Hunt

Some of the education process for parents has to be to focus on the process and not just the goal. I am constantly having this discussion with my wife. She is looking at the long-term big picture in terms of success--so she wants our son to be an Eagle Scout, to hurry up and get his MBs, etc. She is always after him (and me) to call the MBC, to arrange this and that, etc. I have to remind her (and myself) that it's really up to him to do that, with only limited help from us.

I don't want to restrict the scouts--rather, I want to teach them when it is appropriate to restrict themselves, out of respect to people with differing (and especially minority) viewpoints. I wouldn't make a big deal about an occasional mention, but if you end every meeting with a prayer that invokes Jesus, you're not welcoming people of other faiths. I also don't think it's enough to give the minority Scout his turn to offer a prayer invoking his own deity--you're still emphasizing his position as a minority. Here's a real-life analogy. In my son's patrol there is a Jewish scout who does not eat pork. In my view, the patrol should never include pork on their menu when that scout is going to be present. They also should not make a big deal of the sacrifice they are making by eating turkey bacon--they're should do it out of respect for a brother scout, not because they "have to."

"There may be some give and take by a few churches, but I cant think of any major moral issue that has changed in my lifetime." Maybe my lifetime has lasted longer, but I think the view of many religious groups about racial segregation has changed enourmously over the last 40+ years. A number of churches have changed their positions on homosexuality (some even ordaining homosexual clergy). Also, even within the Judeo-Christian heritage there are huge differences in what is considered moral behavior--divorce, dietary laws, proper roles of women, gambling, drinking, pacifism, you name it. All based on revelation, or interpretation of revelation. My point is that you can't get too far in arguing that your morality is based on eternal truths (v. the atheist's morality, which is supposedly just based on his own opinion), when there is an endless variety of versions of the eternal truths, often in conflict with one another. The bottom line, for me, is that BSA has decided that it is for people who believe that there are eternal truths of some kind. I just don't think that can be defended by reference to morality.

I find it hard to accept that very many people still think the WMDs were actually there, but have mysteriously disappeared. Even the Bush administration is not pushing that idea. It seems to me that a lot of people voted to reelect Bush in spite of the fact that they knew they'd been misled about the reasons for invading Iraq. I guess they felt they had enough other reasons to vote for Bush, or against Kerry. Back to the tolerance topic for a second. I, personally would have no problem with a Scout referring to his personal faith at his own Eagle ceremony. That event is about his own development, and his religious faith is part of it. However, I do think that respect for the non-sectarian nature of Scouting means that Scouts and Scouters should understand when it isn't appropriate to refer to a particular religious faith--and that would be during non-sectarian services and prayers and the like. A person who feels that he or she cannot offer a nonsectarian prayer should probably decline to pray publicly in such a situation.

Looking back over this thread, I have a few observiations. Here we have a person who was an Eagle Scout, and thus presumably for whom Scouting was important. Now he and BSA have come to a parting of the ways over the religious test for membership. He asks for an explanation. He gets several (in my opinion, reasonable and adequate ones). He keeps pushing, presumably for the "real" explanation, and several posters oblige him by stepping up the anti-atheist rhetoric. He finally departs, labelling us as fools and zealots. Is this how we--supposedly the religious ones--want to to handle somebody like this? Is mhager more or less likely to become an active enemy of Scouting after this exchange? I'm not saying that one should back down, but really, the best practice is simply to keep saying that most of the members of BSA believe that it is important for a boy's life to have a spiritual dimension, and that membership in BSA is reserved for people who agree with that. It's too bad that mhager no longer agrees, but we hope that what he learned as a Scout will help him in other ways, and if he ever changes mind, he's welcome to come back then. Isn't that the message we should convey? A few other points: 1. Atheists will never accept the idea that they don't have real morality. While religious people believe that their morality is based in divine revelation, different religions have different revelations and different moralities. (Plus most religions have changed their positions on various moral issues over the years.) So this argument is pretty hollow for BSA. Also, I think morality should be judged by deeds, not words--and I've known plenty of supposedly religious people whose morality was pretty lousy in practice. 2. While I don't want my children to be taught atheism in Scouts, I don't want them to be taught Zorastrianism, either. So this is a wasted argument, too. 3. Don't ask the guy if he lied when he applied for Eagle Scout. Answer his argument on the merits, rather than impugning his integrity.

Well, BSA has certainly claimed to be a religious organization in the courts, but that's really a quibble. The bottom line is that BSA has a long-standing religious principle and religious membership requirements. BSA did not turn its back on mhager; rather, he rejected BSA's principles. Also, atheism is not a religion. It is a belief that there is no ultimate reality. It is a DENIAL that religion is real. In any case, BSA's statement of religious principle could not be affirmed by an atheist, even if he felt that atheism is a "religion," so it's a moot point.

Rooster makes the interesting suggestion that a Christian who participates in a nonsectarian service without invoking Christ by name is somehow "disowning" Christ. There are some Christian sects that believe this--one of the Lutheran groups forbids its clergy from participating in any kind of ecumenical service (even with other Christian groups). I think it would be very difficult for a person who really held such a view to be involved in Boy Scouts, with its nonsectarian Religious Principle. [in fact, I just looked it up: the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod does not allow its youth to join BSA because BSA recognizes religions other than Christianity.] It's very difficult, I think, to draw the line between appropriate and inappropriate proselytizing. Some religious groups think it is so important to convert people that it is OK to use deception to bring them in. Most Christians wouldn't do this, but there are some who would preach to a resistant, unwilling, or captive audience. I don't think this is appropriate or effective, and it's not the technique that is modelled in Acts, or by Jesus himself.

mhager, the bottom line here is that you'd like to belong to a religious organization, but you don't want to be religious. If you wanted to join my church, you'd have to make a profession of faith--since you wouldn't be willing to do that, you can't join. I guess that's discrimination. You may not like BSA's position on this, but it has been the position of the organization from the very beginning. Some people would like the policy to change, others would not. Here's the BSA's Declaration of Religious Principle: "The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and organization or group with which a member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life. Only persons willing to subscribe to this Declaration of Religious Principle and to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of membership." You disagree with this principle, and would like to see BSA drop it. Unfortunately for you, BSA gets to decide what its own principles are. To be frank with you, I expect to see BSA to change its position on gay leaders long, long before it drops the religion requirement. So, it seems to me you have three choices: (1) Accept that you and BSA have parted ways on an issue that matters to both of you, and use what you learned as a Scout to help you serve in other areas, (2) Become a crusader against BSA's policy, or (3) Re-examine your religious views. Good luck to you in making your choice.

"I will never respect a belief that claims a tree to be God or a god." I agree that certain religious beliefs seem absurd to me. However...I have enough introspection to recognize that my own religious beliefs may appear absurd to those who were raised in a different culture. After all, my creed requires me to believe that a man who lived 2000 years ago was born of a virgin (because he was really God in human flesh, not just an ordinary man), that he performed various miraculous acts, and that he was physically resurrected from the dead after an ignominious execution. I am also required to accept explanations of the significance of this written by people who lived long ago. I have no problem accepting all this, but I think I should show some humility when others resist believing it.(This message has been edited by Hunt)

Since all requirements for Tenderfoot, Second Class, and First Class can be done concurrently, it would not be at all strange for a boy to finish them all at the same time. (For example, the 30-day fitness requirement for Tenderfoot could be the last one achieved.) If he achieved this by working really hard, why would you want to penalize him by making him wait? If you have enough adults, I suppose you could give him three separate Boards of Review in one night--since they should be pretty short for these early ranks, that might be doable--but I don't really see the point.

I agree that an adult should not use a position of authority (i.e. as a Scout leader) to proselytize for a particular religion. That, to me, is coercive. I also agree that in general Scouting is not the place for these discussions (at least in front of the youth). However, the campfire discussion EagleinKY discusses seems to me a good example of how people have difficulty distinguishing between tolerance of other beliefs and "acceptance of other beliefs as equally valid." Recently in our area Jews for Jesus (or a similar group, I don't recall) ran a campaign to try to persuade Jews to accept Christianity. The reaction from Jewish groups was generally to treat this as an improper affront and an attack--rather than engaging the campaign on the merits. I thought this was another example of mistaking tolerance and acceptance.

Another possible way to soften the approach would be to tell him that you really need him as a Committee Member, because ASM's can't sit on Boards of Review. He may not even know that.

"Snipe Hunts do not teach a lesson." I strongly disagree with this--they do teach a lesson--it reminds the weak that they are not the equals of the strong. Obviously, some people think this kind of thing is "innocent fun." How many accounts of others who didn't experience it as innocent fun do you need before you reexamine your views? Personally, I hate to be embarrassed and humiliated. Also, I think this behavior is contrary to numerous points of the Scout Law: trustworthy (you have to lie to the young scouts to get them to do these things), loyal, friendly, kind (at least). What I've liked most about my son's troop is that the older boys included him as one of them from the very first (even when he first visited as a Webelos). The ranks and advancement provide enough "initiation"--the boys don't need to provide any.

"Adult leaders should support the attitude that young adults are better off without tobacco and may not allow the use of tobacco products at any BSA activity involving youth participants." I have to agree that this is one of the worst-written "prohibitions" ever. It leaves us discussing the meaning of "should," "may," and even "at." It seems to me that "no smoking in front of the scouts" is a minimum interpretation that we all can agree on.

I agree that tolerance means recognizing and respecting the right of others to hold beliefs different from yours--however, I think it's perfectly legitimate to try to persuade others that their beliefs are wrong, as long as you don't use coercive methods to do so.

When I look at the blue cards for the boys in my son's troop, it is obvious to me that nobody could ever question, or even investigate, whether the MBC's were properly registered. Many of them are from camp (out of council), illegible, from other councils before a boy transferred, 6 years old, or all of the above. Has anybody ever had this questioned at an Eagle BOR?

I eat tasty animals too, and don't have many qualms about it. But even there, I think I (and most people) would draw some lines based on possibly irrational considerations. For instance, I have no problems eating fish, but I would have qualms about eating a whale, and I certainly wouldn't want to eat a dolphin. On land, I'll eat a pig or cow, probably a horse (although many people wouldn't), but I'd have qualms about eating a dog or cat. I certainly wouldn't eat a chimp. I suppose that scale might reflect how "human-like" I think those critters are. But I think the question of eating animals is very different from the use (really, abuse) of animals for entertainment.

"Fishing is not abuse! Neither is hunting!" Why isn't it? What's the ethical difference between fishing or hunting for sport and a cockfight? In both cases, it's just for your entertainment, right? In both cases, physical harm to the animal is an essential part of the activity, right (otherwise you'd hunt with a camera).

As I understand it, a CO could, even now, take stronger steps to keep out even "unavowed" homosexual leaders (I don't know about scouts, though). Every adult leader application has to be signed by the COR--and I don't know of anything that would prevent the COR from demanding that applicants state that they are not homosexuals. The CO owns the unit, and can set membership standards (apparently with some exceptions, such as racial discrimination). As has been mentioned many times, a CO can refuse to allow female leaders, or leaders of religions other than the CO's religion. It's interesting to hear that a council is trying to oust a SM who is living in an adulterous relationship. I guess the CO doesn't object, since it could terminate him immediately. I wonder if the result would be the same if the man and the woman were not married to others? I suspect the Council wouldn't get involved, although some COs would act.

If BSA really wanted to exclude all homosexuals from membership, there are several things it could do: 1. It could make it clear on its registration forms that homosexuals are not eligible for membership. Currently, it doesn't do this--nor does it state anywhere that homosexuals are not eligible for membership (only "avowed" ones). 2. It could require membership applicants to check a box affirming that they are not homosexuals. It could even require all members to do this every year in case they "turn." 3. It could investigate suspicions and accusations of unavowed homosexualily and remove people from membership if credible evidence of gayness is found. The first two steps would eliminate people who currently say nothing but would not lie to stay in. The third step would go after those who would lie. Why doesn't BSA take any of these steps? The best face to put on it is that BSA doesn't care about your private sin, but only in the actions and values that you model to the Scouts. The worst face is that BSA wants to give lip service to its anti-homosexual values, but is not willing to take the difficult steps involved in purging its membership. Note: I don't favor BSA doing any of this--I rather think the issue should be left up to COs, many of which are in a much better position to determine the scope of what is and isn't sexual sin than BSA is. (Study question: would BSA expel a male leader who is openly living with a woman to whom he is not married? If not, why not?)

Ed, I agree that God gave us dominion over the animals. What does that have to do with what constitutes cruelty to animals? Are you trying to say that this "dominion" means that there is no moral dimension at all to how animals are treated? How about...a Scout is Kind? Or does that only apply to people?

For jackperson: Contact the folks at http://www.boyscouts-ncac.org/ and they should be able to put you in touch with the right District Advancement person. For FireKat: Find out if your District or Council has a person who manages Merit Badge Counselors. Ask that person for the list. That way, you can see if you are on it, and see who else is on it as well.

A boy is not supposed to be alone with the MB counselor for child protection reasons--obviously this is not a concern if the boy is your own son. Even if he's not your son, you can counsel one boy if his parent is present, for example. I think it's a good idea to counsel other boys along with your son, though, because that would tend to blunt any criticism of your counseling your own son.

There seems to be a misconception here that homosexuals do not meet the membership requirements of BSA. This is untrue. Only "avowed" homosexuals do not meet the membership requirements.

Well, I'm pretty comfortable that plants don't feel pain or have emotions, and I'm quite certain that human beings do have them, but I thought we were talking about fish, which are somewhere in between. The issue is where you draw the line. I think most people would think treating mammals like fish would be cruel (catching them with hooks and then releasing them). I think that's because most of us feel more discomfort the higher the brain functions of the creature are. But really, is even the pain of the creature the measure of cruelty? I've always thought it was cruel to burn ants with a magnifying glass--but not cruel to poison the ants that were invading my house. Maybe motive matters. For me personally, the ethical question would be whether the value of the activity to me outweighs the suffering inflicted on the animal involved. Thus, for example, I wouldn't hunt animals just for sport, because I don't think the balance is there. Fishing is a closer call, because fish are a lower order and there is a better argument that they don't feel pain the same way as more complex animals.