Hunt

"There are words that are not acceptable to some people and we asked everyone (adults and youth) to respect that."

I think this is why this can be an opportunity for education, both in sensitivity to others, and in how others perceive us. You never know what language will be taboo. For example, my wife was taught that one never refers to one's mother as "she" or father as "he." I never heard of such a thing, but I find myself telling my kids, "Don't refer to your mother as "she."" They are able to understand that although this kind of expression is OK for most people, it is not OK around their mother.

I remember reading before that BSA had told Goodwill and Salvation Army to stop selling uniforms. I wonder if this was true, and if it's a policy that's being enforced. In the Jan-Feb issue of Scouting, there's an article about a guy who scours Goodwills, etc. for uniforms that he fixes up and gives away. http://www.scoutingmagazine.org/issues/0701/d-news.html

Would they have printed this if this was to be discouraged? And have they done anything to try to stop ebay from carrying sales of scout uniforms?

I think this is a tough issue, because what constitutes "bad language" is a moving target. A prime example is "that sucks," which has different connotations depending on your age. Also, I'm not sure words like "frickin'" should be punished--maybe we really would prefer that bad words morph into more benign ones. After all, we're probably not concerned if somebody says "darn" or "doggone" or "dadburn." Maybe "frickin'" just isn't morphed enough, but "flippin'" is OK. Perhaps this is a situation in which bright-line rules are not the answer, but discussions of how language fits in with the values of the Oath and Law...some boys will actually learn something from the discussions, and others will clean up their language to avoid the discussions.

I would just say that if you give the PLC a voice in the process, you must listen carefully to what they say, and be prepared to explain to them your reasoning if you don't follow their advice.

"The only religious requirement to be in and advance in Boy Scouts is the DRP. After you sign the DRP (which isn't even spelled in complete text on the application), there are no other. A scout can advance to the highest honors of scouting and never complete a requirement that is religious based. The Duty to God in the oath is universally accepted to be too vague to measure for advancement. Didn't the chief scout state that believing in a rock was enough? Just imagine if Duty To Self had the same weight."

As you intimate, in fact there is a religious element to all rank advancements in Boy Scouts beginning with Second Class--to live the Oath and Law in the scout's daily life. Thus, there is an obligation to demonstrate duty to God and reverence. Although I agree that these are difficult to measure (and are usually measured with a few bland questions), the admitted absence of these would not be difficult to measure. But I do agree that these are vague, and there is a legitimate argument about whether they are a core element of the program.

I agree that BSA has a dilemma, but I would prefer to assume good faith on the part of the leaders. Let's assume that they really believe that religion in some form is an important value--that it really should be part of the upbringing of each boy--but that they really do want to promote this idea in a non-sectarian way. What should they do?

"Hunt, what value does the DRP provide BSA besides creating the membership barrier?"

It, um, declares the religious principles of BSA. Really, that's what this thread is all about--if BSA believes that its religious principles are important, should they play more of a part in the program? In other words, the principle could shape what the program does, as opposed to who gets in. Right now, people who don't like camping or the outdoors typically do not become Boy Scouts--there is no need to make applicants sign a statement that they like camping and the outdoors. If exposure to religious program elements was a given, then people who didn't want that could decide not to join. To go back to my favorite silly analogy, you could certainly have an Elvis fan club without requiring potential members to sign a pro-Elvis pledge, and simply rely on your Elvis-heavy program to keep Elvis haters out.

I'm not sure my idea would require that the DRP be dropped--what would be dropped is the requirement to assert belief in God in order to be a member. BSA would still be a religious organization, with religious principles, but it wouldn't have belief as a membership requirement. Look, for a model, at the mission statement of the University of Notre Dame: http://newsinfo.nd.edu/content.cfm?topicid=32. Notre Dame doesn't impose a religious belief requirement on students, and yet it remains a Catholic school, and that has implications for how it does certain things. If you choose to go there, that's part of the deal. So, what I suggest would not allow BSA to go back into the schools, because it would still be a relgious organization.

And for the American Heritage Girls--sure, their website's first page refers to "Judeo-Christian values," but there are links right there to "Creed" and "Statement of Faith." Anybody who doesn't find out in two seconds that it is a Christian group just isn't paying attention.

And gee, I'm really sorry about the guy who found out that Little League has a religious element, and was "less than pleased." Does Little League have a religious membership requirement? No. Does it have any required relgious observance? No. In fact, the only thing I know about is the Little League Pledge, which has a reference to God in it--but nobody is required to recite this pledge. Could Little League change its rules and impose a religious membership requirement? Sure, legally. I don't think it would ethical for them to do this, given the expectations they have created. However, BSA is not in this position, because the "duty to God" and "reverence" elements have always been evident to anyone who got involved.

Finally, I take your point about BSA being in the schools for decades without expelling atheists. But I think BSA has now proved that its religious requirement is not a sham, because if it were merely a sham, it could have tweaked it enough to remain in the schools. It didn't do that. Was BSA dishonest for not expelling atheists during the earlier period? Well, maybe. However, the reality is that atheists were so thin on the ground (or so quiet) that this was a non-issue for most units. Perhaps BSA was de facto following the practice that I suggest: Allowing non-believers to join, but exposing them to the BSA values, including the relgious ones.

Just thought I'd add that there are apparently still some youth spots open in the BSA contingent. (BSA deposited our deposit check, so I guess my son is going, although we haven't gotten the confirmation letter yet.) As we learn more about it, it looks like a really great opportunity--although, yes, it is quite expensive.

"Since a unit is owned by its chartering organization, each unit takes its tax status from that organization. Units are NOT subordinate organizations of the Boy Scouts of America.

So it seems to me that although the policies of BSA prohibit unit leaders from soliciting donations, the statement above means that if a person approaches a unit and wants to donate to the unit, that the proper thing to do would be to explain that the unit is part of the CO. This may seem like sophistry, but a person who is offering to donate to the unit is really offering to donate to the CO--wouldn't it be wrong to try to divert that donation to a different organization? On a more practical basis, there may be one person who is willing to donate to "scouting," and another guy who'd like to give money to Troop XXX to buy new canoes.

"Well Hunt, your last message would lead me to think that you would approve, not disapprove, of the town where Little League was disbanded and a Christian-only ballclub was started. After all, it's obviously 1) a private club, 2) started with the intent to only allow Christians, and 3) presumably all the non-Christian kids who are now excluded learn the same lesson that kids excluded from the BSA learn that you seem to think is so important - namely, that private organizations don't have to change their rules for your convenience. Or is that a useful message only if atheists are the only ones excluded, because that doesn't exclude you, personally, which makes it OK?"

Subtlety is lost on you, so I'll give it a try again, and be more explicit. 1. It is LEGAL for private groups to set religious membership requirements. 2. It is REASONABLE and FAIR for them to do so if religious belief or practice is, in fact, a significant element of the aims or program of the group. 3. It is UNREASONABLE and UNFAIR for a group to use religious requirements as a mere pretext to exclude others from an activity which has nothing to do with religion. Thus, I disapprove of what the baseball league did because it appears to me that they didn't do this in order to preserve any principle, but rather to exclude what they considered to be undesireable people. They changed the rules, adding a religious requirement where one did not previously exist, to an activity that does not appear, on the surface anyway, to be religious in nature. So while I think they could do this legally, it seems unreasonable and unfair. Now, let's compare that to BSA's requirement. First, nobody who knows anything about BSA's history thinks that the duty to God and reverent elements were added in order to exclude atheists--rather, they were included because the founders of BSA thought they were important values, along with other values embodied in the Oath and Law. On the other hand, it is fair to ask whether the religious element of Scouting is significant enough for it to be fair and reasonable to make religious belief a requirement for membership. That's what this thread is about. In other words, it is OK for a religious organization to discriminate on the basis of religion. It is OK for an organization with a viewpoint to discriminate on the basis of the viewpoint, but not OK to discriminate against people because you don't like their kind. So, it is OK for the Elvis fan club to discriminate against people who don't like Elvis, but not OK for the Elvis fan club to discriminate against people because they are black. Again, the question here is whether BSA in fact holds and promotes the viewpoint involved strongly enough to justify excluding people who don't share it. And while I don't see what the American Heritage Girls have to do with anything, don't you prefer their approach to BSA's, since they make it clear that they are an expressly Christian organization? I thought your criticism of BSA's religion requirement was that it was too diffuse to have theological meaning--you certainly can't say that about the American Heritage Girls. It's not unfair for the American Heritage Girls to exclude Buddhists--it's a Christian club, and it was started to promote Christian values because the founder felt GSA wasn't doing that. Maybe it's just a pretext (like the baseball league), but that's not the impression I get from their website.

"And you can bet that those on the "inside" feel pretty dang virtuous about excluding those on the outside."

Do you think members of a church feel virtuous about excluding those on the outside? To the contrary, most churches are looking for ways to persuade those people to change their views and come inside. Personally, I don't feel virtuous or superior when I hear that somebody is an atheist, I feel sad, because I think that person is making a tragic mistake, sort of like I do when I find out that a person has the wrong political views, only more so. (I will note that at least some atheists feel the same way, see http://www.atheists.org/welcome.html, in which atheists are urged to evangelize for atheism.)

"My contention in that example is that similar 'opening' of BSA would also have no negative outcome (except, perhaps, to those who really see Trevorum's identified 'benefits' as something positive)"

What do you think about my idea that BSA could open its membership to anyone, but with the understanding that they will be exposed to religious program content?

Lisabob, I think while this thread has wandered, to me it shows that the "core component" question is really important: in fact, it is the apparent disconnect between BSA's statements that Duty to God is a core component of the program, and the perception that people have of the actual program, that is the problem. So, for example, Merlyn's question:

"So religion is a core part of scouting, but not a core part of Little League, even though Little League ALSO has a pledge that includes 'god' (and thus excludes atheists and polytheists)? Why don't you support Little League's right to practice religious discrimination just because you can't appreciate how vitally important it is for all members of Little League to be monotheists?"

Clearly, religion is a core component of some activities--surely even Merlyn would not object to a church's confirmation class restricting membership to adherents of the religion. On the other hand, it really doesn't seem to be a core component of other activities--especially if the activity was historically carried on without any religious element, as the Little League was. Where is BSA in this continuum? It's not so clear. "Duty to God" has been there from the beginning, but it is debatable how significant an element of the program it actually is.

Here are a few propositions I would propose: First, we all understand, I think, that it is legal for a private organization to decide that membership is only open to people with specified religious beliefs. To determine whether it is fair and reasonable for the organization to do so, one can fairly look to the role that religious belief plays in the purposes and programs of the organization. The smaller the role, the more unreasonable is the restriction.

Oh, Packsaddle--I almost missed the shot in your last post. To compare BSA's highly inclusive religious views with discrimination against "mud races" is a pretty laughable analogy, even compared to the Elvis one. I also thought of a benefit to people excluded from BSA on religious grounds: they get the opportunity to understand that their convenience is not necessarily enough to make others compromise their principles. See if you can answer this question: what is the benefit of Roman Catholics of requiring one to be a member of the church in order to receive Mass? What is the benefit of that requirement to non-Catholics?

"If membership requirements are crafted in a manner that actively excludes certain persons for specific reasons, there must be some perceived positive benefit for doing this (health, safety, profit, better crops?) or else perhaps the benefit is the good feeling of having excluded someone."

I think you are too focused on the idea of excluding "certain persons." It is only the highly inclusive nature of BSA that makes you think this way. Again, if we were talking about the Elvis fan club, or a church's confirmation class, the benefit to the included of exclusivity would be obvious. The benefit (again) is the opportunity to be in a group of like-minded people who are committed to a common idea. It clearly benefits them to allow only people with a similar commitment. Although the Elvis fan club is a silly example, it illustrates my point well. Why would the fan club want to have Elvis-haters in the club? They may not want to spend their time defending the King's greatness, and they may want a membership that will all support Elvis-related activities, like, perhaps, putting up a statue of Elvis. It's a benefit to them to have ONLY Elvis fans in their club. Again, I think the problem with BSA is that there are different perceptions of just how central to the program the Duty to God element is. If it was an obvious, major program element that suffused all meetings and activities, the reasonableness of excluding non-believers would be more obvious.

(If all these analogies bore you, stop reading here.) A further thought: maybe one reason the Elvis fan club analogy seems silly is because it seems ridiculous to us that an Elvis-hater would want to join that club. But what if the local Elvis fan club was funded by a rich benefactor who built them a fancy clubhouse with a gym, pool tables, plasma TV, free food, etc.? Then, I suspect a fair number of people who are ambivalent about Elvis might join, and Elvis-haters might think it was somehow unfair that they were excluded. I think that this is the perception some people have of BSA: that it is "really" a camping club with lots of cool activities, and that the religion requirement is just a pretext to exclude some people. Again, that's what this thread is about--is BSA "really" about Duty to God or not? I recall reading about a town where the Little League was disbanded and replaced with a church-based youth baseball league with membership restricted to Christians. That seems wrong to me, and I guess the reason is that it seems like baseball was the core element, and religion was a pretext to exclude undesirable people. I don't believe that this is the history or intent of BSA's membership requirement, but I can understand why people might perceive it that way.

"I have asked the question many times and no one has supplied an effective answer: What is the benefit to a boy who is excluded because of his religious faith or worse, the faith of his parents? The absence of answers is, in fact, the answer: None."

"Here's a new question since no one seems to have an answer for that one: What benefit is it to the boys who ARE in scouting for these other boys to be turned away for religious reasons? That one should be easy, right?"

I answered both of these questions in another thread, but I guess didn't see or didn't like the answer. The answer is that there is obviously no benefit to a person who is excluded from a group by a membership requirement--the benefit is to those who are able to join, because the group is FOR people who share a particular value or experience. BSA, and many people in BSA, think that it is valuable for boys to be in a youth organization that promotes "duty to God" as a core value. You can't become a full member of a typical church without making a profession of faith--obviously, that requirement is of no value to a person who is not prepared to make such a profession, but the value to members is obvious--the whole point of membership in the church is to be part of a body of believers. The point of this particular thread is whether "duty to God" is, in practice, a core element of the BSA program--if it is, then it is perfectly sensible to allow as members only persons willing to accept it. Another analogy I've mentioned before: if you want to join an Elvis fan club, would you be shocked if they asked you to sign a pledge affirming that you like Elvis, or if they kicked you out if you declared that you hate Elvis? On the other hand, if the so-called Elvis fan club never discussed Elvis, didn't listen to his music, and focused entirely on outdoor activities that had nothing to do with Elvis, you might question the point of the pledge. To push the analogy one more step, my idea is that the Elvis fan club could allow anybody in as a member, as long as they accept that the club meetings will be focusing on Elvis, listening to Elvis' music, etc.

It is difficult to be totally non-sectarian, but also to claim that you have a defined set of values that are derived from religious beliefs. If you really want to claim that all religions (vs. non-religious ethical systems) share those values, they are going to be pretty general and vague values, and there won't be much to distinguish them form non-religious ethical schemes.

The more I think about this, the more I think that BSA should decide on what religious elements should be part of the program, and leave belief out of it. It should let anybody join, but with the understanding that they will be exposed to and expected to participate in certain program elements that are religious in nature. After all, we don't expect every scout to fully live all the elements of the Scout Law when he first joins--the program is supposed to help develop those characteristics in him. Why couldn't "reverent" be the same thing? Parents who don't want their sons to learn to be more reverent or to hear about "duty to God" couold choos not to join.Ithink the effect on actual membership would be negligible, and there would no longer be any reason to exclude people.

I'm intrigued by the idea of what the "correct" definition of religion is. In general, dictionary definitions support my (and BSA's) understanding of what a relgion is--it involves belief in unseen, divine powers or forces. This is what the WORD "religion" means. Of course, courts have had to struggle with the legal meaning of "religion" when it is used in the Constitution and in laws, and they have come to a variety of decisions based on the context (see http://www.religiousfreedom.com/articles/casino.htm for an interesting article about this). In some cases, courts have held that the protections given to religion should be extended to other beliefs that occupy the same position in a person's life that a more traditional religion would, and in others they have made a distinction between relgion and philophy (for example, the religion clauses of the Constitution have been interpreted to only apply to actual religious beliefs). But of course, all of this is really irrelevant to the discussion at hand, because as a private entity, BSA has the right to define "religion" as it chooses (actually, the term it's defining is "duty to God" anyway). It's fair to ask whether BSA is consistent in the application of its definition, of course, and the question of whether religion so broadly defined is really a core of the program (see the other thread on that issue), but what Texas comptrollers do or do not do is not really helpful to the discussion.

If you "wouldn't be surprised" if BSA started to kick Buddhists out, you are startlingly ignorant of BSA. BSA goes to great lengths to avoid kicking anybody out, and usually only does so if the person decides to make an issue. Certainly, BSA would not kick out any Buddhists who professed even the most vague and nebulous belief in any kind of spiritual reality.

"The US government can't require religions to have supreme being(s)."

Well, maybe, but that's not what you asked me. You asked me about BSA's rule, which I interpret to require belief in some spiritual reality beyond the observable natural world. Without that, a belief system is a philosophy, not a religion. Besides, I thought you were insinuating that BSA was being inconsistent by not excluding atheist Buddhists, and I told you that if I had to enforce the rule, I would exclude them. Don't you like my answer?

"Sorry, you'll have to include some unbelievable crap to be a real religion"

Aside from your insulting tone, you've basically got it right, although I would say that you have to include some unprovable beliefs in the supernatural to be a real religion. That's an essential element of what a religion is, as opposed to a philosophy. This is why Newdow's Church, no matter how much crap it may contain, simply isn't a religion.

While I, too, think boys can be deliberately cruel (particularly in a pack), I think more often the problem is a lack of empathy. While I don't want to add "A Scout is Empathetic" to the Scout Law, I do think that many of Scouting's ideals and program elements do help a boy develop empathy--an understanding of and concern for the feelings and needs of other people. Doing good turns, service projects, even Leave No Trace contribute to this idea, as does leadership of younger boys. I think most of us in Scouting have seen strong boys go out of their way to help smaller, weaker, or disabled Scouts--I would add that this is something that they do not learn on sports teams.

I think there is a difference between "mooning" and simply being unclothed in front of others. I think it is perhaps like the difference between holding and "brandishing" a knife. I personally don't see mooning as particularly awful--certainly not a sex crime--but I agree that it's inappropriate as a Scout behavior, especially if it's known that others don't like it. As far as sensitivity about being seen with no clothes, or seeing others with no clothes, we have to remember that this may be a cultural or religious issue for some boys, and we should respect that. If it's just a particular sensitivity of a particular boy, I'm not sure it's our place to try to make him "get over it." Or rather, maybe he's more likely to get over it if he knows that he can trust his fellow Scouts to treat him with respect.

There was a former poster here who used to say that we didn't really need any rules beyond the Scout Law. I never really agreed with that, but in this case it seems to me to be about right. If we're serious about the values in the Scout Law, it's obvious that Scouts don't pull pranks that betray the trust of younger, weaker scouts or that unkindly humiliate them. If you're concerned about toughening up boys, Scouting does that in a positive way by giving them opportunities to face challenges together. I think they'll have plenty of opportunities to experience unkindness and untrustworthiness in other areas of their lives.

"Hunt, would you exclude Rev. Dr. Michael Newdow for being an atheist, even though he's founded a religion? Would you exclude an atheist Buddhist?"

If I had the obligation to enforce the current membership requirement, yes, I would exclude both of them. I don't think membership in an organized religion is necessarily relevant to whether a person believes in a spiritual reality or not. I would also exclude a Methodist who was an atheist, for that matter. Also, I think that words have meanings, and as a result Newdow has not founded a "religion" at all. It is a philosophy, certainly, but it simply does not meet a basic definition of what a religion is. He can call it what he likes, of course, but a duck is a duck even if you call it a camel.

"Shouldn't BSA help support our country by having the uniforms made here? I am sure that there is some clothing manufacturer that would be willing to support scouting by lowering their prices...or is BSA running up the cost?"

Unfortunately, the desire to have lower costs and to have US-made clothing are in opposition to each other. If you really want US-made clothing, the costs will almost certainly have to be higher.

Merlyn, you seem to think that there is no "theological" significance to having religious beliefs vs. having no religious beliefs. I suppose it is difficult for an atheist to understand what a Buddhist and a Baptist have in common, but there is a shared outlook and sense of what is important. Rather than "playing dumb," I am pointing out the absurdity of your attempt to make BSA's virtue--its nonsectarian position--into a vice. I suppose it is the case that the highly inclusive nature of BSA's religion requirement makes it that much tougher for the small minority of people who don't qualify. An atheist in America is sort of like the kid who was the only Jew in my high school class. She couldn't join the churches that any of the other kids in the class belonged to (at least, not without giving up her religion). I'm sure that was tough for her, but it wasn't unfair.

I have to say that I don't fully understand the point of the annual rechartering process. What does it accomplish beside updating the roster and collecting annual fees? If, as I suspect, 95% of CO signatures are strictly pro forma, and people aren't really meeting with commissioners, or setting up rechartering teams, etc., etc., why not simplify the process?

"If Ollie's such a loser, what does that make the 320 people who showed up and donated $160K to hear him?"

Forgetful? Unclear on the concept of "trustworthy?"

North essentially admitted to lying under oath to Congress, and only had three felony convictions overturned because the appeals court felt that his later public, immunized testimony may have prevented him from getting a fair trial. To my mind, he's in the same category as Bill Clinton in terms of serving as a role model to youth.

I'd like to try to separate three ideas that seem to be mixed up a bit here. One is tolerance of risk, another is what I would call "toughness," and the last one is the place of pranks.

As far as risk goes, I agree that many parents have gotten far too risk-averse, and a certain level of risk is inherent in the kind of outdoor activities involved in Scouting. While good Scouting includes understanding and managing risk, it wouldn't be worth much if it avoided all risks. So on this, I agree with most of the posters.

With respect to "toughness," I think Scouting does help develop a positive kind of toughness in boys--the kind that comes from enduring and overcoming challenging circumstances, like hiking with a heavy pack, camping out in the cold, trying to get a fire started in the rain, etc. I think it would be a very bad idea to try to take this away. Again, some parents have trouble understanding the value of this.

With respect to pranks, I have a different view. I think too much emphasis on pranks teaches a boy not to trust his comrades, and to be always looking over his shoulder to see if somebody is going to put one over on him. While that is a useful skill for many areas of life, I think Scouting should be a setting in which that kind of attitude is not necessary, because a Scout should know that his comrades are trustworthy. I'm not against humor, or kidding around, or even pranks per se--but I am against pranks that fail a simple test--are they consistent with the Scout Law? I see that there's a bigger discussion of this on the Summer Camp board, but I thought it was worth mentioning here, because I wanted to emphasize that opposing snipe hunts is not the same as opposing rock climbing, cold weather camping, etc.