The Boy Scouts

[ZirconBlue]

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.

An "oath" that is frequently violated with little more than a shrug is no oath at all. Doubly so, when one has no intention of adhering to certain parts of it from the outset.

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.

Sorry, but I see that as just rationalization. "I don't believe in God, so I can ignore that I swore to do my duty to God". You can use that sort of rationalization to ignore other parts of the oath as well. "I believe that the lands of the US rightly belong to the Native Americans, so I can ignore that I swore to do my duty to my country."

Further, part of the oath is "to obey Scout Law". Can you pick and choose which of those 12 points you can choose to disregard? Particularly the part about being Reverent, which comes back to whether you can hand-wave God away.

 

[RobRoy]

An "oath" that is frequently violated with little more than a shrug is no oath at all.

Who says that it is violated with “little more than a shrug”?

On the other hand can you show a single oath that has not been violated in a similar fashion?

The point here is not that the oath can be violated, because any oath can. The point here is why select the God aspect of the oath as a reason to keep your child out of the BSA when most likely your child will violate all the other tenets as well as part of the maturing process?

I can understand more easily an objection to taking an oath altogether, especially at such a young age, rather than pointing to one part and saying, “Well, my kid will violate that, so the whole thing is useless.”

Doubly so, when one has no intention of adhering to certain parts of it from the outset.

To which I would agree, but how is the BSA or any Scouting organization supposed to know who is or isn’t going to adhere to their particular oath? The Scout Oath seems to point directly to the individual to determine if they have done their best to uphold their duty.

Sorry, but I see that as just rationalization. "I don't believe in God, so I can ignore that I swore to do my duty to God".

How does an atheist do their duty to God?

You can use that sort of rationalization to ignore other parts of the oath as well. "I believe that the lands of the US rightly belong to the Native Americans, so I can ignore that I swore to do my duty to my country."

Seems a bit extreme, but ok, let’s go with this analogy. The Scout in this case would still be fulfilling their Scout Oath if they did their duty to their country as they saw fit. The oath does not specifically say, “To the United States government against all enemies foreign and domestic.”

Further, part of the oath is "to obey Scout Law". Can you pick and choose which of those 12 points you can choose to disregard? Particularly the part about being Reverent, which comes back to whether you can hand-wave God away.

Reverent.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Who says that it is violated with “little more than a shrug”?

That is the impression that has been given in this thread. "Teen boys violate their oaths all the time, it's no big deal" is the vibe I was getting.

On the other hand can you show a single oath that has not been violated in a similar fashion?

Well, I personally try not to take any oaths that I know I am unlikely to be able to keep.

The point here is not that the oath can be violated, because any oath can. The point here is why select the God aspect of the oath as a reason to keep your child out of the BSA when most likely your child will violate all the other tenets as well as part of the maturing process?

Well, I would keep my kids out of the BSA (if I had been cursed blessed with boys) due to their Institutional bigotry, not over this particular oath.

I can understand more easily an objection to taking an oath altogether, especially at such a young age, rather than pointing to one part and saying, “Well, my kid will violate that, so the whole thing is useless.”

My objection is to taking oaths insincerely. If you know that you are unwilling or unable to fulfill an oath, you shouldn't claim otherwise.

To which I would agree, but how is the BSA or any Scouting organization supposed to know who is or isn’t going to adhere to their particular oath?

They're not. They should be able to trust people taking the oath at their word. The suggestion to disregard parts of the oath undermines that trust.

How does an atheist do their duty to God?

They don't. So they shouldn't make a promise that they will.

Seems a bit extreme, but ok, let’s go with this analogy. The Scout in this case would still be fulfilling their Scout Oath if they did their duty to their country as they saw fit. The oath does not specifically say, “To the United States government against all enemies foreign and domestic.”

This is all following the letter, rather than the spirit, of the oath. IMHO.

Reverent.

I knew you'd go that route, but that doesn't jibe with how the Scouts organization defines it:

A Scout is Reverent. A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.

 

[zooterkin]

I've been looking at the UK Scouting website again; I know the OP is regarding the BSA, but I was curious as to whether the regulations were peculiar to the BSA, or shared by other members of the scouting movement.

As far as I can tell, there is no bar to gay scouts or leaders (though there are some vague phrases such as "fit and proper" that could be used to justify exclusion if one was so minded), but I'm disappointed to find that there is a very clear exclusion of atheist leaders. (Although in practice I suspect there are quite a few atheist leaders.)

From here

Scouts:

The Religious Policy
The Scout Movement includes Members of
many different forms of religion. The following
policy has received the approval of the heads of
the leading religious bodies in the United
Kingdom.
All Members of the Movement are encouraged
to:
- make every effort to progress in the
understanding and observance of the
Promise to do their best to do their duty to
God;
- belong to some religious body;
- carry into daily practice what they profess

No young person should receive less
favourable treatment on the basis of, nor
suffer disadvantage by reason of:
- class;
- ethnic origin, nationality (or
statelessness) or race;
- gender;
- marital or sexual status;
- mental or physical ability;
- political or religious belief.

Leaders:

no person volunteering their services should
receive less favourable treatment on the basis
of, nor suffer disadvantage by reason of:
- age;
- class;
- ethnic origin, nationality (or statelessness)
- race;
- gender;
- marital or sexual status;
- mental or physical ability;
- political or religious belief.

Note: Paedophilia is a bar to any involvement in
the Scout Movement

Note: With reference to religious belief, the avowed absence of religious belief is a bar to appointment to a Leadership position.

 

[RobRoy]

That is the impression that has been given in this thread. "Teen boys violate their oaths all the time, it's no big deal" is the vibe I was getting.

Not exactly what I was saying, but I can see where you’re coming from. Rather, there is a great deal of issue over the “duty to God” which suggests that if that were removed, atheist boys and girls everywhere would be fine with the oath and uphold it to their very best. That concept is simply silly.

Well, I personally try not to take any oaths that I know I am unlikely to be able to keep.

But you’re older, wiser, and infinitely better looking than most Boy Scouts.

I’m not certain that I disagree, but I haven’t really considered this too deeply. Perhaps doing away with the Scout Oath altogether is the most logical move.

Well, I would keep my kids out of the BSA (if I had been cursed blessed with boys) due to their Institutional bigotry, not over this particular oath.

Fair enough.

My objection is to taking oaths insincerely. If you know that you are unwilling or unable to fulfill an oath, you shouldn't claim otherwise.

And my point is that there is no reason to interpret the oath as meaning that an atheist must be insincere when they take it.

On the other hand, there is no reason to believe that the boys who do take the oath are not doing so sincerely. Their capacity to meet the oath is another matter altogether.

They're not. They should be able to trust people taking the oath at their word. The suggestion to disregard parts of the oath undermines that trust.

And I’ve not suggested any part of the oath be disregarded. I’ve stated that part of it simply doesn’t apply. If the oath also said, “and I’ll take my boots off before coming into the house” but they never wear boots (or don’t have a house), they haven’t disregarded that part of the oath. That part simply doesn’t apply to them.

They don't. So they shouldn't make a promise that they will.

Exactly, so they aren’t.

Although I agree that this policy point, and thus the Scout Oath, should be changed.

This is all following the letter, rather than the spirit, of the oath. IMHO.

Well, I’d say yes and no. Perhaps I’m being pedantic because I’m defending an organization that I happen to believe is good, beneficial and worthwhile, but flawed. On the other hand, the National BSA Council is hypocritical in regards to its policies on atheism and homosexuality. I’d actually say that their stated policies in regards to these two groups are following the letter rather than the spirit, clinging to a set of archaic beliefs and knee-jerk reactions. Local, regional and even national councils apparently agree as they have tried in the past, and continue to try, to get changes made in this regard. Scouting in other nations do not have similar restrictions. As far as I can see, Scouting doesn’t embrace what the BSA claims it does. Rather the opposite, the BSA is being pedantic in their interpretation.

I knew you'd go that route, but that doesn't jibe with how the Scouts organization defines it:

This would be the same as my interpretation of the Scout Oath versus the stated National policy in regards to “duty to God”. The Scout Law, like the Scout Oath doesn’t provide for a specific interpretation. It is left quite open. The stated policy is as you’ve cited it, but the oath and law do not include these. This has been twisted by the BSA to fit an agenda that has nothing to do with Scouting. It’s lame, idiotic and it should have changed already.

 

[ZirconBlue]

I think we're actually in agreement on a lot of this. For example, I agree with all of this:

But you’re older, wiser, and infinitely better looking than most Boy Scouts.

Perhaps doing away with the Scout Oath altogether is the most logical move.

Although I agree that this policy point, and thus the Scout Oath, should be changed.

Perhaps I’m being pedantic

the National BSA Council is hypocritical in regards to its policies on atheism and homosexuality.

This has been twisted by the BSA to fit an agenda that has nothing to do with Scouting. It’s lame, idiotic and it should have changed already.

 

[Sledge]

As far as I can tell, there is no bar to gay scouts or leaders (though there are some vague phrases such as "fit and proper" that could be used to justify exclusion if one was so minded), but I'm disappointed to find that there is a very clear exclusion of atheist leaders. (Although in practice I suspect there are quite a few atheist leaders.)

What if I say it's my belief that religion is stupid? Would that count as a religious belief? I'm prepared to say it every Sunday if that will help.

 

[RobRoy]

I think we're actually in agreement on a lot of this. For example, I agree with all of this: [snip]

Well that's good. Because I just don't think I could bare it if we weren't friends anymore!

Don't think I didn't catch where you left in my statement about being pedantic.

And to be completely fair, I probably am being pedantic in my defense of the BSA because I had no real knowledge of these issues when I was growing up and working toward (but never achieving) my Eagle Scout. No one likes to find out that a group they belong to, that they’ve been a part of for nearly thirty years (good lord!) has such a twisted vision and is excluding individuals based on religion (or lack thereof) or lifestyle (that isn’t a choice). I wasn’t an atheist (and still am not) and I wasn’t homosexual (and still am not), but these issues do affect me, and I find the BSA’s position on them abhorrent. So maybe I’m being naïve in my defense, and in remaining an Assistant Scoutmaster I’m feeding the problem. Perhaps I should resign my position under protest, or lodge formal complaints to the National Council until they give me the boot.

But then I look to the boys that I’ve been assisting over these past few years, and how far they’ve come. What fine young men some of them have turned out to be, eager to learn, willing to listen, capable of great kindness. I think of my current Senior Patrol Leader, Andrew, and how I hear him treat things with skepticism and query, unwilling to accept at face value what someone else might spoon feed him. I think of Jeremy, who recently, and suddenly, lost his father, Herman (a good, kind, and gentle man who could cook the best Dutch oven cobbler) and how I can see him watching me at times, even looking to me as a role-model for his own behavior. I know that I couldn’t serve them nearly as well if I wasn’t a part of the Scouting organization. In fact, I would have little to no interaction with them whatsoever. There would never be a time when Christian asked me why I wasn’t a member of his church. There would never be a time when they asked me to point out Orion’s Belt and recount the story of Orion and Artemis (my personal favorite version of the myth), or to show them how to build a proper fire, nock a bow, or sharpen their knives without cutting off their own fingers. And there certainly wouldn’t be a time where they watched how I treated each of them, as far as I can tell, as fairly as possible; adults or children when they acted the part, laughing with them or admonishing them (gently) as the situation called for.

I find that the majority of local and regional BSA members don’t really care what my religion or lifestyle is or what anyone else’s is. They’re more interested in giving the boys of Boy Scouting the opportunities that they either had or didn’t have. Giving them a sense of respect for the outdoors, for each other, and for themselves. To be civic-minded, to “do a good turn daily” and to define for themselves what it means to be “physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.”

So I don’t know what the best choice here is. Maybe I should do what was suggested, get an attorney and start fighting the BSA to change its ways. Or maybe I should just shut my mouth and go about my scoutmaster duties as best I can, knowing that the BSA can’t remain stagnant and someday, hopefully soon, it will self-correct.

I think I've said and argued all I can on this matter.

 

[Meadmaker]

My message would be to anyone who would deprive his kid of a scouting experience because of the institutional problems with the BSA, especially their religious stance and their anti-gay policies.

If your kid joins scouts, he will have some opportunities to participate in some activities that are fun, and some that are worthwhile, and some that will help him grow in different ways. Balanced against that, there is....what?

Let's be real for a minute. Is adherence to canned oaths really all that important? Really? For a teenaged or pre-teenaged boy? In my humble opinion, if you can get your kid to even think about what those words mean, you've done your good deed for the day. If he concludes that he cannot tolerate saying an oath he doesn't believe in, then he can make the decision to quit. I'm not going to force that decision on him.

 

[Dr. Keith]

In my humble opinion, if you can get your kid to even think about what those words mean, you've done your good deed for the day.

Very much so. I remember clearly the discussions I had with leaders in our troop about what the words mean and how taking the oath was verbal reminder of what we should strive for. That being said, it was very socratic rather than preachy. The leaders were mainly probing us into thinking about it rather than telling us what to think about it.

If he concludes that he cannot tolerate saying an oath he doesn't believe in, then he can make the decision to quit. I'm not going to force that decision on him.

Scouting doesn't work if it is forced. You either want to be there and participate fully or you just need to go home. In other words, I agree completely.

But, should a scout want to continue, even with reservations about the Oath and Law, or the BSA's application of them, I would support them in that decision as well. Scouting is a very self directed program. I focused more on outdoors and wilderness activities but one of my friends focused on the more indoors and cerebral activities. We were in the same troop and yet we had very different experiences. Also, his religion was a driving force in is life, while mine was more like background noise that I didn't really think about much. Scouting, at that time, could accommodate both of us.

 

[Dr. Keith]

No one likes to find out that a group they belong to, that they’ve been a part of for nearly thirty years (good lord!) has such a twisted vision and is excluding individuals based on religion (or lack thereof) or lifestyle (that isn’t a choice).

My thoughts exactly. I grew up in scouting, earned my eagle, and even worked for the scouts for a few summers in college. But I feel like the whole organization has left what I feel are it's core values. It really pisses me off.

But then I look to the boys that I’ve been assisting over these past few years, and how far they’ve come. What fine young men some of them have turned out to be, eager to learn, willing to listen, capable of great kindness. I think of my current Senior Patrol Leader, Andrew, and how I hear him treat things with skepticism and query, unwilling to accept at face value what someone else might spoon feed him. I think of Jeremy, who recently, and suddenly, lost his father, Herman (a good, kind, and gentle man who could cook the best Dutch oven cobbler) and how I can see him watching me at times, even looking to me as a role-model for his own behavior. I know that I couldn’t serve them nearly as well if I wasn’t a part of the Scouting organization. In fact, I would have little to no interaction with them whatsoever. There would never be a time when Christian asked me why I wasn’t a member of his church. There would never be a time when they asked me to point out Orion’s Belt and recount the story of Orion and Artemis (my personal favorite version of the myth), or to show them how to build a proper fire, nock a bow, or sharpen their knives without cutting off their own fingers. And there certainly wouldn’t be a time where they watched how I treated each of them, as far as I can tell, as fairly as possible; adults or children when they acted the part, laughing with them or admonishing them (gently) as the situation called for.

I find that the majority of local and regional BSA members don’t really care what my religion or lifestyle is or what anyone else’s is. They’re more interested in giving the boys of Boy Scouting the opportunities that they either had or didn’t have. Giving them a sense of respect for the outdoors, for each other, and for themselves. To be civic-minded, to “do a good turn daily” and to define for themselves what it means to be “physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.”

So I don’t know what the best choice here is. Maybe I should do what was suggested, get an attorney and start fighting the BSA to change its ways. Or maybe I should just shut my mouth and go about my scoutmaster duties as best I can, knowing that the BSA can’t remain stagnant and someday, hopefully soon, it will self-correct.

I think I've said and argued all I can on this matter.

Good on you for setting a good example for these kids and holding back the bigotry that is creeping into the BSA. If I had sons I hope I would do the same. Thank you.

 

[ZirconBlue]

If your kid joins scouts, he will have some opportunities to participate in some activities that are fun, and some that are worthwhile, and some that will help him grow in different ways. Balanced against that, there is....what?

Many other groups that offer "opportunities to participate in some activities that are fun, and some that are worthwhile, and some that will help him grow in different ways". They might be different sorts of opportunities, there are no shortage of worthwhile activities that a child can participate in outside of the Boy Scouts.

 

[CurtC]

Let's be real for a minute. Is adherence to canned oaths really all that important? Really? For a teenaged or pre-teenaged boy?

My issue isn't so much with my sons - they're 10 and 13, and don't yet know what they think of the God question.

My problem is that I'd like to join as an adult leader, and I probably will, but I'll have to lie on the application form.

 

[Meadmaker]

My issue isn't so much with my sons - they're 10 and 13, and don't yet know what they think of the God question.

My problem is that I'd like to join as an adult leader, and I probably will, but I'll have to lie on the application form.

Good point. That is a little bit of a different issue.

 

[RobRoy]

Many other groups that offer "opportunities to participate in some activities that are fun, and some that are worthwhile, and some that will help him grow in different ways". They might be different sorts of opportunities, there are no shortage of worthwhile activities that a child can participate in outside of the Boy Scouts.

[not facetious] But what organizations exist that are worldwide, immediately identifiable, with its highest rank having benefits outside the group? [/not facetious]

 

[ZirconBlue]

[not facetious] But what organizations exist that are worldwide, immediately identifiable, with its highest rank having benefits outside the group? [/not facetious]

I'm not sure I even consider those to be good things.

 

[RobRoy]

I'm not sure I even consider those to be good things.

Ok, I'll bite. Why not?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

So what you are saying is that you are a fundamentalist boyscout and as such take the written documents as the ideal scout so as to differentiate it from the current BSA?

Otherwise this looks like a rationalization as I see no reason to conjecture about some kind of platonic ideal scouting organisation that is what you reall support as distinct from the BSA.

 

[RobRoy]

So what you are saying is that you are a fundamentalist boyscout and as such take the written documents as the ideal scout so as to differentiate it from the current BSA?

Otherwise this looks like a rationalization as I see no reason to conjecture about some kind of platonic ideal scouting organisation that is what you reall support as distinct from the BSA.

Sorry, I have no idea what you're either accusing me of, or questioning me about. I'm happy to respond to either questions or accusations, I'm just very confused by what you've written here.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Sorry, I have no idea what you're either accusing me of, or questioning me about. I'm happy to respond to either questions or accusations, I'm just very confused by what you've written here.

It is that you seem to have some kind of hypothetical ideal scouting organisation based on your reading of a few documents, that has no bearing on any actual organisation. It seems rather similar to how fundamentalists view religious documents as being the sole source of wisdom and focus exclusively on their own reading of them.

So you seem to be focused on defending some conceptual scouting organisation that does not actually exist. It is kind of like saying "Well Catholicism real take on the issue is X irregardless of what the Pope and Cardinals say".

If your hypothetical scouting organisation existed we likely wouldn't be having this debate. Most people here seem to agree with certain values that scouting upholds, but those who take issue take issue with the organisation of the BSA.