Prairie_Scouter

Guys, c'mon. I know that I'm new here, but we're not going to be able to have an open discussion if we quickly drop into personal attacks.

I think it's good to have this kind of news out in the open. The bad part about this is that news coverage never, ever, covers the entire story. They'll cover the sensational part, and then quickly move on to the next "body count". At least that's how I see it.

So, there's value in knowing that a Scout Council had a problem like this because maybe we can learn from their mistakes. But, since it gets very difficult to follow a story once the media leaves it, it will be difficult to know exactly what happened and what the followup actions were. I can't believe that ANY Scouter would knowingly let a known child molester be active with the Scouts, so it'd be good to understand exactly HOW this happened. What happened to 2-deep leadership there?

The problem now becomes how open BSA will be with this. You obviously don't want to identify the Scouts involved, so they do need to be careful about how they would deal with this. I suspect, tho, that BSA won't say much, for fear of liability. I just don't think the National organization has the backbone to stand up when it counts, and be open about what happened and what they're going to do. The Catholic Church made the same huge mistake. From one perspective, that of liability, I can understand their reluctance to be open, regardless of how distasteful and unScoutlike it is. In the U.S. today, blame is the name of the game, and if you've got "deep pockets", someone is going to come after you. For BSA to stand up and say, "we've found this problem and here's how we'er fixing it" would be a somewhat courageous thing to do; I don't think they've got it in them to do anything that's not politically expedient for them. That's just my opinion, but they clam up pretty fast when something bad happens.

I don't think the issue with Boy Scouts has to with how many atheists there might be, or whether they are growing or shrinking in number. The question for Boy Scouts, I guess, is whether they can substantiate their claim that atheists cannot make good Scout leaders because of their beliefs, or lack thereof. As far as I can tell, their main argument in favor of their policy is "because we said so".

Regards the comments made about finding a loving God, there are those who believe exactly that, and there are those who believe that your "loving God" is the same God who brought us the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the Holocaust, and all manners of other things that are anything but "loving". I have known people who, while not exactly atheists, expressed a doubt in the belief of a God because if there was one, he/she would never have let those kinds of things happen.

To Hunt....

As I think about it, you're right. The two issues are related, but I should segment my thoughts better. I'm kind of new to these forums, and still learning the ropes. I'll try to steer my commnents to the appropriate threads better than I have.

Thanks a lot for your insights, folks. Appreciate it. I'll take that all into consideration.

Fuzzy, I agree with you 100%. People seem to feel the need to stifle any dissent against their God, even tho their God seems perfectly capable of taking care of him/herself (anybody remember the story about the Great Flood?).

I've been a believer for some time that, in the grand scheme of things, the major religions of the world are pretty much a net zero game when it comes to the good vs bad that they've done over time. I've read that Christianity spread rapidly across Europe at the beginning of the Middle Ages, as a percentage of population, largely because they killed off so many of the non-Christians. There's almost a constant string through history of mass killings done on behalf of someone's belief in their supreme being. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch trials, and on and on to the present. So, for all the good they've done, they manage to balance that off by doing some truly nasty things, or standing idly by while someone else does truly nasty things (such as Rome not having much to say while the Jews were being exterminated during WWII).

The Onion, a satirical newspaper that's also published online, ran a story awhile ago that was an "interview with God". In it, he took particular issue with the 4th Commandment. "I thought", said God, "that it was pretty straightforward, ie, "Thou shalt not kill". Pretty clear, I thought. I didn't say it's ok to kill on my behalf. I said don't kill".

Point is, people of all denominations have taken upon themselves at one time or another to decide what God wants done. Kill abortion doctors, stop birth control education, convert people after they're dead (a favorite of the Mormons), you name it. What makes these guys so enlightened; do they have a pipeline to God? Seems awfully convenient to say "the Good Book says we have to do this", including such apparently God-inspired things as slavery, beheadings, and stonings.

It'd be nice if we could all just believe what we believe and just enjoy Scouting. Unfortunately, while saying that all religions are equal, seems to make some more equal than others. And their politicizing of their positions is only hurting the Scouts.

To Hunt....

I'm not so sure that that's true. If I were to belong to a religion that believes in the inclusion of gays, then that would seem to be odds with Scout doctrine. Taken to its conclusion, then, I wouldn't be able to sign an adult leader app that requires me to agree with Scout doctrine, which would disallow me from Scouting. There have been examples, haven't there, where particular religions found their Scout religious award (I forget the formal names) at least temporarily "de-commissioned" because their faith was at odds with BSA on the gay issue? I'm almost certain that that's true. It just seems to me that BSA, by their actions and doctrine, have chosen certain religious beliefs over others.

I was incorrect to include my thoughts on the original guiding principals behind Scouting in with my thoughts on religious inclusion. Baden-Powell was pretty clear in his belief that you had to have some sort of God belief to be a worthwhile citizen. I just think that he was wrong. (Personally, also, I think that the atheists have it wrong as well, but that's just me. It just seems to me that there is overwhelming evidence that SOMEBODY up there is in control; of course, as has been written in literature, any sufficiently advanced being could be seen as a "god"; these things are kind of relative). I had meant to make that as a more general remark that BSA would be a lot better off, overall, if they went back to the original Scouting philosophy of inclusion. But, there's a reason, I guess, that they moved their headquarters to the middle of the Bible Belt. I've tried, over the years, to find some unbiased information on the history of how Scouting came to be in the middle of this firestorm over religion and gay issues, but everything I've found comes from sources that are obviously biased one way or the other. If anyone could provide some direction on that, I'd appreciate it.

I also have some questions about "who's in charge and why?". Scouting certainly isn't a democracy, but who is it that makes up the rules and are they really doing things in the best interest of Scouting, and if we start to believe they're not, what could we do about it? BSA National decided that gays were "out". What happens if they say, next, that blacks are "out" because of crime statistics in that demographic group? Or Catholic priests, because of their problems at present? And then white males, because they represent the vast majority of pedophiles? Maybe this needs to be a different thread, but right now, it doesn't look to me like BSA National is accountable to anyone, and that's a dangerous situation for Scouting. The rumor I hear is that the BSA Board is mostly there for fund raising, and there some committee beneath them that actually makes up the rules, and they don't seem to be accountable to anyone. Like I said, tho, most of this comes from biased sources.

Well, of course, I could be completely wrong :-)

Wow, what an interesting site the Geocentric Bible is! The basic premise behind their belief system is somewhat reasonable, ie, "well, we believe this, and everthing you say to counter that can be explained in some way by our belief system". Well, yeah, I guess so. The same is true of any belief system. I think science differs in that it tries to explain things within a set of rules that are consistent with each other, while religious belief allows for contradictions within their own belief set, explaining them with such things as "the Lord works in mysterious ways". Sure, could be. Frankly, I think the world is a much more interesting place if you can't explain everything. I think it's pretty cool, actually. Whether things are unexplained because "the Lord works in mysterious ways" or because we just don't understand the laws of Nature well enough yet, doesn't really matter. It just means that we're not as smart as we think. So, maybe we not smart enough to understand that "the Lord works in mysterious ways", but maybe we're also not smart enough to interpret the words in a Bible correctly, either.

Trying to tie this back to the original question, I just can't agree with the BSA notion that you can't be a good citizen unless you have a belief in God. This whole thread could be thought of as the very embodiment of the problem, and that is, if you're going to say you have to believe in God to be a "Good Scout", then who's God is it going to be? And therein lies the rub. BSA has chosen a very specific definition of who their God is. You not only have to buy into the idea that you have to believe in a God to be a Scout, you have to believe in the God that BSA has chosen. Scouting should be about the kids, and frankly, the kids don't give a hoot about any of this stuff. They want to camp, and they want to have fun. We, as adult leaders, should be providing a nurturing environment that provides a safe haven for them. Leading them into being good adults shouldn't mean teaching them how to create polarizing positions, and yet that is exactly what BSA is doing. Or, I should say, BSA National. The local units do, mostly, a tremendous job and manage to ignore the issues that BSA National has managed to create. If BSA National would go back to the original, all-inclusive, philosophy of Scouting, we'd all be better off, and we'd be more in step with Scouting Worldwide.

I'm sure that, like me, most of you see the same folks helping out at our kid's activities, whether it's Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, PTA, other school activities, sports, etc. We have the usual problems with getting parents to help out, but we've noticed something interesting recently. Interesting, and potentially politically sensitive. When you look at the demographics of the parents who participate, you get a smattering of everything, but what we've noticed is that there is virtually no participation by people of Indian descent, whether they be Indian or Pakistani, etc. Check that; there's NO participation, especially if the people are 1st generation, ie, emigrated from overseas rather than born here. Now, even mentioning this at a school or whatever would probably generate a firestorm, so I'm not even sure we could even discuss it, but I'm wondering if any of you have seen anything like this in your areas, and if you've tried to figure out what's going on. Or, am I just seeing an aberration that's unique to my community? Now, I do know that in traditional Indian culture, the women are considered to be subservient and are pretty much expected to stay home. The men, in that culture, would probably see helping out in the children's activities as somehow beneath them.

It's challenge enough to get ANYONE to help out these days. We're a predominantly white community with a growing ethnic presence, so I'd expect most of the volunteers to kind of follow along demographic lines, so I was really struck that this single group is so obviously missing. I thought I'd bring this up here, rather than in the "normal" forums, because the ethnic issue is a bit stickier than just the usual "nobody wants to help out" problem we all deal with. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

to Rooster7...

I think that the real difference between people of science and people of faith is that the process of science is one of constant discovery and rediscovery. Laws are constantly being updated, proven, and disproven. People of faith hold onto faith regardless of what contrary evidence is placed in their way until the evidence is so overwhelming that they are forced to let go. How many scientists were killed before the Church would admit that it's teachings on the flat Earth and the solar system were incorrect?

I find the whole idea of Biblical literalism to be quite interesting. Biblical scholars can't even agree on who wrote the Bible (although they think the majority was written by 4 authors long after the events); translations are constantly in dispute (some say that Jesus' name was actually Joshua); with all that going on, how can they rely on a word for word literal interpretation?

There is plenty of room for middle ground if people would allow, but these days, most people seem to have the attitude that "it's not enough for me to be right, you have to be wrong as well".

This finds its way into Scouting as well. The issue of gays in Scouting is about religious belief. No one who is the least bit literate on the subject would claim that gays are any more "dangerous" to youth than anyone else. So, it is merely a matter of religious doctrine being used as policy by BSA. And, since not all religions agree on that, it also sets Scouting against itself by placing some religions "above" others while at the same time claiming to be non-sectarian in their views. Just ain't so. The problem I see with Scouting isn't that they have some religious underpinnings to their beliefs, but that they pick and choose which beliefs to use in order to meet their end goals. I'd like for BSA to get back to the roots of Scouting; a Scouting that was open to all.

To Torveaux...

Your comment is sort of a chicken and egg argument, I think. The laws of physics operate within the domain of the known universe. Since there was no universe at the time of creation, there was no domain for the physical laws to exist in, therefore, no laws of physics because there was nothing to apply them to.

Now, having said that, you're entering into an area that scientists have debated for years and years, and this is, can science allow for the existence of a God, or does everthing, by definition have to have a scientifically proven answer? You have people who believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, ie, the world was created in the space of a few days, literally, several thousand years ago, and requires the intervention of a Supreme Being. There are those who take the opposing view that the earth evolved as part of the creation of the universe out of a Big Bang, and is the result of entirely natural processes. You have creationism on one hand, evolution on the other. Many proponents of either view find no room for the views of the other.

Personally, I think the truth, if there is such a thing, is someplace in the middle. Perhaps, a God who set the wheels in motion and is content to let the wheels spin as they will, and intervenes every once in awhile, just to keep things interesting.

I also think that folks who believe in the Biblical creation of the universe story also have to believe in what I call the "God as the greatest practical joker of all time" theory. That is, the world was created in a few days, but then God dummied up evidence to make it look like it took billions of years. But, that's just me :-)

Not that we need to discuss the laws of conservation of energy, but the basic laws of physics relate to the amount of matter in the universe, and that's what they're talking about. When they say that matter can be neither created nor destroyed, they are talking about the constant amount of matter in the universe. Einstein's equation relates to the conversion of matter to energy and back.

Relating to the posters comments on the thought that BSA policy has not changed, etc., I would respectfully disagree. The interpretation of Scout philosophy as originally discussed by Baden-Powell created an all-inclusive world where everyone was welcome. The interpretation by BSA is substantially removed from this, and is not only different from the interpretation used by Scouting Worldwide, but also differs from the original policies enacted by U.S. Scouting early in the previous century. The public denunciation of gays in Scouting is much more recent, and its roots seem to be open to some debate.

I think that there's a certain reality that has be considered as well. BSA is not going to change it's policies easily, regardless of whether they are right or not. The move of BSA headquarters to the Bible Belt should have been an indicator of where things were going. The BSA leadership seems to be insulated from the opinions of the local units; I really don't think they care what we think one way or the other. I've been a leader for about 7 years now, and I used to think that it was possible to enact change from within. I've come to believe that that's not possible with the BSA. So, I largely ignore BSA national as much as I can. The work done at the local level is overwhelmingly positive for the Scouts, and, in my mind, offsets the damage that, in my opinion, the national office is doing by it's political stances (which, by the way, in at least some cases, are contrary to nearly every other national organization that is part of the worldwide Scouting movement).

For those who think that the Supreme Court victory was some sort of vindication of BSA policy, think again. Supreme Court decisions reflect the opinions of the Court in place at that time. If the Court changes, the decision regards BSA could change as well.

And, lastly, regardless of what BSA says, it's pretty clear that they are not as "non-sectarian" as they'd like you to believe. Western religions are clearly predominant, and even amongst those, if you happen to be a religion that differs from BSA on topics such as gay inclusion, you are basically "on the outs". Didn't a couple of the religious awards get "cancelled" for awhile because the religion it pertained to didn't agree with BSA policy? I thought I read that somewhere. My unit is chartered through a local church that has a policy of gay inclusion, and every year, there is a big debate over whether they will continue to support us. Luckily, they see the value we offer as a local unit, and have kept us on even as they grapple with the problems of BSA policy. But, I think it's just a matter of time before they ask us to leave, really.