What does one need to do to avoid being proselytized to at district-level events?

[InquisitiveScouter]

13 minutes ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

Are you saying that the BSA and most members thereof see themselves as their own, separate scouting-like movement that shouldn't align with any other scouting-like organization?

Yes, I think that is an accurate assessment

[Eagle94-A1]

Correct. Heck we cannot align with ourselves. Look at some of the discussions on Facebook, or even here. BP even had a problem with BSA when he was alive. Too many professionals was one of his problems.

 

[seattlecyclone]

16 minutes ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

Are you saying that the BSA and most members thereof see themselves as their own, separate scouting-like movement that shouldn't align with any other scouting-like organization?

To be honest I don't think most of us give it much thought. As residents of such a very large country, international cooperation doesn't have the same immediate relevance to our daily lives as it might in a place such as Europe. As a youth in the BSA I was told the world crest on our uniforms meant we were part of a worldwide movement of Scouts, but we never traveled internationally as a troop or met with Scouts from a different country to compare notes on our experiences. When we did a Philmont trek we had to drive a distance about the same as Stockholm to Paris, but it was all in the same country, with Scouts in between all under the same BSA organization. To us the BSA way of doing Scouting was just the way Scouting was done. If other countries did things differently that wasn't something we would have encountered in the normal course of our youth.

[Eagledad]

43 minutes ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

Are you saying that the BSA and most members thereof see themselves as their own, separate scouting-like movement that shouldn't align with any other scouting-like organization?

I have found that most scouting organizations see themselves as their own. Locally The GSUSA, Campfire Scouts and BSA are very different from each other. International is the same. That is why the “everybody else does it this way” doesn’t really fit well in discussions. Another subject where “everyone else does it this way” is uniforms.

That of course doesn’t mean comparisons are off the table in discussions, it just means they should be discussed as “here is something to consider”. That keeps the discussion from going down the path passionate feelings going into attack position. 

Barry

Edited March 16, 2023 by Eagledad

[MattR]

I was a BSA scout in Belgium. We went to international camporees and we never thought about anything other than "they" had a wild mix of accents, uniforms, and clothing, even compared to what we saw in Belgium.

I wouldn't make generalizations about people in the BSA. People are unique everywhere. I spent a summer in Japan and, once you cut through the facade, everyone still cares about their family and tries to do their best. Different cultures have different ways of doing things because that's what evolved. Not better, just different.

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

What interesting responses. I wasn't sure if I had perceived clearly, but it seems I had. Now I really understand some comments I've heard in our pack.

Thank you to all who answered. This was tremendously illuminating for me.

Going back to the previous question of whether scouting and/or Scouts BSA is built on a Christian or at least a theist foundation without which the scouting method will turn into chaos, then; the conversation has conflated the scouting movement with BSA. If BSA isn't necessarily a part of the official scouting movement in people's minds, then there are two cases.

My answers are only for the case of the BSA being part of the scout movement (together with GSUSA but not the other non-aligned scout-like organizations) that has two worldwide governing bodies that co-lead the movement. So, for this case, my argument is that since nontheist scouting has been done for literally decades by many millions of scouts in many NSOs already, the empirical answer is in: no chaos, has never been, will never be. We're nothing if not cheerfully organized! The national Scout Laws and Promises aren't identical but reflect a core ethic that binds the movement together into a coherent entity with unity in diversity, and theism is part of what's optional. The unity remains without it. Question empirically answered.

Now, if BSA is a Christian/theist organization and is merely inspired by the scouting movement at this point, then I can see the argument that there will be chaos in a Christian/theist organization if you remove the Christianity/Gods and that other similar organizations may or may not be good examples to follow. That I have no comment on other than to note that since requiring being of a specific religion(s) is contrary to scouting's core values, to me that case falls outside discussion about scouting. I'm not actually that interested in this case. People can start whatever scouting-like organizations they want, it's a solid movement to copy, but it's not scouting and scouting is what I'm interested in. This might be more of a heart issue for those who scouted in the BSA, I suspect.

[SSScout]

Golly gee,  AES, I am not at all sure what's been decided here.  Way back when,  B-P had to make clear to the Church of England that the new Scout Movement was NOT going to be a prosyletizing part of the Church, altho in his writings he made clear he thought there had to be a Spiritual component in Scouting.   He was open to any faith, just not only the CoE.  I am not sure what he would make of the new movement to make Scouting un-religious.  

Yes, there are some who would like that BSA be, as you say, a "Christian/theist organization",  but that train has already left the station, as they say.  I have worked with two Synagogue sponsored Troops,  They are an example of something the opposite of the way the United Methodist Church has reacted to BSA's recent troubles. The UMC has to large extent disavowed themselves from the BSA, as has many Catholic Churches.  We have one really big Muslim Mosque here in the Wash DC area that sponsors two Troops, a Cub Pack and at least two GSUSA Troops.  We have at least one Buddhist Temple in our area that sponsors a Viet Namese predominant Troop and Cub Pack. They regularly participate in a national Viet Namese Scout Jamboree (!). The Mormons have backed away from the BSA as being not religious enough (like them)  for them.  There are evangelical churches that have created Scout-like clubs for their young people. Look up "Royal Rangers". 

Then too, I am not sure what Jesus would think about some of the folks that claim his teachings as their own, either.   Go watch "Sister Act " sometime. 

Via con dios, mi amigo.... 

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

1 hour ago, SSScout said:

I am not sure what he would make of the new movement to make Scouting un-religious.  

Quick clarification question - what do you mean by "un-religious" here? We may be talking about different things.

[SSScout]

Well, what are you trying to do?   If the originators of Scouting saw it as a Christian thing, and B-P (and others)  sought to keep a spiritual component, but not a specific religion/faith,  and you seem to want to allow  (?) atheists and agnostics to still "do my best",  without acknowledging that spiritual component (or am I misreading your purpose here),  as I said:  "I am not sure what he (B-P) would make of the new movement to make Scouting un-religious.  The Scout should not be "required" to acknowledge that component?   Should she/he have to?  If others do not want to acknowledge any such component,  would that mean the other others would not have to acknowledge their belief in that component?  

I am HERE not merely because of some biological result.  There is more to my life (and yours!) than that..... 

[HashTagScouts]

39 minutes ago, SSScout said:

Well, what are you trying to do?   If the originators of Scouting saw it as a Christian thing, and B-P (and others)  sought to keep a spiritual component, but not a specific religion/faith,  and you seem to want to allow  (?) atheists and agnostics to still "do my best",  without acknowledging that spiritual component (or am I misreading your purpose here),  as I said:  "I am not sure what he (B-P) would make of the new movement to make Scouting un-religious.  The Scout should not be "required" to acknowledge that component?   Should she/he have to?  If others do not want to acknowledge any such component,  would that mean the other others would not have to acknowledge their belief in that component?  

I am HERE not merely because of some biological result.  There is more to my life (and yours!) than that..... 

If that is what you believe, then you are perfectly fine to believe that. You may well believe there is an actual answer in there, but others may not. You may well have convincement in that, others very well may have an entirely different point. The problem is - where is the ironclad proof that one view is right and the other wrong? The question for me is not should we allow or not allow atheists/agnostics, it is why do we need to even have it part of Scouting, especially when Scouting takes every possible step to avoid trying to "take a side" in this element? The BSA clearly doesn't believe that a side must be declared, considering that they have allowed Buddhists to be members for over a hundred years, have no issue with Hindus being members, or even wiccans. I know three individuals who earned Eagle as a youth that are atheists or agnostic today. Leave the twelfth point of the Scout Law, but if we aren't declaring an "arrival point" or consensus on what that spiritual point is that must be reached by age 18, then we need not make any declaration on it other than accepting that we are all trying to understand our purpose and it very well may be a true lifetime journey for us to have an understanding of what it is we believe.          

[InquisitiveScouter]

5 minutes ago, HashTagScouts said:

If that is what you believe, then you are perfectly fine to believe that. You may well believe there is an actual answer in there, but others may not. You may well have convincement in that, others very well may have an entirely different point. The problem is - where is the ironclad proof that one view is right and the other wrong? The question for me is not should we allow or not allow atheists/agnostics, it is why do we need to even have it part of Scouting, especially when Scouting takes every possible step to avoid trying to "take a side" in this element? The BSA clearly doesn't believe that a side must be declared, considering that they have allowed Buddhists to be members for over a hundred years, have no issue with Hindus being members, or even wiccans. I know three individuals who earned Eagle as a youth that are atheists or agnostic today. Leave the twelfth point of the Scout Law, but if we aren't declaring an "arrival point" or consensus on what that spiritual point is that must be reached by age 18, then we need not make any declaration on it other than accepting that we are all trying to understand our purpose and it very well may be a true lifetime journey for us to have an understanding of what it is we believe.          

This is the route that Trail Life USA took.  Scouts there can be of any/no faith.  Adult leaders must be Christian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_Life_USA

[InquisitiveScouter]

In our lexicon, the terms "morals" and "ethics" ought to be decoupled.

Without a concept of god, there is no basis for morals. 

https://theconversation.com/morality-requires-a-god-whether-youre-religious-or-not-42411

There is only ethics, and ethics change according to the consensus of people...

The new Scout Oath:

I promise do my best to follow my conscience and do my duty to my family, community, country, world, and universe, and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and ethically straight.

The new twelfth point of the Scout Law is "Ethical"

New Mission of BSA:

"The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Scout Law."

There, BSA... fixed that for you.

"As for my family and me, we will serve the LORD." Joshua 24:15

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

2 hours ago, SSScout said:

Well, what are you trying to do?   If the originators of Scouting saw it as a Christian thing, and B-P (and others)  sought to keep a spiritual component, but not a specific religion/faith,  and you seem to want to allow  (?) atheists and agnostics to still "do my best",  without acknowledging that spiritual component (or am I misreading your purpose here),  as I said:  "I am not sure what he (B-P) would make of the new movement to make Scouting un-religious.  The Scout should not be "required" to acknowledge that component?   Should she/he have to?  If others do not want to acknowledge any such component,  would that mean the other others would not have to acknowledge their belief in that component?  

The reason I asked for clarification is that this is a topic for which precision in word usage is very important, and also because I am unaware of any recent movement to remove spirituality from scouting. In other words, I'm not entirely sure what you see from your POV. You see a change of some kind but I want to be sure I understand what you're talking about.

If by religious you mean any and all forms of organized and unorganized personally held spirituality, then I have never heard such a pitch to make scouting un-religious and need some catch-up.

If by religious you mean theist, then there is no new movement, it's been un-religious almost since the beginning. The originator of scouting, BP, explicitly conceived of scouting as not being a Christian thing, and was the one to direct the movement in a explicitly unreligious direction once scouting spread outside traditionally Christian countries. The Boys' Brigade was the explicitly Christian alternative and is also still around, but never took off like the scouting movement exactly because it's not nearly as inclusive and therefore not inspiring. BP invited nontheists to practice at Gilwell Park, nontheists formed unreligious NSOs merely a few years after the founding of the movement, and more locally nontheists have been part of BSA for almost it's entire history. If your definition of atheist overlaps with nontheist, then the above is already true of atheists. Theism isn't the only form of spirituality, and the WOSM constitution defines Duty to God without reference to theism exactly to clarify this point.

If by religious you mean formally belonging to a well-recognized religion only - then I think it is in keeping with scouting spirit to not start drilling prospective scouts on whether they're religious enough to join. I think we let whoever wants to join do so and stay out of policing people's spiritual beliefs. Being out in nature is a way to experience the sparkle for oneself, regardless of whether one sees it coming in. Further, the WOSM constitution uses spirituality, not religion, for the red thread that runs through scouting, although this is more recent so perhaps this is the change that you see?

I do think that BSA should drop the religious declaration. I do not see why one needs to solemnly swear that one is spiritual but not kind or clean, for example, and this kind of entrance requirement feels like some purity or goodness test - entirely contrary to the inclusive and warm spirit of the movement.

But what I'm really trying to do here is to strengthen the scouting spirit of that all are welcome. ♥️ We (the scouting movement) are so strong because we stand for universal values. We will only weaken with excluding this group and that group. We are all needed to build a better world. During the work of doing so, even strict materialists have the opportunity to notice the sparkle ✨

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

6 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

In our lexicon, the terms "morals" and "ethics" ought to be decoupled.

Without a concept of god, there is no basis for morals. 

https://theconversation.com/morality-requires-a-god-whether-youre-religious-or-not-42411

There is only ethics, and ethics change according to the consensus of people...

This is an interesting take, but I'm not sure that this is generally how the words 'morals' and 'ethics' are used. I checked my own understanding, and it seems that while your argument is coherent from its own definitions, 'morals' is commonly used without any implication of being commanded or of a godhead and 'ethics' is actually the more universal synonym of the two according to Merriam-Webster.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral

Sīla, for example, is often translated 'morality'. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/sila-Buddhism)

But I imagine this didn't come out of nowhere. Is this usage of morals and ethics common in your social circles?

May you be well 🙏

[qwazse]

Speaking of universal values, all of Baden Powell’s published versions of the scout oath opened:

On my honour I promise that I will do my duty to God ….

In the context of his time, and with the role he played in the British empire, he chose a term that would not refer to the named deity of any particular religion. He might have also been familiar with “non-theistic” as a category that had begun to be first used in literature the previous century.
The term “God” (yes, with a capital G) is not Christian. (Anyone who doubts that should invite their neihborhood Jehovah’s witness over for a chat.) It’s word origin is unkown, but likely was popularized by non-Latin pagan clans as a neutral term for whatever they and adjacent tribes considered to be supreme and removed from their lesser, more territorial deities.

In other writings, BP made clear his opinion that a boy’s understanding of God is not encumbered with trappings of theology. My paraphrase of his essay on the subject (pardon me for being short on time to find the link): a boy approaches the world with awe and wonder. We should merely teach him to treat it as a gift for which tremendous gratitude is in order. As he grows he will then be prepared to adopt the offerings and obligations of his faith community.

This resonated quite well across the British Commonwealth. How this got translated when it crossed the pond is another post (if I ever get around to it), but suffice to say that Continental Europe took it in different directions than did Americans.