The Future of the BSA?

[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?

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

 

It's nonsense, of course. "duty to God" is incompatible with "absolutely nonsectarian".

 

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.

 

You seem to think wordplay can get around a basic constitutional problem; it can't. As long as the BSA has any requirements for members to make a promise or oath to a god or agree to something like the DRP, the rest doesn't matter. It's already outside the limits of what a public school can do, so it still precludes public school BSA charters.

[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?

My handbook is buried away in a box out in the garage, but here is the WOSM definition of "Duty to God" which sounds very much like what I remember the handbook saying (http://scoutdocs.ca/Documents/Duty_to_God.php):

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.

So "Duty to God" is in fact not making an oath to YHWH nor to any other god, unless the individual's religious duties require it. The problem is that the use of that word, "God", causes too many people to misunderstand and to misinterpret "Duty to God" and to even use it as a weapon against others, which is completely and utterly wrong.

 

Could you please explain how this is a constitutional problem? I think a far greater problem was BSA's adoption of a lie that their lawyers told them to use in the lawsuits of the earl 1990's, claiming that BSA is and had always been a secret religious organization. Of course, when that was used against them in school access cases, BSA then tried to claim that they weren't a religious organization and had never been. Check which way the wind's blowing so we can figure out which lie they're going to use next.

[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?

Look, YOU wrote to JoeBob about "What you "quote" me as saying...." It's in your post above this comment. So I looked in JoeBob's post and I didn't see where he quoted you. So I asked you to indicate where he quoted you. If you can't do that, that's ok. Just say so.

 

That statement about keeping BSA professionals away....YOU wrote that.

 

It was in YOUR comment to Skeptic yesterday at 644pm.

[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?

So "Duty to God" is in fact not making an oath to YHWH nor to any other god, unless the individual's religious duties require it.

 

That doesn't matter. Public schools can't run private clubs that require a "duty to god".

 

Could you please explain how this is a constitutional problem?

 

It's a constitutional problem only if public schools become chartering organizations again.

[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.

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?

Hey Packsaddle,

 

Got any good pie?

[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?

Blackberry is peaking just now! Yum!

[Basementdweller]

Up at moms today.......Blueberrys are peaking...hmmmm..

[qwazse]

Up at moms today.......Blueberrys are peaking...hmmmm..

Took some young adults on a couple miles of the Standing Stone Trail last Friday morning. Huckleberries by the bagful at the look-out just north of Throne Room! A hearty rattle let one young man know that he was picking a little to close to one Timber Rattler's sunning spot!

 

A cupful of red raspberries in our garden today.

[Scouter99]

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.

I don't think there's a line from that Point A to B--in the same letter he says that he has never once kicked out a gay scout despite the rule. So, why would we assume that he would kick out an atheist?

[NJCubScouter]

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.

Scouter99, the letter from the departing South Carolina SE is very carefully and cleverly worded, and I think you may be drawing incorrect conclusions from it. In particular I think your words "despite the rule", which he did not use, suggest something that he did not mean. What he said was, "I have never kicked out (or denied) a kid for being gay." He then goes on to (correctly) distinguish between a policy excluding all gay Scouts (which the BSA did not have) and a policy excluding OPENLY gay Scouts (which the BSA DID have, but is now changing.) To me, this suggests two possibilities: One, that he has never encountered an openly gay Scout (that is, a youth member of the BSA) and therefore never had to make the decision to exclude (or not exclude) such a person. I would suspect that this is the case for most SE's in the country. A second possibility is that he HAS excluded an openly gay Scout -- but he does not regard that exclusion as "for being gay", but rather for being OPENLY gay. Either way, the words "despite the rule" would not apply. Then of course, there is a third possibility, that he did encounter an openly gay Scout but decided to defy BSA national, and not enforce the policy. Based on my reading of his entire letter, and based on the whole history of this issue, I don't see this as being very likely, especially since two much more likely possibilities (see above) present themselves.

[perdidochas]

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.

JoeBob,

 

Your view is very selfish and short-sighted, IMHO. Yes, my sons are my primary concern, but some of us think as far as our grandsons (who aren't even glimmers in my son's eyes yet). I plan to stay around the troop after my sons age out/Eagle out. I will probably start a Venture crew, but will remain on as a MBC for the Troop. I don't think of the leaders who don't have boys in the program as being creepy at all. IMHO, they are invaluable to a troop. They see things that those blinded by our own interests don't see.

[perdidochas]

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.

Dwise,

 

BSA is expelling "large numbers of members based on those forbidden definitions?" Please show your source. Now, I can see we may be turning away folks, but please show that we are actively kicking out "large numbers" of members for any reason.

[walk in the woods]

Had some of my Aunt Jane's signature peach pie with top crust in the shape of stars this weekend .

[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.

perdidoshas: "JoeBob, Your view is very selfish and short-sighted, IMHO"

 

One of the best tidbits that I ever got from BSA 'Training' as a cub leader was to 'recruit and train your own replacement'.

If I can't do that in six years, then I probably shouldn't be SM in the first place.

 

I have to grin when I read BasementDweller on another topic, "Encouraging Volunteers", when he says:

"The final problem.....How does one exit the BSA???? So do you just quit and hope someone steps in.....Or do you keep working till your replaced....."

What's our motto? Oh yeah, 'Be Prepared!'

 

How do you keep the boys walking through to the end of that ten mile hike? You tell them that there is an end.

The same approach works pretty well when you're trying to get an adult male to invest some of his precious free time into something that involves NO football, NO babes, NO automatic weapons and NO beer. (And is guaranteed to piss off the wife.)

You tell a recruit: "There is an end to this commitment. If you like where BSA national (or district or council) is at the end of your time, you can stay. But any time that you can give while your son is involved will be greatly appreciated."

 

perdichiolicious (sorry - weird name) I've already given six years as a den leader and CM, and I plan to give six more until JoeyBobby ages out, if he stays active. Yet you call my planned 13 year gift to Scouting 'selfish and short-sighted'. Why is that?

Is 13 years not generous? Is planning ahead not being far-sighted?

 

Some of the folks on this forum talk about Scouting as if it was your religion. That attitude worries me, and it clouds your vision. As long as Irving is served by a cadre of slavish volunteers who are addicted to their uniforms....

What are they feeding y'all at WouldBadge?

 

******

STOP!

Insensitive rant follows. I should have quit.

******

Oh yeah, "The Game of Life". You work for BSA for free so that the pros in Irving can keep their pensions fully funded!

I'll be 65 when my boy ages out, and I'll be doing the troop a favor to get out of the dang way!

If you have an objection to that, I don't care!

"Short-sighted and selfish" - Apply oral vacuum to my hairy hiney!

 

And thanks for further encouraging this volunteer.

and allowing me to vent.

[eaglewolfdad]

Refreshing JoeBob, can't stop laughing! Thanks for the Will Rogers logic