The Boy Scouts

[Dr. Keith]

Change takes time. As I said before, the exclusion of homosexuals is a relic, and I think its days are numbered.

If only this were true. The BSA had no policy or statement on homosexuality until the early nineties and did not ban homosexuals until 2002, IIRC. If anything, this is a fairly recent change to define Scouting by the Mormons and the Methodists. One has the largest number of participants while the other has the largest number of units, combined they essentially run the BSA.

I am heartened to hear that so many folks are finding tolerant troops. I loved scouting as a kid and really feel that the patrol model is a great tool for teaching kids leadership skills that are practical and long lasting. It also is a great base for a very broad knowledge set and practical problems solving that is not often taught in school.

My recent discussions with professional scouters had lead me to believer that there was no tolerance for tolerance. I'm glad to hear that the subversive are staying low and avoiding the scrutiny of the BSA.

As for the exclusion of atheists, it isn't all that bad anyway. The first statement in the section that describes the Boy Scout policy about religion says that the BSA will not do anything that defines what it means to believe in God. In practice, that means pretty much anyone can participate. Many state laws refer to "acts of God", and later say that for the purposes of the law, God=nature.

I expect this will be taken care of. Every professional scouter I have met recently has freely stated that the BSA is fundamentally a Christian organization that has some tolerance for other religions. Phrases such as "Christian Values" are bandied about with no sense of irony.

It seems the BSA is moving further to the right as a reaction to society moving further to the left. As a scouter who earned his Eagle before any of this, it makes me hesitant to even mention my association with the BSA, even though I have a lot of positive memories.

 

[RobRoy]

The organization is the problem, it is the individual units that can be OK. But as an organisation it is about bigotry.

Which I believe was my statement.

The thing is that you are arguing for certain acceptable levels of hypocrisy. You are having people take oaths that include parts that they never had any intention to keep and shouldn't intend to keep. This is undermining the whole concept of honor being associated with scouting.

If you don’t believe in God, what is your “duty to God”? The Oath doesn’t define God, doesn’t say you have to believe in God, and it doesn’t cite which God is the really, really true and for certain God. The organization makes this claim, but that claim isn't stated in the Oath.

Maybe I’m missing something in the logic of your argument?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Which I believe was my statement.

No you specifically defended it as an organisation with the idea of a few bad apples at the top. It is a bad organisation. And rather like the catholic church being a bad organisation does not mean it doesn't have a few small beneficial things.

If you don’t believe in God, what is your “duty to God”? The Oath doesn’t define God, doesn’t say you have to believe in God, and it doesn’t cite which God is the really, really true and for certain God. The organization makes this claim, but that claim isn't stated in the Oath.

Maybe I’m missing something in the logic of your argument?

God is defined in scouting, as you can not be moral with out it. So scouting really would not be surprised that an atheist would be willing to break their own sworn oaths.

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't know that I would say that. I agree with many of their goals and beliefs, but I am not sure I would rate them highly as an organisation. I think it is all about local troops and organizations. The troop I was in was lame and boring, if there was more outdoors activities I would have been more active in it.

Sure. My own troop was pretty bad as well. My kid's is much, much, better. It's all in the quality of the local leadership. My point could be revised to say that the organization enables the existence of high quality local troops, and no other organization does a better job at it.

 

[Meadmaker]

To those suggesting that "nature's God" could be what YOU mean when you join, here is the specific Declaration of Religious Principle that you have to explicitly acknowledge agreeing with in order to join. It's specifically a theistic version of God that they require belief in:

Taken from a site called bsa-discrimination.org:

BSA Religious Principles
(Reprinted from the 1992 edition of BSA's Advancement Guidelines: Council and District Functions.)

The Boy Scouts of America has a definite position on religious principles. The following interpretative statement may help clarify this position. The Boy Scouts of America:

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

Obviously, they aren't really trying to encourage pantheism here, but in practice, pantheism is just fine.

I'm perfectly comfortable saying I will do my duty to God, knowing that in my view, God=nature, and the BSA's guidelines say that that's ok, even if it's not encouraged.

 

[Meadmaker]

But not for their Unitarian members. They've decided it doesn't count as a religion.

http://www.uuscouters.org/

People also should understand that there are no merit badges for any religion in scouting. The religious achievement awards are awards defined by organizations other than the BSA, but the BSA will allow recognized awards from those organizations to be represented by a patch on a Boy Scout uniform. The Unitarian Universalists are one such organization that has defined such an award, and had that award recognized by the Boy Scouts.

Another group that has done so is the Zoroastrians. I didn't know there were any Zoroastrians. I'll have to look that one up.

 

[sgtbaker]

I must agree with this part of the issue. While I have no objection to using school facilities for Boy Scout or darned near any other community group, it doesn't seem appropriate for recruitment during class time. (FWIW, I understand exactly why they do it, and back in the '70s I was recruited into Cub Scouts with an in class presentation, but I, personally, don't think it's a good use of time.)

See, that I didn't know. I don't remember there ever being a class presentation for scouts, girl or boy. I honestly thought this was a new thing.

 

[RobRoy]

No you specifically defended it as an organisation with the idea of a few bad apples at the top. It is a bad organisation. And rather like the catholic church being a bad organisation does not mean it doesn't have a few small beneficial things.

Ahhh, I see what you’re saying now. Thanks for the clarification. You’re right, I do, and will defend Scouting as a good organization. The BSA is flawed at the top, and most of the members know this. Councils continue to try to get the national organization to change its policy regarding atheists and homosexuals. There is a strong understanding that the BSA could be a much better organization than it currently is, and continuing to abide by this current policy is foolish.

I’ll have to think about the comparison with the Catholic Church. At first glance, this appears to be a fallacious argument as you claim that the Catholic Church only has “a few small beneficial things”. I’m not really interested in defending the Catholic Church (or arguing for its benefits), but it seems to me that they do a tad more in their charitable work than a few, small things. How that compares to the BSA, I’m not certain, but again, the BSA does more than you’re suggesting.

God is defined in scouting, as you can not be moral with out it.

But not by the Scout Oath, which I believe was the point. Also, keep in mind that we’re discussing specifically the BSA, and not Scouting worldwide, which tends to be far more tolerant and open. A much better model for the BSA, than the BSA is a model for Scouting.

So scouting really would not be surprised that an atheist would be willing to break their own sworn oaths.

This seems a rather non sequitur argument, but maybe I’m just not understanding you. Is there any expectation by the BSA that any specific group would “break their own sworn oaths”? Was this stated somewhere by the BSA?

The position of the BSA in regards to religion is a foolish one. More so, as given this stated position, you would think inclusion in the BSA would be a better way to “convert” the “unbelievers”. But hey, that’s just my subversive nature in general.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Well, I'm pretty sure it's still the case. There was a law suit a few years ago initiated by a gay Scout Master who was thrown out of scouts once his sexual orientation was known. He lost the case since the Scouts is a private group and can restrict membership as they deem fit.

And here's my real problem with the BSA: that they're willing to vigorously fight for their right to remain openly bigoted. As long as these policies are in place they will receive no support from me.

 

[Mister Agenda]

http://www.uuscouters.org/

People also should understand that there are no merit badges for any religion in scouting. The religious achievement awards are awards defined by organizations other than the BSA, but the BSA will allow recognized awards from those organizations to be represented by a patch on a Boy Scout uniform. The Unitarian Universalists are one such organization that has defined such an award, and had that award recognized by the Boy Scouts.

Another group that has done so is the Zoroastrians. I didn't know there were any Zoroastrians. I'll have to look that one up.

I was being a little flip, but it's not as clear-cut as the UU Scouters would like it to be:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUA#Boy_Scouts_of_America_controversy

 

[RobRoy]

If only this were true. The BSA had no policy or statement on homosexuality until the early nineties and did not ban homosexuals until 2002, IIRC.

Actually, much earlier than that. At least as early as 1980.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Actually, much earlier than that. At least as early as 1980.

My reading of that case was the Local Council wanted to exclude him and the BSA did not step in to correct. In other words, the BSA allowed the local council to decide the issue. Much as they allowed racism for far too long.

Now, the BSA has taken all authority away from the Local Councils and Local Troops and forbids any openly gay leaders (youth or adult) in scouting.

This is a big distinction.

For example, from 1980-2002 your troop and council could have decided to accept an openly gay assistant scoutmaster and the BSA could not have told you no. Now your troop does not have that option. Now the leader must hide his homosexuality or his association with the troop.

The current state of BSA policy seems to be so counter to the Law and Oath that I have a hard time with it. It boggles my mind because scouting was such a great place for me to work with a huge variety of people outside of my normal social circle. It made me a more worldly person and I can't align that with the provincial thinking at the BSA.

I am glad that you (and others) are finding a way for your kids to have the scouting experience while tempering the bigotry at the national level. It was a huge part of my life and I would not withhold that from my kids, either. I would make certain that my kids were clear of my feelings on this issue, though.

 

[RobRoy]

My reading of that case was the Local Council wanted to exclude him and the BSA did not step in to correct. In other words, the BSA allowed the local council to decide the issue. Much as they allowed racism for far too long.

Now, the BSA has taken all authority away from the Local Councils and Local Troops and forbids any openly gay leaders (youth or adult) in scouting.

This is a big distinction.

Oh, I wasn't trying to determine where the decision-making in this regard came from, just reflecting that the policy of discrimination against homosexuals is older than 2002. Whether that was at a local level and supported by the National Council, or vice-versa, I'm certain you have the right of it, and I defer to your knowledge.

I am glad that you (and others) are finding a way for your kids to have the scouting experience while tempering the bigotry at the national level. It was a huge part of my life and I would not withhold that from my kids, either. I would make certain that my kids were clear of my feelings on this issue, though.

Thank you. I do make clear my position on any issue these boys ask me. Since this is church-linked group, of which I'm not a member, that particular question comes up from time to time, and I'm always pleased to answer it. The question of homosexuality and Proposition 8 also came up in conversation, and I was clear on that issue as well. I don't preach, and I try to present the major sides of any conflict in regards to these and other questions.

 

[CurtC]

This seems a rather non sequitur argument, but maybe I’m just not understanding you. Is there any expectation by the BSA that any specific group would “break their own sworn oaths”? Was this stated somewhere by the BSA?

Since the BSA's official policy position statement is that an atheist cannot be fully moral, the BSA would not be surprised that an atheist would break his own oath.

 

[RobRoy]

Since the BSA's official policy position statement is that an atheist cannot be fully moral, the BSA would not be surprised that an atheist would break his own oath.

You seem to be restating what ponderingturtle already said. <shrug>

 

[Myriad]

Since the BSA's official policy position statement is that an atheist cannot be fully moral, the BSA would not be surprised that an atheist would break his own oath.

The BSA counts among its members a large number of boys aged 10 to 18. I think it's likely that they have discovered by now that their oaths are not always kept. (To be sure, a teenage boy who happens to also be a Scout failing to be e.g. courteous or obedient must be a rare and shocking event, but with the numbers involved, statistically we know it must happen.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[RobRoy]

The BSA counts among its members a large number of boys aged 10 to 18. I think it's likely that they have discovered by now that their oaths are not always kept. (To be sure, a teenage boy who happens to also be a Scout failing to be e.g. courteous or obedient must be a rare and shocking event, but with the numbers involved, statistically we know it must happen.)

Exactly. Or any other of a number of oath violations.

 

[ZirconBlue]

So, the oath is meaningless, then?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Exactly. Or any other of a number of oath violations.

The difference here is that an atheist is not failing to uphold a value but actively rejecting it as a value. It is not like failing to be courteous and being rude to someone, it is more like rejecting the idea of courtesy so that you can "Keep it Real".

This is an important distinction.

 

[RobRoy]

So, the oath is meaningless, then?

No. Re-read my post on this. The oath specifically states that the individual will do their best. It actually takes into account that people are fallible and young boys especially so.

The difference here is that an atheist is not failing to uphold a value but actively rejecting it as a value. It is not like failing to be courteous and being rude to someone, it is more like rejecting the idea of courtesy so that you can "Keep it Real".

This is an important distinction.

Since neither the Scout Oath or the Scout Law specifically state that religion is valued, I fail to see how “[t]his is an important distinction”. The reading of the oath clearly does not indicate that you must believe in God(s), that is a policy statement by the BSA. Instead, as I’ve said at least once before, the Scout Oath you must do your best to do your duty to God. Within the Scouting, including the BSA, the definition of God, and how that duty is fulfilled, is left up to the individual Scout and their specific religion or lack thereof. Where the atheist has no God, then there is no duty that must be fulfilled.