• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Scouts and Religion?

Loki:

The bait was noted, but I decided to let it go because we've thrashed around the moral relative/objective issue a few times, and I wanted to see how the thread might develop.
Click to expand...

True enough. You have my apologies. At any rate, I didn't have any intentions for any serious or lengthy derailments of the thread.

At the risk of going back over old ground, I have to say that I do find the theory "if morals are relative, then anything *you* want to do is okay" as being simplistic in the extreme. Equating "Relative" with "only your opinion counts" doesn't help any such discussion much, except to show that taken to a ridiculous extreme then relative morality is ridiculous. I'd see this as a scale, with "completely objective" at one end and "completely subjective" at the other, rather that a simple binary choice.
Click to expand...

Point taken, but I think drawing that line before the "ridiculous extreme" is no small matter. Especially in the matter at hand... no one is getting injured or killed, no major rights are being violated. I think it would be difficult to argue that this case is anywhere near an extreme, and hence I believe my underlying point may still have some validity.
 
Potato,

Continuing this discussion that we are not having....

...but I think drawing that line before the "ridiculous extreme" is no small matter...
Click to expand...
Agreed, it's not necessarily easy - but two quick points. First, just 'cos it might be difficult doesn't mean it can't/shouldn't be done (in other words, picking an extreme just because it's "simple to do" is almost certainly a poor choice!). Second, the line isn't "etched in stone" - it can and should move over time to reflect changes.

...no major rights are being violated. I think it would be difficult to argue that this case is anywhere near an extreme...
Click to expand...
A person is excluded from from an organisation because of his attitude to religion (I'd use the phrase "because of his religious beliefs", but then Franko will jump all over me and say "ah-ha - so you admit that atheism is a religious belief!"). Obviously, if he was excluded from the BSA because he was black, it would a *major* issue. So it's not the organisation, or the action, that makes it major or minor - it's the grounds. Racial grounds are major, religious grounds are minor. Okay, if you say so.
 
Franko said:
I am not even saying that I agree with the Scouts on this issue. I am just saying that I agree that a person, or group of people, has the right to meet and associate with who they want to meet and associate with.
Click to expand...

The arguments you have made in this thread, Franko, have really got me thinking... not to make a big deal of it but I usually find myself in total disagreement with you... this time I have to scratch my head and mull it over.

As a private organization, the BSA would have the right to include whomever they choose to.

To the forum: when does a private organization become an institution... that is to say, when does it become something other than private in spite of itself?

Where would you draw the line? What public resources is it entitled to while still having the legal rights of a private organization?

I'm having a hard time coming up with a clear answer on this one, or to say whether the BSA crosses that line or not.

More thoughts on this?
 
Loki:

If we were having a discussion, I would respond to you in the following manner...

A person is excluded from from an organisation because of his attitude to religion (I'd use the phrase "because of his religious beliefs", but then Franko will jump all over me and say "ah-ha - so you admit that atheism is a religious belief!"). Obviously, if he was excluded from the BSA because he was black, it would a *major* issue. So it's not the organisation, or the action, that makes it major or minor - it's the grounds. Racial grounds are major, religious grounds are minor. Okay, if you say so.
Click to expand...

To paraphrase something Victor said a few times, it's not discrimination if the criteria is actually relevant. The fact that someone is black has very little bearing on anything, and hence is probably never a valid reason to exclude someone from something. However, if an organization exists to promote a given ideology, and a certain person's beliefs are opposed to elements of that ideology, then it may be reasonable and relevant to exclude them. If a group of Muslims whose goal was to further the ideologies of Islam refused to admit me, a Christian, to their ranks, I can't say I would necessarily fault them for it or say that they were doing something immoral.
 
Potato,

Assuming you *did* post such a reply to a conversation we may one day have...

To paraphrase something Victor said a few times, it's not discrimination if the criteria is actually relevant.
...
However, if an organization exists to promote a given ideology, and a certain person's beliefs are opposed to elements of that ideology, then it may be reasonable and relevant to exclude them.
Click to expand...
And thus we arrive at the nub - what is the "purpose" of the BSA. Given that it offically seeks to promote no specific theology (perhaps we can say it seeks to promote an ideology of "at least one theology"?), it would appear that the BSA are happy to admit Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Satanists, and even (shudder) Scientologists. However, atheists need excluding. I guess I could agree that's a "relevant criteria". Still seems a little "arbitrary" to me, but I don't want to be a Scout anyway (sorry upchurch/Jkorosi) so what would I know?
 
Loki:

I guess I could agree that's a "relevant criteria". Still seems a little "arbitrary" to me
Click to expand...

I mostly agree, but that's up to them I suppose. As I said, I think it's kind of silly, misguided, and counterproductive. However I don't think it objectively reaches the level of immorality.

But it would be interesting to see what happened if a Satanist tried to get in.
 
It's funny how this guy has been in the scouts for 10 years, and suddenly he's not worthy anymore because of his belief system.
Seems a little odd to me.
It would appear his atheism did not hinder his abilities up until this point, so why should it prove a problem in the future?

And what exactly will he do? Corrupt the youngsters in the scouts with his blasphemy?

I guess this whole notion of tolerance preached in religions like christianity only extends to those who share a similar belief system.

Interesting.
 
Scouting

I am an Eagle Scout.

And I am anti-Xtian. The BSA's stance on this issue is not about scouting but about religion and the infestation of fundamentalist Xtian dogma into all of our society. Can a scout be an athiest and an Eagle Scout? Absolutely and he can do it without violating any Scout Oath or Scout Law.

Reverence means to be tolerant of others religion and to expect the same reverence in return; it also means to not be disruptive to others religious belief's. Reverence to God is a personal thing that should not be subject to public scrutiny. Belief or non-belief in God is neither pertinent nor necessary for reverence.

"Duty to God"... What exactly is One's "Duty to God?" One man's duty may be to be a minister; but to another it may be to challenge the precepts of false religions - of which Xtianity is one.

There is a specific religious award that is sanctioned by the BSA and religion: The God and Country Award. This reward, as I remember, was for either Xtian or Jewish Eagle Scouts. I chose not to seek this award as I perceived this award in my case as hypocritical. My best friend did get this reward.

Religion should not be a litmus test for Scouting. The next thing would be a religious test for public office, or military service, or for any job...
 
Franko:

I don’t know Aerosolben. To me this is kind of like saying:

suppose you have a girlfriend, but one day she meets someone who she likes better than you, so she moves out of your house, and moves in to the new guys house.


I would say the case of the club is more appropriate, because it's not just your club, it's your's and your friends'. If they all decide they want to see the club change, you're the oddball, not the new guy.

Are you going to go to court and have a Judge force her to be your girlfriend again?

Hardly.

Individuals get to decide who they want to associate with.

Indeed. Including the other people in the club.

I don’t believe that intervening third parties decreeing John must be friends with Bill is productive or Just.

Of course not. The club would be more the case of, "Look, everyone else likes the new guy. We're going to invite him to join us. You can stay or leave."

I am just saying that I agree that a person, or group of people, has the right to meet and associate with who they want to meet and associate with.

I agree. I think if they wish to disagree with government policy, though, they need to cease taking government money/resources.
 
I guess this whole notion of tolerance preached in religions like christianity only extends to those who share a similar belief system.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because we sure as hell know that A-Theists are certainly the MOST tolerant of other people's belief systems! :rolleyes:
 
Heretic,

Religion should not be a litmus test for Scouting. The next thing would be a religious test for public office, or military service, or for any job...
Click to expand...

So if your girlfriend ever dumps you because She decides that She doesn’t want to be with an A-Theist for the rest of her life, you should go to a Judge and get a court order forcing Her to be your girlfriend anyway?

Because if you don’t stand up for your rights with your girlfriend the next thing would be a religious test for public office, or military service, or for any job...

Should a fundamentalist Christian who believes in Biblical inerrancy be bared from teaching high school science class? (… next thing would be a religious test for public office …)
 
Aerosolben,

Franko:
I don’t know Aerosolben. To me this is kind of like saying:

suppose you have a girlfriend, but one day she meets someone who she likes better than you, so she moves out of your house, and moves in to the new guys house.

Aerosolben:
I would say the case of the club is more appropriate, because it's not just your club, it's your's and your friends'. If they all decide they want to see the club change, you're the oddball, not the new guy.
Click to expand...

The club’s membership takes a vote, or decides by some rules which the club as mutually agreed upon, but basically the club is acting as a single entity. If that entity decides it does or does not want to except people with certain beliefs (beliefs in opposition to that of the club), then why do you feel that an outside party is morally justified in forcing them to do something against their wishes?

Can an ugly girl that you do not really care for go to court, and force you to be her boyfriend? How about a Gay man? Should a homosexual be able to go to court and force you to have gay-sex with him against your wishes? What is the difference?

Franko:
Individuals get to decide who they want to associate with.

Aerosolben:
Indeed. Including the other people in the club.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on this point, if the club (internally) decides to allow this or that person in, than that is their business, and if the scouts decided to let Gay’s or Atheists be scouts, that is their business. I’m just saying that they should NOT be forced to accept members who they do NOT want to accept by an intervening outside party.

Franko:
I don’t believe that intervening third parties decreeing John must be friends with Bill is productive or Just.

Aerosolben:
Of course not. The club would be more the case of, "Look, everyone else likes the new guy. We're going to invite him to join us. You can stay or leave."

Franko:
I am just saying that I agree that a person, or group of people, has the right to meet and associate with who they want to meet and associate with.

Aerosolben:
I agree. I think if they wish to disagree with government policy, though, they need to cease taking government money/resources.
Click to expand...

I think we are pretty much in agreement on this topic.

As soon as any club is getting money from the government, then as a taxpayer, I have become a defacto member of the club, and I get to vote on their policy just like the members do. In other words, if they are taking my money, then I get a say; otherwise, don’t take my money.

But I wasn’t aware that the scouts get money from the government?
 
Franko points out that if it was tax funded, taxpayers are in a sense members of the club and so should not be excluded.

But this kid IS a member isn't he? His nonbelief in God didn't cause them a problem before as they accepted his thousands of hours of volunteer work.

Should the scouts be legally bound to accept him? I really don’t know. What I do know is that, legal or not, what they are doing is wrong. It is cruel, parochial and absolutely exemplary of the sort of danger that superstition poses to society.

The question here is not whether it is legal to exclude this evidently hardworking young man, the question is whether it is right. Thus, the analogies to skinheads in the NAACP don’t hold any water. Skinheads are out to persecute black people. This evil atheist wants to contribute to society - a goal hardly at odds with the main ideals of scouts.

But hey, if people want to kill each other over whether they say two hallelujah or three, cruelly exclude each other over whether an invisible man who doesn't do anything is hiding in the sky - that's the kind of society they'll get.

Regards,
Synaesthesia
 
Zak,

Though no level of government directly funds the operating budget of the BSA ...
Click to expand...

Bottom line.

The A-Theists or Gays cannot complain because the local police force offers outreach programs to the scouts. If an A-Theist, or Gay group went to the police the police would offer the same outreach program. Where's the discrimination?
 
Franko said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though no level of government directly funds the operating budget of the BSA ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...
Clearly, we are not dealing with a question so basic as whether the BSA has a right to discriminate if it wants to. Defined as a religious organization (or, to some extent, even as a private club or business), the BSA can pretty much exclude who it pleases. But the BSA is not a mere private entity. It is entangled with government at every level -- local, state, and federal -- receiving endorsements, preferential treatment, goods, and services. Taxpayer dollars thus support it to a significant degree, creating a blatant violation of church-state separation that could never have escaped notice if the religious entity in question had been Campus Crusade for Christ or the Church of Scientology. Ironically, it is only the BSA's latter-day assertion of religious privilege -- cooked up as a response to charges of discrimination -- that suddenly render its government entanglements such a serious constitutional question.

They can't have it both ways: if the BSA is religious, it must sever all government ties; if it is secular, all discrimination must cease.
Click to expand...
 
Just a couple of thoughts

On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country, to obey the Scout Law, to help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.
Click to expand...
That's the Scout Oath. I've said it many a time in my youth and still can call it and the Law up on a moments notice. But what do you do, when different aspects of the oath conflict?

"I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country" By forcing a child to believe in God, I'm not doing my duty to my country (by way of the 1st amendment). I believe that by allowing the child to find his own way, I can accomplish both duty to God and duty to country.

"to obey the Scout Law" I agree with Heretic. The twelfth point of the Scout Law, A Scout is Reverent, means that a scout is respectful of his beliefs and of others. If the scouts were to disrespect the beliefs of athiests, is that being reverent?

"to help other people at all times" I believe that the principles of Scouting is a good and beneficial thing. To deny scouting to those who want to participate is to harm them and not to be helpful.

By disallowing atheists (and gays), BSA is breaking three points of it's own oath and 6 of it's 12 laws (loyal, helpful, friendly, curtious, kind, and reverent), in my opinion. As a member, I'd rather they help boys become good men instead of playing exlusionary politics.

Upchurch
 
I like it.

Either the BSA "fixes" the damage these latter-day fundies are doing in their little "crusade" to make Christians of everyone... or every level of government support has to diverce themselves from the BSA.

Rock. Hard Place.

Maybe that special congressionally mandated monopoly should go, no matter what happens. Somebody had better move that up on the agenda.

I'm sure the 'Christian Right' can exclusively fund it all out of their televangelist and political lobbying "war chests".
 
Zak,

But the BSA is not a mere private entity. It is entangled with government at every level -- local, state, and federal -- receiving endorsements, preferential treatment, goods, and services. Taxpayer dollars thus support it to a significant degree, creating a blatant violation of church-state separation
Click to expand...

So what? Present your evidence that those same resources are not equally offered to other groups besides the Boy Scouts? Are you claiming that there is an A-Theist or Gay Scout group that the police force has refused to offer the outreach program for? If my business gives the Scouts an endorsement would you order government goons to come over and force my company to similarly endorse an A-Theist or Gay group?

The fact that the scouts take advantage of “Free” government programs does NOT preclude A-Theist or Gay groups from taking similar advantage of those same “Free” programs. And even if it did, then that is a governmental issue, NOT one for the Scouts.
 
I was going to start a new thread on this subject (in relation to one currently going on over in Politics) when I remembered that there already was one. And, looking back over it, other posters and myself have already said everything I was going to say.

So, to make a long story short: bump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom