Thought Experiment: Atheists are openly allowed.

[packsaddle]

OK MattR, I follow your reasoning. So why don't we try an experiment? If you will start a thread within this forum and state clearly in the first post what the 'rules' are that respondents must follow, THAT will give starfleet, oops, I mean the moderators... the guidance needed to 'corral' the discussion and keep it on topic. How about it? Do you think that might be worth a try?

[walk in the woods]

"He was extremely sorry" was how MattR put it. Why did he have to be sorry about saying the word Jesus? It would have been much better if MattR had done something like this:

 

1. Talk to the scout about the preparation aspect. That's spot on sort of counseling session we should be doing and would help the boy be better prepared the next time he has a public speaking part.

2. At the next available opportunity commend the boys about taking on the job of providing the invocation.

3. Encourage the boys at the next Court of Honor to consider a different faith tradition. In doing so the Troop Chaplain's Aid could research options, the Patrol Leaders could poll their members to see if anybody would be a willing volunteer, etc. Then at the next CoH have Jewish or Muslim or Pagen or Wiccan or provide a meditation or whatever the boys decided to do. Use that as the group teaching moment instead of singling out the scout that attempted the invocation.

 

With those three steps nobody has to feel "sorry" about anything, the boy still gets the learning experience of not preparing and maybe doing better the next time, his faith tradition isn't marginalized and the unit gets to show how diverse and open they are by changing out invocations/meditations at every Court of Honor. Sort of a win-win-win-win situation.

 

No scout should ever be made to feel "sorry" for attempting to provide a program element.

[Sentinel947]

OK MattR' date=' I follow your reasoning. So why don't we try an experiment? If you will start a thread within this forum and state clearly in the first post what the 'rules' are that respondents must follow, THAT will give starfleet, oops, I mean the moderators... the guidance needed to 'corral' the discussion and keep it on topic. How about it? Do you think that might be worth a try?[/quote'] I think it'd be fun.

[MattR]

OK pack, you sound just like me when a parent complains: "Great, how you gonna help with that!". The only problem is I'm getting up at 4:30am tomorrow and driving till my butt breaks. I will get to this eventually. Any specific problem you'd like people to talk about?

 

dcsimmons, thanks for your ideas. Having different invocations rather than a generic one would be nice in many ways. As far as the boy feeling sorry, it lasted less than a second before I said "don't be sorry, I'm glad you took this on." We then talked for a few minutes. You'll have to trust me on this, but by the time we were done, everything was good and he'll likely do it again next time. If anything, he has more confidence, because we talked, to do this next time.

 

Actually, I think I have the subject. Thanks dcsimmons.

[walk in the woods]

MattR, I owe you an apology for my initial snarky comments and for not asking clarifying questions instead of attacking. I will endeavor to do better.

[Sentinel947]

MattR' date=' I owe you an apology for my initial snarky comments and for not asking clarifying questions instead of attacking. I will endeavor to do better.[/quote'] Pat on the back to dcsimmons! =)

[SSScout]

Back in the saddle, Pack...

 

Pack: What I seek is the above type of discussion to be correctly labeled. This is not "politics", it is about Faith, and even Chaplaincy (thank you MattR, that's what you were doing, acting the Chaplain. Keep on keeping on!). So it has ever been here abouts.

 

The heretical idea of atheistic Scouts is no more outlandish than convincing some folks that the BSA is not (not!) a Christian organization. Some Troops/Packs/Crews/Ships may well be overtly Christian (the COs can so require), but the BSA is not of any one faith. Why then must it be of any faith at all? The Scout Promise and Law are moral precepts that I have found acceptable by Muslim mosque, Jewish synagogue, Buddhist temple , Unitarian church, Protestant church and Catholic cathedral. Why not Ethical Society? The biggest stumbling block seems to be the ethical society's tendency to denigrate rather than to seek common ground with other faiths . And yes, I see the reliance on logic and reason before unsupported blind faith as a "faith". The only difference there being the "faith " in what one can see, rather than in something that cannot be overtly felt by the five usual senses.

My personal faith in Christ is perhaps not demonstrable but is, in George Fox's terms, "experimental", in that I have "experienced" it.

This discussion is not politics, it is faith. Why not label it appropriately?

 

[Peregrinator]

I have always wondered about how to reconcile Duty to God and my country - when Duty to God might conflict with Duty to Country.

 

It's God - Family - Country and in that order. Duty to God takes precedence over duty to country.

[le Voyageur]

As I see it, we are all born into the world as atheists where the functions of parents and culture is to derail us from rational thinking into the absurdities of magical thinking and sky daddies. My own observations suggest that the religious find the atheist/agnostic a threat to this programming, the wolves that circle their status quo heard, that at the primal level is the fear they've been hoodwinked.

So, why not allow the atheist into the ranks exposing Scouts to a far richer environment of thought?... Eventually Scouts do grow up and exit out of the program and into the real world.

[Eagledad]

Pat on the back to dcsimmons! =)

 

 

I agree, thanks dc.

 

Scoutmasters have two basic responsibilities to the scouts; giver of knowledge and counselor of decisions. The scoutmaster gives the scout enough knowledge to have confidence to move forward. Knowledge is skills, information and visions of experience. Knowledge is not a lecture, disciplinary action or disappointing condemnation.

 

Counselor of decisions is guiding scouts to make right decisions. Counselor holds scouts accountable for decisions and mentors guiding principles toward right decisions. The counselor doesn’t discipline, they guide accountability with the intention of giving the scout just (just) enough information for him to understand his decisions, whether it is right or wrong.

 

I asked myself when I read Matts post if the scout made any wrong choices in giving the prayer. Given all the knowledge and life experiences that scout had at that point, did he in his heart do good?

 

The difference between being a giver of knowledge and a counselor of decisions basically comes down to timing. The scout had been responsible for a lot of actions that night, did he really need to be confronted on his style of prayer? Could it have waited a day, week or even a month to allow the scout to grow from the confidence of his evening accomplishments?

 

Matt, you are one of the best Scoutmasters I know on this list. Maybe it’s our culture or maybe the discussions on this forum, but I think you allowed the outside clutter pressure or embarrass you into focusing on what you wish the scout did instead of what the scout accomplished. We have all been there and will continue to be there, we allow our vanity to influence us into quick rash actions of the counselor when the proper action is timely patience of giving knowledge.

 

I had this very same exact experience, so I understand the situation and the feeling involved. I humbly admit I had to grow from the experience myself. But I also learned that there is a difference between the pragmatic adult who is guiding patient growth and the reactionary adult who emotionally criticizes the process because they don’t understand the responsibility of developing men of character. Critics don’t understand your slow process of building scouts confidence toward making independent decisions based from the principles of the Oath and Law. They only see disappointing independent actions of boys who they feel require immediate correction. They want the scouts to feel their disappointment. Actually many of these adults want to punish the scouts for the emotion they are feeling at that moment.

 

The SM has to protect the scouts from those critics and reactionaries or the scout will always wait for the critique to be told what to do before he initiates any action. The pragmatic SM MUST teach the critics how the scouts act on the knowledge at hand and that decisions based from ignorance are not wrong decisions, they are starting places of growth and learning. The Scoutmaster must stand of up for the scouts against the critics who don’t understand how the process works and want immediate change. You can’t allow the fickle outside world corrupt your good work. This is why Scoutmasters are heroes in my book. Most parents don’t see how the SM shields their sons from rash judgments of just about every adult around them. Even worse, sometimes Scoutmasters are wrong and have the responsibility to show humility to the scouts. The other adults don’t seem to feel that they have that responsibility. I pray for all you noble scoutmasters all the time Matt.

 

Thanks again dc for helping us understand.

 

Barry

 

[Sentinel947]

As I see it' date=' we are all born into the world as atheists where the functions of parents and culture is to derail us from rational thinking into the absurdities of magical thinking and sky daddies. My own observations suggest that the religious find the atheist/agnostic a threat to this programming, the wolves that circle their status quo heard, that at the primal level is the fear they've been hoodwinked. So, why not allow the atheist into the ranks exposing Scouts to a far richer environment of thought?... Eventually Scouts do grow up and exit out of the program and into the real world.[/quote'] You claim to have a far richer "environment of thought" yet are very close minded about the beliefs of others. This is what we don't want in our new thread. I want us to get beyond the stereotypes that Atheists are all rebellious and angry and selfish, and that religious people are childish and unintelligent. Those stereotypes are not true, and I'm tired of seeing them. Especially in the same post where the poster claims to be enlightened.

[RememberSchiff]

 

It's God - Family - Country and in that order. Duty to God takes precedence over duty to country.

 

How so? If by listing order then Cheerful takes precedence over Reverent.

 

For me, the priority would be Family, Friends, Community (might be town, country, or world), and God. Mostly I figure God can take care of himself, but I'm available to write new Commandments.

 

My $0.02

[Eagledad]

 

How so? If by listing order then Cheerful takes precedence over Reverent.

 

For me, the priority would be Family, Friends, Community (might be town, country, or world), and God. Mostly I figure God can take care of himself, but I'm available to write new Commandments.

 

My $0.02

 

Peregrinator is right. The oath is a guide of how to apply the law, the law is a list of actions to be applied at appropriate moments that confront the scout. If you are wondering if the creators of the oath and law did that on purpose, the answer is yes. I can’t find my source now, but there is some information that backs up Peregrinator.

 

Barry

 

[le Voyageur]

You claim to have a far richer "environment of thought" yet are very close minded about the beliefs of others. This is what we don't want in our new thread. I want us to get beyond the stereotypes that Atheists are all rebellious and angry and selfish' date=' and that religious people are childish and unintelligent. Those stereotypes are not true, and I'm tired of seeing them. Especially in the same post where the poster claims to be enlightened.[/quote']

 

First, I've made no such claim.... and you need to sit around a few campfires and chew the fat with me before passing judgement on how "close minded" I am . You just might discover who that really is. None the less, I suggest you spend a bit more time reflecting on my post, and dig a bit deeper into it's philosophical depths before letting your horse out of the barn, as you're lumping atheists as one trick ponies. They tend to be more complex in critical thinking then the religious....

[Sentinel947]

I want to clarify my post will be back later