? Officially published BSA policy is quite clear on that point and it does not agree with what you are implying here. I read that you are implying that "God" must refer to YHWH, AKA "the God of the Bible". But how does that square with BSA's explicit statement in the DRP?: "it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training." How can any policy that requires belief in YHWH also simultaneously be "absolutely nonsectarian"? That is a direct contradiction which would reduce the DRP to meaningless word salad. While you may wish to see the DRP as devoid of any real meanng, I take the opposite position, based squarely on officially published BSA policy which all the supporters of BSA religious discrimination choose to ignore.

 

DRP:

..., but {BSA} is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life.

That is what BSA demands, not allegiance to a specific god in violation of its being "absolutely nonsectarian".

 

Rules and Regulations, ARTICLE IX. PRINCIPLES, POLICIES, AND DEFINITIONS, SECTION I:

The Scout Law

A Scout is: ...

Reverent. A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in

his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.

But what is the officially published BSA policy on the definition and interpretation of "God"? More pertinent, the emphasis is on being faithful in one's religious duties and respecting the beliefs of others (meaning that BSA professionals fail in this point of the Scout Law).

 

Advancement Guidelines, early 1990's, page 5, RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES:

The Boy Scouts of America has a definite statement on religious principles. The following interpretative statement may help clarify some of the points. The Boy Scouts of America:

 

1 . Does not define what constitutes belief in God or the practice of religion.

 

2. Does not require membership in a religious organization or association for enrollment in the movement but does prefer, and strongly encourages, membership and participation in the religious programs and activities of a church synagogue, or other religious association.

 

...

 

4. If a boy says he is a member of a religious body, the standards by which he should be evaluated are those of that group. This is why an advancement committee usually requests a reference from his religious leader to indicate whether he has lived up to their expectations.

 

Throughout life, Scouts are associated with people of different faiths. Scouts believe in religious freedom, respecting others whose religion may differ from theirs. Scouting believes in the right of all to worship God in their own way.

Even though "God" is not defined nor may it be. Please note that officially BSA does not and cannot determine whether a member performs his "Duty to God". My minister wrote to BSA twice explicitly informing them that I do indeed perform my "Duty to God" in accordance with our religion, Unitarian-Universalism. Not only did BSA deliberately ignore him both times, but they also deliberately ignored those same letters every time I included them in my repeated requests for information on my review, which dragged on for several years. BSA yet again in flagrant violation of its own rules and policies.

 

POSITION STATEMENT REAFFIRMATION OF THE POSITION OF THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA ON "DUTY TO GOD", 10 October 1985:

While not intending to define what constitutes belief in God, the Boy Scouts of America is proud to reaffirm the Scout Oath and its declaration of "Duty to God."

 

Reaffirmation of the Position of the Boy Scouts of America on Duty to God, 12 June 1991:

While not intending to define what constitutes belief in God, the Boy Scouts of America is proud to reaffirm the Scout Oath and its declaration of duty to God.

 

. . .

 

Virtually every religion is represented in Scouting, and the BSA does not define or interpret

God. That is the role of the Scout's family and religious advisers.

 

Relationships Division deals with BSA's relationships with religious organizations. The director in charge of Relationships Division is in a unique position to think long and hard about officially published BSA religious policy and its ramifications.

 

Letter from William McCleery III, BSA National Director, Relationships Division, 26 August 1985:

It is NOT our POLICY to require a belief in a 'supreme being' in order to be a member of the Boy Scouts of America, adult or youth. We do require adherence to the 'declaration of religious principles' for adults and adherence to the Scout Oath and Law for youth. Interpretation and definition of 'duty to God' is not our business! It is the business of parents and religious leaders."

 

Letter from Donald L. Townsend, BSA National Director, Relationships Division, 21 December 1994:

Scouting is not a religion but Duty to God is a basic tenet of the Scout Oath and Law. Virtually every religion is represented in the membership of Scouting and therefore the Boy Scouts of America does not attempt to define or interpret God. The Boy Scouts of America does not require you to belong to a specific church, temple or synagogue nor does it require a belief in a supreme being. Any Scout that can repeat the Scout Oath and Law in good conscience is welcome to participate.

Now, both letters explicitly state that "belief in a Supreme Being" is not required. Mark that well! But they were written at two different times under two different circumstances. In 1985, a newly adopted wording, "belief in a Supreme Being", which CSE Ben Love stated was meant to be more inclusive, instead caused a Unitarian Life Scout candidate, Paul Trout, to be expelled. After hundreds of letters of protest (mark that number very well!), BSA relented and reinstated Paul Trout as well as meeting personally with the head of his church, Unitarian-Universalist Association (UUA) President Dr. Rev. William F. Schulz in which BSA CSE Ben Love made personal assurances which included the dropping of that "belief in a Supreme Being" wording as a "mistake". CSE Ben Love then circa 1991 unilaterally broke all those personal assurances (Scout Honor, anyone?) and reinstated that "mistake" as the sole reason for expelling members by the hundreds, all while deliberately ignoring literally thousands of letters of protest (do you remember that I asked you mark those 1985 numbers well?).

 

In the case of Townsend's 1994 letter, that was at a time when BSA was flagrantly violating its own officially published religious policies as it was flagrantly exercising a frensy of religious discrimination. I see Townsend's position as one of being in a position where his duty was to read and to research into officially published BSA religious policy and to think about it. James Randall, the father of the Randall twins (Randall v. Orange County Council, which when it broke in the local newspapers circa 1991 was my first indication that BSA was violating its own rules and policies; it was also undoubtedly the appeals on this case and the Curran case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curran_v._Mount_Diablo_Council_of_the_Boy_Scouts_of_America) that delayed my own review for so many years), obtained a copy of the Townsend letter and passed a copy on to me. When I showed it to my DE, his immediate response was to exclaim, "But that's what you've been saying all along!" Then I included it in my packet requesting information on my review. A few months later, I heard that Townsend had been bumped down from National back to a local council. I see his situation as one where he could see that truth and he dared to speak it, so the powers that be who are so embroiled in their own lies and deception had to remove him.

 

BTW, BSA unilaterally and arbitrarily kicked out the Unitarian-Universalist Association. It seems that they could no longer deal with being constantly reminded that they are flagrantly violating their own rules.

 

I have to admit that I have not had the time to assemble a very rigourous set of direct quotations from officially published BSA religious policies, especially since most of my materials are packed away, but the tone should be inescapable even to the most ardant advocates of BSA religious discrimination (though I am notorious for underestimating the power of the blinders that religious bigots can don). In brief summary, as I wrote in 1996 (https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/rec.scouting/adi4Dl5TlZY):

1. BSA does not define or interpret "God", "belief in God", "duty to God", nor the practice of religion, leaving all that instead to each member's family, religious leaders, and religious tradition.

 

2. BSA strongly encourages, but does not require, membership in a religious association.

 

3. BSA does officially recognize and accept that some members will choose to practice religion according to the dictates of their own personal convictions and will make every effort to determine the true nature of those beliefs as they apply to advancement in Scouting.

 

4. Every member shall be judged by the standards of his OWN religion, not another.

 

5. BSA does not judge whether a member performs his "duty to God," but rather only that member's religious leaders can make such a determination.

 

6. A member's specific religious beliefs are not the business of BSA; rather they are the business of the member's religious leaders.

So, Kahuna, as you appear to wish to imply that belief in YHWH is required of Scouts and of Scouters, officially published BSA religious policies say the exact opposite!

 

You are, I trust, aware of the World Organization of the Scouting Movement (WOSM). As I understand, BSA is supposed to adhere to their standards. Here is what they have to say about "Duty to God" (What does Scouting mean by Duty to God? : Scouting embraces diverse spiritual expression, theistic or not, http://scoutdocs.ca/Documents/Duty_to_God.php, by Scouter Liam Morland, 1996):

One of Scouting’s three Principles is titled "Duty to God." This statement has been interpreted in many different ways, some of which have lead to religious discrimination, a violation of Scouting’s fundamentals. What does Duty to God really mean to Scouting? Duty to God is about the development of the spiritual values of life and is not a statement about any required beliefs about the material world. This essay is based on the World Organization of the Scout Movement’s (WOSM) document Fundamental Principles which contains "the only authoritative statement agreed upon by more than one hundred member organizations of WOSM" (WOSM 1992:1). All quotations in this essay are from that document.

 

...

 

Let us now look at the definition of Duty to God. Duty to God is defined as "Adherence to spiritual principles, loyalty to the religion that expresses them, and acceptance of the duties resulting therefrom" (ibid:5). Fundamental Principles goes on to say: "It should be noted that, by contrast to the title, the body of the text does not use the word 'God'.... The whole educational approach of the Movement consists in helping young people transcend the material world and go in search of the spiritual values of life" (ibid). First, Scouting wants people to adhere to spiritual principles, such as valuing emotions and seeing life as having meaning.

 

Second, Scouting wants people to be loyal to the religion that expresses their spiritual principles. A religion is a set of beliefs and practises, not necessarily an organization. Some Scouts will be called to join a formal religious organization, others will express their spirituality outside of such institutions. In either case, Scouting believes that people should be loyal to their choice, recognizing that spiritual development would be impaired if a person were constantly changing their religion.

 

Third, Scouting wants people to accept the duties resulting from their spiritual principles, to be active doers, not just passive believers.

 

What does Duty to God mean? "[Duty to God] refers to a person's relationship with the spiritual values of life" (ibid) and not to certain beliefs about the material world. The material elements of religions are not important to Scouting. Just as Scouting does not care whether or not one believes in gravity, it does not care whether or not one believes that a god created the universe, in the material sense. Thus, atheists and agnostics are welcome in Scouting as both youth members and Scouters. Excluding such people violates the definition of the Scout Movement which states that Scouting is "open to all without distinction of origin, race, or creed..." (ibid:2). Of course, everyone in Scouting must be open to continual spiritual development.

I added the emphasis in that last paragraph, but the actual wording remains unchanged, as you yourself can attest to by reading the article for yourself. Unlike the proponents of BSA religious bigotry, I have nothing to hide.

 

So then, in light of what BSA's actual officially published religious policies say, what do you have to say?

[DWise1]

But, if someone chooses to directly challenge this as a member, they should be allowed to continue in membership because it is their right to force their beliefs on the others and demand it be change to accommodate them. Why? Because they say so. Exactly where does it say that ANYONE is REQUIRED to join the BSA or any other group for that matter?

 

The real sad thing with all of this is that the problems are brought on by adults in almost all the public cases. Few children have actually settled on personal faith or spiritual beliefs. When they claim atheism, it is usually a reiteration of a parent of other adult authority figure. In the case of the Randall twins, their father made sure that "his" being a lawyer was well noted and that HE was fighting for his kids right to echo his own beliefs. I have always found it amusing that when one reporter actually got a statement from one of the boys, asking about explaining natural phenomena and so, the boy said it was "mother nature" that made it. Again, it is the adults that cause the problems for the most part. What is wrong with simply letting others live their lives without your interference, and others doing the same?

I knew the family personally in the 1990's. The breaking of the news of their problem was my first indication that there even was a problem. When they were able to get a stay from the courts that allowed them to continue to participate, a Cub Scout in our pack attending a different school that the CO but the same as the one that the Randalls were attending, invited them to join our pack, whereupon we welcomed them -- at the time, the Council was spreading a fear campaign among the volunteers that "the Randalls are coming!!!!!!". They were excellent Cub Scouts and, when they advanced on to Boy Scouts, their Scoutmaster praised them as exemplary Boy Scouts, saying that he wished that all his boys were like them.

 

Here is what happened. On their own, the boys questioned the "Duty to God" wording. A number of wishy-washy compromises were proposed to them (eg, "read 'God' as 'good'."), but they still dare to question the wording. The very first indication that their parents had of any problem brewing was a rather confused phone call from a den leader who never actually broached the subject but intimated that there was trouble brewing. The second indication to the parent of any problem was a letter of expulsion from the Orange County Council. If not for that confusing phone call, that letter of expulsion would have been the very first indication to the parents of any kind of a problem. So how, then, could you assume that it was all the parents' doing?

 

BTW, their father, Jim Randall, tried his best to resolve the problem at the lowest level possible. It was BSA who refused to allow any kind of resolution. For that matter, it was Orange County Council's SE, Kent Gibbs, who directly instructed Jim Randall to file a lawsuit against them. Which he did and won. Then BSA appealed the decision, but during that time the court granted a stay that allowed the boys to continue to participate in Scouting. They both completed all their requirements, with distinction, for Eagle. So as their Eagle Court loomed, BSA was able to pressure Californian state officials to intervene and to push their appeal forward to the California Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court did find that BSA does indeed discriminate on religious grounds, but it is not subject to the Unruh Act, which is what the lawsuit was based on (remember, we have no justice system, but only a legal system). And since BSA has been found to discriminate, they are losing the support of former donors and sponsors with anti-discrimination policies of their own.

 

No, the only "adults" who are causing the problems are the BSA professionals. The mistake made by their original den/pack leaders was to refer the matter up the line to BSA professionals. Every single Scouting volunteer must make it his primary mission and imperative to keep BSA professionals as far away from his unit and from his people as is at all possible.

 

What is wrong with simply letting others live their lives without your interference, and others doing the same?

Nothing. But that is not the way of BSA professionals. Scouting is the solution; BSA is the problem.

[DWise1]

It's very simple. The DEs either take names from the phone book or leave formerly registered boys and units on the books. They have to pay the fees themselves. It was easy enough back when I was a DE in the 70s and must be even easier now with computer inputs. As someone said' date=' as long as professional Scouters are promoted and paid based on numbers there will be fudging. Not by all, but by some.[/quote']

I'm not actually trying to refute your statements, but rather am using them as a springboard for my own statements on this subject.

 

BSA is hampered by the effects of its own registration methods. Please let me present an alternative method that I am intimately experienced with.

 

I am a retired veteran with 35 years of military service, the last 29 of them in the Navy Reserve. During the last decade of my service, I was in the Voluntary Training Unit (VTU), a catch-all unit of members without a pay billet who drill voluntarily without pay. In that decade in the VTU, I served most of the time as the XO (Executive Officer, concerned with the daily administrative paperwork; "Number One" to you Star Trek:TNG fans) as well as a few years as the CO (Commanding Officer) of the unit, so I have had a lot of exposure to the administrative requirements and practices of the Navy Reserve. I can only assume that the administrative practices and requirements of the reserve forces of the other branches are very similar if not the same as ours.

 

Official Navy Statement at the start of each Nonresident Training Course (NTC):

Although the words “he,†“him,†and “his†are used sparingly in this course to enhance communication, they are not intended to be gender driven or to affront or discriminate against anyone.

 

All members of the reserve forces enlist for a period of time, just as every Scout and Scouter registers for a period of time, namely until the next rechartering. The Navy Reserve, like BSA, has membership requirements, though the Navy's requirements are more stringent. In particular, participation is a major requirement in the reserves. We take muster at the start of each and every drill (the period of time that constitutes one unit of attendance and service). We require a particular percentage drill attendance for each anniversary year (a 12-month period which starts based on the member's initial or last enlistment). If the member does not meet that particular participation requirement (95%, as I recall, but as a retiree my memory is admittedly fading), then he is subject to administrative separation (AKA "being ADSEP'd"). Additionally, each member's monthly pay depends directly on his having participated in scheduled or re-scheduled or equivalent drills.

 

The point I am making here is that there is of necessity a system set up in the military reserve to track and document each individual member's participation in the reserve program. It is not just that there is a system in place to ADSEP a member for unsatisfactory participation, but rather that there is even a system in place for tracking individual members' participation.

 

BSA doesn't have anything like that, because it has no requirements for tracking individual participation. My question here is to ask how reasonable it is to implement one.

 

Here is what one of our DEs had described to me -- mind you, this was circa 1990 when we still rechartered on BSA's birthday in Februrary. The biggest registration numbers were in Cub Scouting, which always occurred in September, at the start of the new school year. Even though a large number of those original registrants dropped out within a month or two, they continued to be carried on the books until the rechartering in February. My DE showed me the graph of membership. It hit a low in February, after which it climbed steadily (with no way to track those who had dropped out, how else could it climb?) until September when it took a very steep climb, continued to climb steadily until February, when it plummetted and then started to steadly climb again.

 

My point is that that is all that BSA has to work with. They can track new registrations, but they cannot track any members who drop out until time for rechartering comes around. The only way I can see for BSA to properly track active membership on a month-by-month basis would be for it to adopt a similar administrative model as the military reserve forces, but that would require monthly/daily reports of attendence and participation from all units in the field. Personally, I don't see that happening the BSA.

 

Yes, in the meantime BSA districts and councils will continue to take advantage of the system in place. But I personally don't see much of any alternative.

 

[DWise1]

The clause "if BSA stopped discriminating" implies that both the promise is changed (or alternate promises are available) and that atheists are allowed' date=' because both would need to change in order for the BSA to stop discriminating.[/quote']

I respectfully disagree.

 

The actual meaning of the promise is made abundantly clear by the OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES (sorry, I don't know how to make this editor italicize or embolden text). The actual wording of the promise does not need to be changed SO LONG AS OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES ARE ENFORCED AND ARE MADE KNOWN TO ALL PARTIES INVOLVED.

 

The problem is that officially published BSA policies are not being enforced, but rather BSA itself is wantonly violating those officially published policies.

 

In 1991, I could not find any OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES that required the exclusion of any atheist, especially of an atheist who wholeheartedly subscribed to the Scout Oath, the Scout Law, the Declaration of Religious Principles, the RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES of the Advancement Guidelines, and the 1991 Reaffirmation of the Position of the Boy Scouts of America on Duty to God, INTERPRETED AS PER OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES. Since so far nobody here has indicated that there has been any significant change in OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICY, I can only conclude that there is still nothing in OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES that could possibly require the exclusion of an atheist.

 

Of course, we have some members here, such as qwazse, who would wish to keep all possibly affected members ignorant of OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICY, but their own personal agendae should be considered null and void in the Light of Scouting.

 

I reiterate: in 23 years, I have consistently failed to find anything in OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES that would require the exclusion of atheists. I have even testified in FEDERAL COURT to that effect. Can anybody at all please offer any reasonable reason why an atheist should be excluded from BSA membership?

Merlyn_LeRoy, I am not saying nor would I ever say that anything would "magically turn discrimination into not-discrimination." Nor does any BSA religious requirement actually require "members to make a promise to a god". Of course, by "god" I am referring to a literal suprenatural being, which officially published BSA policy does in fact not require.

 

All I am saying is that officially published BSA religious policy makes all of BSA's acts of religious discrimination NULL, since they have no legitimate basis for that discrimination.

 

I would indeed agree that the use of that unfortunate word, "God", is a source of great confusion. In standard English, "God" refers to one very particular god, AKA YHWH, though the Jews are bound to not refer to their god's actual name (it is a variant of "I am that I am", but then that could invoke the Popeye corollary which extremely few would dare invoke for very good reason).

 

In public opinion polls of which the public's view of the trustworthiness of various religious groups are gauged, Mormons, Muslims, and atheists always rank at the bottom. Though since 9/11, Muslims have replaced atheists are the bottom.

 

Interresttingly, the politics of BSA religious discrimination seems to have followed an apparent take-over of the movement by the Mormons in the 1980's. Admittedly, I'm playing on Penn and Teller's Bullshit! episode on TV, but Scouters' problems with Mormon Scouting are still a very real part of Scouters' lives. In District camping events, what do the Mormon units do? They pull out on Saturday night in order to be in church on Sunday morning. How do Mormons conduct their programs? All male youth are registered with BSA up to the age of 18, but in reality they are expected to "Eagle out" by age 14, whereupon they enter into Mormon youth sports programs. And in all the religious discrimination lawsuits, it was the Mormons who repeatedly threatened to completely withdraw their support of BSA should even one atheist ever be allowed to set foot within a single BSA meeting.

 

My second professional job was at Hughes Aircraft. I vividly remember a co-worker who had married a Mormon woman. He had two daughters, and yet he had been drafted by the Church to be Cubmaster. I remember him railing against the very idea, but that is how the Mormons operate. Within BSA confines, I heard it expressed as, "What is the least that I can do? And I do mean the very least."

 

I very much believe in Scouting and its values. I have been an atheist for at least half a century and I believe in Scouting and its values and even the officially published policies of BSA.

 

I realize that there is a common misconception that morality depends upon being personably responsible to an actual supernatural being, AKA a "god". That is an outright untruth. Here is my own personal religious testimony. I was baptized around age 10 or 11. About a year later, I decided that I needed to get serious about this religion business. So I thought about what I was supposed to believe. I decided that I was supposed to believe the Bible, so I started to read it. Now, mind you, I am fairly sure now that my church did not require belief in the literal truth of the Bible, but I naïvely assumed that it did. So upon realizing that I simply could not believe what I was reading in the Bible, I realized that I should leave. At that point, I became an atheist.

 

Well, by that time, I was already very well aware at the incursions upon the Wall of Separation (which it turns out precedes the First Amendment, though as "The Great Barrier that defends the rights of the people"). I remember having a very serious sit-down with myself. I knew that I could not base morality upon the Bible, so what was I supposed to base it on? I thought long and hard and came to a decision. The Scout Oath and the Scout Law. I could see no other precept to base my morality upon. Interestingly, many years later, BSA provided this in its own publication for Scouters: Scouting, March-April 1991, page 12, quoted from Lord Baden-Powell:

The Scout Law is our binding disciplinary force. The boy is not governed by don't, but led on by do. The Scout Law is devised as a guide

to his actions rather than as repressive of his faults."

As a result, I always taught the Scout Oath and Law to our Webelos not as an obligation, but rather as a gift from Scouting, a way to live a good life. A way that I have always sought to live my life.

[skeptic]

But, if someone chooses to directly challenge this as a member, they should be allowed to continue in membership because it is their right to force their beliefs on the others and demand it be change to accommodate them. Why? Because they say so. Exactly where does it say that ANYONE is REQUIRED to join the BSA or any other group for that matter?

 

The real sad thing with all of this is that the problems are brought on by adults in almost all the public cases. Few children have actually settled on personal faith or spiritual beliefs. When they claim atheism, it is usually a reiteration of a parent of other adult authority figure. In the case of the Randall twins, their father made sure that "his" being a lawyer was well noted and that HE was fighting for his kids right to echo his own beliefs. I have always found it amusing that when one reporter actually got a statement from one of the boys, asking about explaining natural phenomena and so, the boy said it was "mother nature" that made it. Again, it is the adults that cause the problems for the most part. What is wrong with simply letting others live their lives without your interference, and others doing the same?

"On their own, the boys questioned the "Duty to God" wording". Sorry, but I was well informed by local OCC people who knew the whole story as well. No way did two cub scouts at that age question the wording by themselves; their father admitted as such in at least one or two incidences when he stressed that was the "family" belief and what he taught them. I agree that there was an over reaction on the part of the council, but it was made far worse by Mr. Randall insisting on making it into publicity for himself as a lawyer. We all should recognize that most of these cases are caused by people with too much time on their hands, too big of egos, or really low self esteem making them unable to accept others as they are. But there seem to continue to be those that cannot let it go and must continue to mislead or over hype things to their own purposes.

 

It still comes down to the same thing. Scouting has a religious element which is part of its basic foundation, no matter what one might choose to call that element. NO ONE IS REQUIRED TO BE A SCOUT; if a boy wants to be, but his parent cannot accept the program as it is, then it is their fault the boy may be disappointed, not the scouts. It is still a choice, afterall.

[JoeBob]

Am I alone in that I don't care about the future of the BSA? We'll be okay for the next five years, and my son will be done. He is my primary concern.

 

Sure, I d like for him to be able to proudly point to to a venerable organization of which he is an alum; but that horse is gone. BSA has devolved into a prissy politically correct financial enterprise.

How do the BSA pensions compare to the GSUSA pensions?

 

What the country really needs is a BSA type organization with a little more testosterone.

DW!: "BSA needs to ... imposing more specific religious definitions."

 

For example?

(Can you keep it to less that 50 words, so that it'll get read?)

[DWise1]

Am I alone in that I don't care about the future of the BSA? We'll be okay for the next five years, and my son will be done. He is my primary concern.

 

Sure, I d like for him to be able to proudly point to to a venerable organization of which he is an alum; but that horse is gone. BSA has devolved into a prissy politically correct financial enterprise.

How do the BSA pensions compare to the GSUSA pensions?

 

What the country really needs is a BSA type organization with a little more testosterone.

What the frakkin' frik are you talking about?

 

What you "quote" me as saying cannot be found anyway in what I had posted. That makes you a gorm-darned liar!

 

Would you please attempt to clarify just what the frak you might be talking about?

 

[packsaddle]

Am I alone in that I don't care about the future of the BSA? We'll be okay for the next five years, and my son will be done. He is my primary concern.

 

Sure, I d like for him to be able to proudly point to to a venerable organization of which he is an alum; but that horse is gone. BSA has devolved into a prissy politically correct financial enterprise.

How do the BSA pensions compare to the GSUSA pensions?

 

What the country really needs is a BSA type organization with a little more testosterone.

What the frakkin' frik are you talking about?

 

What you "quote" me as saying cannot be found anyway in what I had posted. That makes you a gorm-darned liar!

 

Would you please attempt to clarify just what the frak you might be talking about?

Uuuuh, I don't see the quote. In what part of JoeBob's post did he claim to quote you?

 

As for " Every single Scouting volunteer must make it his primary mission and imperative to keep BSA professionals as far away from his unit and from his people as is at all possible."

 

And it took all of this discussion and strife in order for you to arrive at THAT conclusion? Wow. Seems almost self-evident to me, regardless of the topic.

[DWise1]

Am I alone in that I don't care about the future of the BSA? We'll be okay for the next five years, and my son will be done. He is my primary concern.

 

Sure, I d like for him to be able to proudly point to to a venerable organization of which he is an alum; but that horse is gone. BSA has devolved into a prissy politically correct financial enterprise.

How do the BSA pensions compare to the GSUSA pensions?

 

What the country really needs is a BSA type organization with a little more testosterone.

What the frakkin' frik are you talking about?

 

What you "quote" me as saying cannot be found anyway in what I had posted. That makes you a gorm-darned liar!

 

Would you please attempt to clarify just what the frak you might be talking about?

Where the frak did that come from? What was "quoted" has absolutely nothing to do with what I was responding to! What is wrong with this frakking stupid forum software?

 

And just where did you get that statement from to keep BSA professionals as far away from your unit and your people as possible? Even though that is eminently true.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

The clause "if BSA stopped discriminating" implies that both the promise is changed (or alternate promises are available) and that atheists are allowed' date=' because both would need to change in order for the BSA to stop discriminating.[/quote']

I respectfully disagree.

 

The actual meaning of the promise is made abundantly clear by the OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES (sorry, I don't know how to make this editor italicize or embolden text). The actual wording of the promise does not need to be changed SO LONG AS OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES ARE ENFORCED AND ARE MADE KNOWN TO ALL PARTIES INVOLVED.

 

The problem is that officially published BSA policies are not being enforced, but rather BSA itself is wantonly violating those officially published policies.

 

In 1991, I could not find any OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES that required the exclusion of any atheist, especially of an atheist who wholeheartedly subscribed to the Scout Oath, the Scout Law, the Declaration of Religious Principles, the RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES of the Advancement Guidelines, and the 1991 Reaffirmation of the Position of the Boy Scouts of America on Duty to God, INTERPRETED AS PER OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES. Since so far nobody here has indicated that there has been any significant change in OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICY, I can only conclude that there is still nothing in OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES that could possibly require the exclusion of an atheist.

 

Of course, we have some members here, such as qwazse, who would wish to keep all possibly affected members ignorant of OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICY, but their own personal agendae should be considered null and void in the Light of Scouting.

 

I reiterate: in 23 years, I have consistently failed to find anything in OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES that would require the exclusion of atheists. I have even testified in FEDERAL COURT to that effect. Can anybody at all please offer any reasonable reason why an atheist should be excluded from BSA membership?

Merlyn_LeRoy, I am not saying nor would I ever say that anything would "magically turn discrimination into not-discrimination." Nor does any BSA religious requirement actually require "members to make a promise to a god". Of course, by "god" I am referring to a literal suprenatural being, which officially published BSA policy does in fact not require.

 

But any requirement to make a religious promise, as the BSA currently does (e.g. scout oath, must agree to the DRP for membership) constitutes religious discrimination.

 

In 1991, I could not find any OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES that required the exclusion of any atheist, especially of an atheist who wholeheartedly subscribed to the Scout Oath, the Scout Law, the Declaration of Religious Principles, the RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES of the Advancement Guidelines, and the 1991 Reaffirmation of the Position of the Boy Scouts of America on Duty to God, INTERPRETED AS PER OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES.

 

That doesn't remove the religious discrimination in the above situation; even if the BSA decided that atheists could join, the requirement to recite the scout oath and to agree to the DRP is religious discrimination on its face. It doesn't matter if the BSA decides to allow atheists to join, that's still religious discrimination.

 

The context of my original quote was about public schools as chartering partners; even if the BSA decided to admit atheists, it would still be a constitutional violation if all members were required to agree to the DRP or recite/live by a scout oath that includes "duty to god". It isn't sufficient for the BSA to merely admit atheists to clear all the legal hurdles.

[DWise1]

The clause "if BSA stopped discriminating" implies that both the promise is changed (or alternate promises are available) and that atheists are allowed' date=' because both would need to change in order for the BSA to stop discriminating.[/quote']

I respectfully disagree.

 

The actual meaning of the promise is made abundantly clear by the OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES (sorry, I don't know how to make this editor italicize or embolden text). The actual wording of the promise does not need to be changed SO LONG AS OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES ARE ENFORCED AND ARE MADE KNOWN TO ALL PARTIES INVOLVED.

 

The problem is that officially published BSA policies are not being enforced, but rather BSA itself is wantonly violating those officially published policies.

 

In 1991, I could not find any OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES that required the exclusion of any atheist, especially of an atheist who wholeheartedly subscribed to the Scout Oath, the Scout Law, the Declaration of Religious Principles, the RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES of the Advancement Guidelines, and the 1991 Reaffirmation of the Position of the Boy Scouts of America on Duty to God, INTERPRETED AS PER OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES. Since so far nobody here has indicated that there has been any significant change in OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICY, I can only conclude that there is still nothing in OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES that could possibly require the exclusion of an atheist.

 

Of course, we have some members here, such as qwazse, who would wish to keep all possibly affected members ignorant of OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICY, but their own personal agendae should be considered null and void in the Light of Scouting.

 

I reiterate: in 23 years, I have consistently failed to find anything in OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES that would require the exclusion of atheists. I have even testified in FEDERAL COURT to that effect. Can anybody at all please offer any reasonable reason why an atheist should be excluded from BSA membership?

So just what exactly is "duty to God" supposed to mean. In the prescribed "absolutely nonsectarian" manner?

 

Does it require an actual pledge to an actual supernatural entity? Only if your own religious tradition requires it. If your own religious tradition does not require it, then no!

 

Is the problem that one word, "God"? On the bald face of it, devoid of the rest of the body of officially published BSA religious policies, it would indeed appear as it does, like a direct reference to the Christian god. Because a faithful Muslim would most certainly not use that term and a faithful conservative Jew would also balk at it if not refuse altogether.

 

I've been through this kind of discussion with my friend who is a confirmed audiophile. She doesn't even want to begin to try to listen to something that lacks proper audio. Having read Hermann Hesse's Der Steppenwolf (in the original, of course), I am constantly reminded of the scene in the Magic Theater when Mozart is tuning the wireless to listen to a concert and having to remind Harry Haller that it is the music itself and not how it is presented that is important, Sein vs Schein (existence vs appearance). She is still unconvinced, not having been able to think it through in the original German, so 'ne Schade.

 

Read the actual officially published BSA religious policy. The actual requirement is not allegiance to any particular supernatural entity, but rather to one's own religious tradition regardless of any necessary supernatural entities, if at all. Yes, the bald wording devoid of meaning from officially published BSA religious policy may appear daunting, but once you realize what it is really supposed to mean there should be no problem.

 

Though in the meantime that unfortunate wording also encourages the religious bigots to do their worst.

[Kahuna]

As to the "rules" about duty to God and their enforcement, I think we need to look no further than the letter of the council Scout Executive in South Carolina who resigned over the gay issue. His letter reveals that his Christian beliefs probably drove many of his decisions over the years he was a professional. He would be the type of guy who would find it necessary to kick out Scouts of uncertain beliefs.