Jump to content

DWise1

Members
  • Content Count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by DWise1

  1. I did not respond to the poll. I very rarely respond to polls, since the choices offered almost never reflect my thoughts, opinions, or beliefs.

     

    I love Scouting. I truly believe that it is a great program that can prepare a boy for the rest of his life. I especially agree with what Lord Baden-Powell said about the Scout Law, as quoted by Scouting ("Worth Retelling: Baden-Powell on the Scout Law", Scouting, March-April 1991, page 12, quoted from Scouting Digest published by the Boy Scouts of South Africa):

    The Scout Law is our binding disciplinary force. The boy is not governed by don't, but led on by do. The Scout Law is devised as a guide to his actions rather than as repressive of his faults.

    When I had become an atheist (around the age of 12, I started reading the Bible and very quickly realized that I couldn't believe what I was reading), I toyed for a few minutes with every Christian teenager's wet dream of total hedonism by being an atheist*, but I immediately realized that that was a false concept. So since neither Christianity nor the Bible would be my guide, what would? The answer came to me immediately: Scouting. Every moral precept that I could ever need was embodied in the Oath, Law, Motto, and Slogan. Decades later when I read that Baden-Powell quote, it certainly looked like he was referring to the Ten Commandments as governing by "don't" and hence was demonstrating that the Scout Law is actually superior; am I the only one or did anyone else also see that?

     

    BTW, I'm still a big Boy Scout. A 61-year-old Boy Scout.

     

    OTOH, I have no use for BSA, Inc. I view BSA as being more an enemy of Scouting than promoting it. BSA does not live nor operate by the Oath and Law and they constantly endanger Scouting by creating discrimination lawsuits and alienating sponsors and donors. I wish that BSA would just go away so that an actual Scouting organization could take its place.

     

    { * FOOTNOTE:

    Having been involved in creation/evolution since 1981 and in contact with fundamentalists since 1970, I have had a lot of dialogues with fundamentalists. One theme that keeps coming up is that if God doesn't exist, then there is no morality and we can do whatever we want. Absolutely ridiculous, but that is what they insist upon most emphatically. A local creationist activist claims to have been an atheist, but he never was. As he describes it in his own writings, as a teenager he accepted evolution and "became an atheist" (HINT: no such decision is necessary) just because of his bubbling hormones. In reality, it was his own religious training that had offered him that legal loophole, not evolution. And in reality, he never was an atheist, since he admitted to me that he prayed to God every night during his "atheism". Using atheism as an excuse to misbehave is a Christian practice, not an atheist one.

    }

    Who's "DLW"? Am I to assume that you are talking to me? If so, then where did you get that "L" from?

     

    Actually, I figure I must have given up before getting to the part where Lot's daughters raped him, since I would think that I would have remembered that part when I encountered it many years later. And my problem was that I was taking the Bible very seriously indeed. Even though I now don't think that my church required it, I approached the Bible in a biblical literalist manner. And taking that approach, I found that I simply could not believe what I was reading. And since I couldn't believe what I was supposed to (or rather what I thought I was supposed to) in order to be a Christian, then there wasn't any point sticking around, was there? It turned out to be the right decision as has been demonstrated to me countless times over the subsequent five decades, just for the wrong reason.

     

    I've read the New Testament since then, twice through. The teachings of Jesus were mostly good, but then it went weird when Paul invented the religion of the Christ. Interesting how the parables in Mark echoed Christianity's origins as a mystery religion. We obviously still have a form of its Outer Temple and I always wonder whether any part of the Inner Temple has been able to survive.

     

    St. Paul makes it very clear in his opening chapter of Romans that the irreligious are just as accountable for any lack of morality as the religious -- the latter being worse off because they claim to have a standard from which they fall woefully short.

    I don't understand what you are trying to say there. Could you please be a bit more explicit?

     

    -- generating immoral atheist bogeymen' date=' etc..... [/quote']

    By which I assume you mean that that's a false image that they dream up.

  2. I did not respond to the poll. I very rarely respond to polls, since the choices offered almost never reflect my thoughts, opinions, or beliefs.

     

    I love Scouting. I truly believe that it is a great program that can prepare a boy for the rest of his life. I especially agree with what Lord Baden-Powell said about the Scout Law, as quoted by Scouting ("Worth Retelling: Baden-Powell on the Scout Law", Scouting, March-April 1991, page 12, quoted from Scouting Digest published by the Boy Scouts of South Africa):

    The Scout Law is our binding disciplinary force. The boy is not governed by don't, but led on by do. The Scout Law is devised as a guide to his actions rather than as repressive of his faults.

    When I had become an atheist (around the age of 12, I started reading the Bible and very quickly realized that I couldn't believe what I was reading), I toyed for a few minutes with every Christian teenager's wet dream of total hedonism by being an atheist*, but I immediately realized that that was a false concept. So since neither Christianity nor the Bible would be my guide, what would? The answer came to me immediately: Scouting. Every moral precept that I could ever need was embodied in the Oath, Law, Motto, and Slogan. Decades later when I read that Baden-Powell quote, it certainly looked like he was referring to the Ten Commandments as governing by "don't" and hence was demonstrating that the Scout Law is actually superior; am I the only one or did anyone else also see that?

     

    BTW, I'm still a big Boy Scout. A 61-year-old Boy Scout.

     

    OTOH, I have no use for BSA, Inc. I view BSA as being more an enemy of Scouting than promoting it. BSA does not live nor operate by the Oath and Law and they constantly endanger Scouting by creating discrimination lawsuits and alienating sponsors and donors. I wish that BSA would just go away so that an actual Scouting organization could take its place.

     

    { * FOOTNOTE:

    Having been involved in creation/evolution since 1981 and in contact with fundamentalists since 1970, I have had a lot of dialogues with fundamentalists. One theme that keeps coming up is that if God doesn't exist, then there is no morality and we can do whatever we want. Absolutely ridiculous, but that is what they insist upon most emphatically. A local creationist activist claims to have been an atheist, but he never was. As he describes it in his own writings, as a teenager he accepted evolution and "became an atheist" (HINT: no such decision is necessary) just because of his bubbling hormones. In reality, it was his own religious training that had offered him that legal loophole, not evolution. And in reality, he never was an atheist, since he admitted to me that he prayed to God every night during his "atheism". Using atheism as an excuse to misbehave is a Christian practice, not an atheist one.

    }

    The footnote was to expand on that gross misconception of Christians about atheists and how Christians are instead projecting their own desires.
  3. I did not respond to the poll. I very rarely respond to polls, since the choices offered almost never reflect my thoughts, opinions, or beliefs.

     

    I love Scouting. I truly believe that it is a great program that can prepare a boy for the rest of his life. I especially agree with what Lord Baden-Powell said about the Scout Law, as quoted by Scouting ("Worth Retelling: Baden-Powell on the Scout Law", Scouting, March-April 1991, page 12, quoted from Scouting Digest published by the Boy Scouts of South Africa):

    The Scout Law is our binding disciplinary force. The boy is not governed by don't, but led on by do. The Scout Law is devised as a guide to his actions rather than as repressive of his faults.

    When I had become an atheist (around the age of 12, I started reading the Bible and very quickly realized that I couldn't believe what I was reading), I toyed for a few minutes with every Christian teenager's wet dream of total hedonism by being an atheist*, but I immediately realized that that was a false concept. So since neither Christianity nor the Bible would be my guide, what would? The answer came to me immediately: Scouting. Every moral precept that I could ever need was embodied in the Oath, Law, Motto, and Slogan. Decades later when I read that Baden-Powell quote, it certainly looked like he was referring to the Ten Commandments as governing by "don't" and hence was demonstrating that the Scout Law is actually superior; am I the only one or did anyone else also see that?

     

    BTW, I'm still a big Boy Scout. A 61-year-old Boy Scout.

     

    OTOH, I have no use for BSA, Inc. I view BSA as being more an enemy of Scouting than promoting it. BSA does not live nor operate by the Oath and Law and they constantly endanger Scouting by creating discrimination lawsuits and alienating sponsors and donors. I wish that BSA would just go away so that an actual Scouting organization could take its place.

     

    { * FOOTNOTE:

    Having been involved in creation/evolution since 1981 and in contact with fundamentalists since 1970, I have had a lot of dialogues with fundamentalists. One theme that keeps coming up is that if God doesn't exist, then there is no morality and we can do whatever we want. Absolutely ridiculous, but that is what they insist upon most emphatically. A local creationist activist claims to have been an atheist, but he never was. As he describes it in his own writings, as a teenager he accepted evolution and "became an atheist" (HINT: no such decision is necessary) just because of his bubbling hormones. In reality, it was his own religious training that had offered him that legal loophole, not evolution. And in reality, he never was an atheist, since he admitted to me that he prayed to God every night during his "atheism". Using atheism as an excuse to misbehave is a Christian practice, not an atheist one.

    }

     

  4. I'd echo a lot of what others have stated... If I'd have to vote, it would be "I like BSA". Do I love national? Nope, but without them there is no program to carry out at the unit level. I think they could do a MUCH better job at marketing and do even get me started on both my personal beliefs with regards to membership policy and more so the PR nightmare Irving has created for the brand. However, even this seems to be moving in a more inclusive, it at least DADT direction.

     

    Do I like my council / district? Depends. Council can be a pain in the butt to deal with. They are second only to the US Army at fouling up paperwork / record keeping. They do run a decent (although many would argue underfunded) council-wide camp with many ammenities to include some very good ranges. The district? eh? The last district camporee was an organizational debacle that included tapping non-MBC registered SMs and ASMs to teach some of the classes because district failed to line up instructors (or the lined up instructors flaked on the camporee staff and failed to show). Never got a straight answer to that question, so I'm betting they never had instructors lined up in the 1st place. Other than that - we see the DE about once a year when he comes around to beg for his salary (FOS presentation). Thankfully, the rest of the time we are left alone to run our unit as the boys see fit.

     

    Do I like my unit? Heck I LOVE my unit. I also LOVE the program, I think there is great value in what scouting tries to achieve. Their teaching methods are solid and can be used throughout life. The EDGE method is good for teachers, business, military, etc... its a tested and proven learning tool. The program and EDGE / etc... all come from national, so they can't be all bad - hence the "like" vote. The unit is where scouting happens and really is the only thing that matters. The program is developed / revised via national, but honestly - they could cease to exist and outside of new publications, national high adventures bases, and corporate umbrella which to sit - it wouldn't really have much impact on what we do at the local / unit level. The program has been honed over 100 years now. It can stand on its own. Other than minor cosmetic changes and policy changes made by the opinion papers of the lawyers for BSA national, there really is no need to change the program.

     

    I have a BSA handbook of my father's circa 1955. I have mine for the mid-80's. My son has the new BSA handbook. Aside from some updated photos, some minor stuff about the internet, and small changes because of legal concerns, the requirements for each rank are virtually the same as they were 50 years ago (and I'm willing to be pretty close to those 100 years ago). BSA is not national, its the local program. Most everyone on this forum LOVES their local program.

    When I was active in the 1990's, the Scout Shop was selling a reprint of the first Handbook. See if you can't pick up a copy (maybe the Scout Shop could order it for you) and see for yourself what it said about a century ago.
  5. First of all, the article makes no mention of atheists. However, the use of the Star of David was objected to by the Freedom from Religion Foundation. That is a foundation that works primarily with the isssue of separation of church and state (1st Amendment violations).
    Just because a government is tolerant of all religions does not mean it is establishing any religion.

    From context, I'm having to assume that you are responding to ThomasJefferson.

     

    The government displaying the Ten Commandments is not being tolerant of all religions. It's even very sectarian, because there are three versions of the Ten Commandments: Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish -- there are 11 to 12 different points that are combined differently by the different religions. Since it's Protestants who keep pushing this, three guesses which version they want to have displayed. And by choosing which version to display, then the government would indeed be choosing one religion over the others.

  6. Since atheists have first amendment rights

     

    Of course you and other atheists have the right to speak and criticize the Boy Scouts and I will defend that right. When I say “Leave us alone†I say to you, the parents of atheist children, the ACLU, NOW, Atheists United, and other liberal legal interest groups stop suing the Boy Scouts. School Districts, cities, states, and other government organizations stop the law suits! There have been law suits against the Boy scouts since the 1970’s over the issue concerning membership. And the law suits continue. We are a private orginazation and we have the right to decide who we want in our organization. We have the right to establish membership criteria. You and other atheist have no right to be in the Boy Scouts. When I say “Leave us alone†I say stop attempting to join the Boy Scouts using force via the courts. It is anti-freedom.

     

    and since the BSA has been less than honest when excluding atheists, no.

     

    We have been very honest. Since the founding of the Boy Scouts of America there has been a reference to God in the Boy Scout oath. Since the 1950’s when conducting a flag ceremony God has been referenced when Boy Scouts have recited the Pledge of Allegiance. And since the 1970’s the Boy Scouts have been very clear in press releases, statements made by officers of the Boy Scouts, briefs given in the courtroom, and arguments given to the US Supreme Court that if you are an atheist you cannot be a member. How clearer than that can we be.

    We are a private orginazation and we have the right to decide who we want in our organization. We have the right to establish membership criteria.

    Yes, BSA is and, yes, BSA does. And BSA has. The problem is that BSA refuses to follow its own rules and its own membership criteria.

     

    The reason for the lawsuits is because of BSA's actions, as well as their draconian methods for mistreating their victims. Because BSA allows no recourse whatsoever. When James Randall's sons were summarily expelled, he met with the council's SE and tried to resolve the matter. The SE refused all attempts at a resolution, finally telling Randall to sue them. That was BSA ordering the parent of its victims to sue BSA. Which he did. And he won. It was overturned several years later by the state supreme court, but at least the boys were able to participate and advance to their Eagle Review (which is why the state Attorney General pushed the court to rule on the case). Their Scoutmaster praised them as model Scouts and wished more of his boys were like them. BTW, the state supreme court upheld that BSA discriminated, however the law didn't apply to them as a private organization.

     

    And the lawsuits and other actions continue because of BSA continued actions.

     

    You and other atheist have no right to be in the Boy Scouts.

    Show me exactly where in officially published BSA policy that it says that.

     

    Show me.

     

    We have been very honest.

    That is a total falsehood! Because of that gross lie about a rule requiring "belief in a Supreme Being" and because of the outright fraud BSA has practiced by lying to get money from donors and sponsors who have non-discrimination criteria for their recipients and because all the other lies they've been telling the public.

     

     

    Since the 1950’s when conducting a flag ceremony God has been referenced when Boy Scouts have recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

    I have also seen a film clip from WWII where a Boy Scout recited the Pledge of Allegiance without any reference to "God". Of course, that was because those two words weren't added until 1954.

     

    But what makes this statement meaningless is because the word "God" in it has been reduced to meaningless mumbling as pointed out by US Supreme Court Justice Brennan. It's nothing now except "ceremonial deism", lacking any actual religious meaning.

     

    Since the founding of the Boy Scouts of America there has been a reference to God in the Boy Scout oath.

    More "ceremonial deism". And even BSA's own officially published policy does not identify it as a reference to your particular god, nor to any particular god (consider the Hindu scouts), nor even to any god at all (consider the Buddhist scouts).

     

    And since the 1970’s the Boy Scouts have been very clear in press releases' date=' statements made by officers of the Boy Scouts, briefs given in the courtroom, and arguments given to the US Supreme Court that if you are an atheist you cannot be a member.[/quote']

    All of which cite as the reason for expelling atheists that "belief in a Supreme Being" "rule" which does not even exist! So they're lying to the public and to the courts about that! Remember, Judge Frazee in the Randall trial directly ordered our SE to produce that "rule" and he finally had to admit to the judge that it does not exist!

     

    Plus we have that "we're a religious organization and we always have been" lie which they started around 1991 on the advice of their lawyers. Since religious organizations have an easier time fighting discrimination litigation, BSA attorneys decided to have BSA claim that. Ironically, BSA had spent its first several decades fighting the notion that it was a religious organization like so many other youth organizations, in particular that it was Protestant, because they wanted to bring in boys of all different faiths.

     

    At the exact same time that BSA was lying about being a religious organization (with a "secret religious agenda", no less), they also found themselves faced with litigation which was trying to bar them from recruiting in the public schools, just as no other religious organization is allowed to. So now they lied to the court that they aren't a religious organization and they never have been.

     

    That kind of shenanigans may be normal among lawyers, but out here in the real world we have to ask both "so which is it already?" and "either way you're lying, so why?". Either way, BSA is most definitely not being honest!

     

     

    When I started out, I saw the requirement that they be "absolutely nonsectarian" in their attitude towards religion. And as I researched further into officially published BSA policy, I saw that it was a very enlighted policy that could very well implement an "absolutely nonsectarian" program. But then news of the Randall twins' expulsion hit the news and realized that there was something very wrong happening. I realized that BSA was violating its own rules.

     

    Now, our United Way, like most other United Ways, had a non-discrimination requirement for all recipients. So BSA would bring in their officially published policies to show United Way that they didn't discriminate and United Way would give them their money. And then BSA would not only discriminate at will, but proclaim in court and even in some public statements that they discriminate and they are proud to discriminate. But in all their dealings with United Way and with all other charities and donors and sponsors they would trot out their official rules and lie to them that they don't discriminate. I feel that that kind of dishonesty for monetary gain borders on outright fraud. At the very least, it most certainly is not being honest.

     

    Far worse is the situation with their chartering organizations (CO) that have non-discrimination policies. BSA will trot out its officially published policies to show that they do not discriminate and then when the CO has units BSA will arbitrarily discriminate against one of the units' members completely against the will of the CO. Without warning, those COs suddenly become accomplices in discrimination and are completely helpless to do anything about it. So because of BSA's dishonesty, those COs are subject to whatever penalties they face for violating their own non-discrimination policies, all though no fault of their own except that they were foolish enough to trust BSA.

     

    But wait, there's more! In court, BSA has argued that since they are a private "religious" organization, the plaintiffs cannot sue them, so the plaintiffs should instead sue the CO for discrimination. That's right! First BSA creates the situation, forcing discrimination on the CO completely against their will (and ignoring all attempts by the CO to make it stop), and then BSA throws the CO under the bus.

     

    How many points of the "Scout Law" do we see being violated there? At the very least "Trustworthy", "Loyal", "Helpful", "Friendly", "Courteous", "Kind", "Obediant" (eg, violating court orders to not interfere with the Randall twins' participation while appeals were pending), "Cheerful" (more like sneering and gloating), "Thrifty" (wasting literally millions of dollars on unnecesary court cases that they themselves created; our council went to the units begging for donations citing legal costs of $5 million and I think they said it was just for the Randall trial), "Brave" (they kept snivelling in court that the Mormons were making them expel their victims). And don't forget "Reverent", since they show zero respect for the beliefs of others.

     

    We have been very honest.

    Sorry, Joe. Not even close. The extreme opposite, actually.

     

    So now the situation is still the same, only how the donors and the charities have learned through the lawsuits that BSA does indeed discriminate. So BSA has been losing money from those donors who do not allow discrimination. Why do you think that they voted gay youth in? Because they had suddenly seen the error of their ways? No, because they've been losing money. BSA wants to be able to claim that they don't discriminate anymore, but everyone can plainly see that they still do.

     

    Government agencies (including public schools) can no longer charter units, nor directly support BSA. BSA is losing use of public lands. And that is all right and proper for an organization that wants the benefits of being private and "religious". That is BSA's choice. And in all that BSA is losing and will lose, it is all because of what BSA has done and continues to do. They can still turn themselves around and start to actually follow their own rules, but I doubt that they will. You cannot say that anybody is excluding BSA, but rather that BSA is excluding itself*.

     

    So what has to be done is to inform all potential COs of what BSA has done and will do, so that they do not get suckered in by BSA's lies and become yet another of its victims.

     

     

    { * FOOTNOTE: Another of BSA's lies that it would tell the public was "We're not excluding atheists and gays; they're excluding themselves." }

  7. I wonder why a non believer would want to join an organization of believers (in this case the Boy Scouts). I do not get it. The Boy Scouts are a private orginazation and as such have the right to dictate who can be a member. The Boy Scouts have that same right as other private organizations such as the NAACP, NRA, NOW, and the Catholic Church do. The NAACP can discriminate by refusing to accept a Klansman as a member. The Catholic Church discriminates against Jews when it requires priests to be Catholic. NOW would be correct in denying membership to George Bush a person who is not pro-choice. And the NRA discriminates by denying membership to President Obama who wants to ban the private ownership and use of guns.

     

    The Boy Scouts as a private organization can have a good reason, bad reason, irrational reason, or any other reason in establishing membership criteria. Their reason can be one that you might not approve of but as a private orginazation it is their right to discriminate. I appose everything the Nazi Party of the United States stands for but they have a right to exist and they have a right to establish membership criteria. To be clear I am not comparing the Nazi Party to that of the Boy Scouts.

     

    What is sad and to me it is anti-freedom to have those who oppose the Boy Scouts sue the Boy Scouts time and time again attempting to force them to take them in as a member. Atheists have no right to be a member of the Boy Scouts in the same way Jews have no right to be priests of the Catholic Church. Why is it anti-freedom for Atheists though the use of the courts to become a member of the Boy Scouts is because if this were to happen some court might require another private orginazation to accept as a member someone they do not want. The NAACP might be required to have a Klansman as a member. The NAACP might be required to operate their orginazation against their wishes. This has happened. In the 1950’s legislators in the South passed laws requiring the NAACP to turn over their membership information to them. This was done so the police could harass and threaten the members and supporters of the NAACP. The US Supreme Court ruled the NAACP could not be required to give their membership information to government officials. They ruled such laws violated the 1st amendment.

     

    Where do we get our rights. The founders believed we get our rights from God. In the Declaration of Independence Americans declared in 1776 that "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.†Those who signed the Declaration of Independence, and the people of the states they represented believed that fundamental truth.

     

    Through out America’s history the belief that God is our creator and the source of human rights has been acknowledged again and again. In 1781, Thomas Jefferson in his work titled, “Notes on the State of Virginia†wrote, “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God.â€Â

     

    Congress in September 25, 1789 approved a resolution calling on President Washington to proclaim a National Day of Thanksgiving for the people declaring, “A day of public Thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging . . . The many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity to establish a Constitution of Government for their safety and happiness.†This President Washington did so establishing the first Thanksgiving holiday under the US Constitution. In the proclamation given Washington thanked God for the recent victory over the British and helping establish a nation founded on the liberty of the people.

     

    In 1863 President Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address said, “. . . that this Nation under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and the Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not parish from the Earth.â€Â

     

    In June 15, 1954 President Eisenhower signed into law that amended the Pledge of Allegiance to read, “ . . . one Nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.â€Â

     

    The Boy Scouts in the oath referencing God attest to the basic fact that our rights come from God. You might not agree that our rights come from God but that is irrelevant because the historical fact is that Americans believe that our rights come from God that no government can take away.

     

    What should Atheists do? First they and their supporters should leave the Boy Scouts alone. Secondly they can join another organization such as the 4H Club, the Boys Club, or Atheist United that will welcome them as members. They can form their own camping orginazation and set whatever membership criteria they want. They can get together with friends and go camping.

     

    Finally I go back to the beginning, “Why would a non-believer want to join the Boy Scouts an organization of believers in God who do not want non-believers as members?"

    Why would anybody want to join the Boy Scouts? Think about it! Why would anybody want to join the Boy Scouts? In particular, why would any adult, especially a parent of a boy, want to join?

     

    How's about because they believe in the principles and ideals of Scouting. Because they remember what they had themselves learned as Scouts (or the women vicariously through their brothers) and they want their own sons to learn the same things and to have the same experiences, so they join as well as volunteer leaders. Or because they loved the experience and want to continue in it, giving back to the movement.

     

    That last category would include senior Scouts who age out at 18 and stay on in the troop as junior adult leaders. Or men and women whose own sons have aged out and remain active at the district and council level; our district had several such members of the "Goat Patrol". Or men who have no sons who want to continue on -- we have one such who was active in Venture Scouting and also volunteered to help with our troop.

     

    The reason for joining Boy Scouts is Scouting! Why else would anyone join?

     

    The Boy Scouts as a private organization can have a good reason' date=' bad reason, irrational reason, or any other reason in establishing membership criteria. Their reason can be one that you might not approve of but as a private orginazation it is their right to discriminate.[/quote']

     

    Yes, but once they have established their membership criteria, then they are obligated to apply and enforce it! BSA has indeed established its membership criteria in its officially published Rules and Regulations, Bylaws, and other official policy statements.

     

    None of BSA's officially published policy gives any reason for excluding an atheist just for being an atheist. BSA has repeatedly claimed to have a rule that requires "belief in a Supreme Being" and insisting that that was the rule that required them "against their will" to exclude atheists. The problem is that that rule simply does not exist. Not only would such a rule directly conflict with officially published BSA policy, but it has even been officially denied:

    1. In 1985 in the Paul Trout incident by CSE Ben Love and Relationships Division Director William McCleery III.

    2. In a 21 December 1994 letter by Relations Division Director Larry Townsend.

    3. In the Randall trial by Orange County Council SE Kent Gibbs when directly ordered by Judge Frazee to produce that "rule" that Gibbs kept going on about.

     

    As a matter of fact, the entire reason for this topic is for me to ask whether anyone knows whether this "rule's" offical status has changed since circa 1998, when last I had checked.

     

    The founders believed we get our rights from God. In the Declaration of Independence. {etc}

    It is really not a good idea for you to always assume that when someone uses the word "God" then it must always mean the same as you would use that word and that it must always mean your own god. It rarely works out that way. You always need to be aware of context to be able to approach the true meaning of anything that's said or written.

     

    You should also become familiar with Deism, which didsn't believe in a personal interactive god, but rather in a remote Prime Mover that had gotten the Universe started and then stood back to let it run. One term for this "Creator" was "the God of Nature" or "Nature's God" which had created the Laws of Nature. And certainly, that is the exact wording we find in the Declaration of Independence. You will also find it in Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason, in which Paine refuted Christianity, which he considered to be a form of atheism because it denied the true God of Nature in order to worship a man. There's even a conspiracy theory, like "who really wrote Shakespeare?", that Paine had ghost-written the Declaration, since it is so similar to his style. And I'm fairly certain that your sources consider Paine to be an atheist, but his beliefs weren't much different than other Deists', such as Jefferson and several other Founding Fathers.

     

    Since you mistakenly find religious significance in the alteration of the Pledge, you should also read A Memorial and Remonstrance by James Madison, in which he described the need to separate government and religion a few years before he drafted the First Amendment. In it, he enumerates and demonstrates the detrimental effects on both government and religion when the two are allowed to co-mingle. And this has come to pass; in Supreme Court Justice Brennan's dissenting opinion in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984):

    ...I would suggest that such practices as the designation of "In God We Trust" as our national motto' date=' or the references to God contained in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag can best be understood, in Dean Rostow's apt phrase, as a form a "ceremonial deism," protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content. [/quote']

    So in the Pledge and the new Motto, "God" has been reduced to meaningless "ceremonial deism". Congratulations! I'm sure you're so proud of yourself.

     

     

    And that "any significant religious content" had been arrived at by "rote repetition". Gee, that sounds like "Duty to God" in the Scout Oath, doesn't it? Only officially published BSA policy does tell us what it means, that each member is to be attentive in the duties of his own religion. What does BSA require that duty to be? It doesn't! That is up to each member's own religious leaders and community. What does BSA define "God" to be? It doesn't, nor may it! That is up to each member's own religious leaders and community. What about "belief in God"? Not only does BSA not attempt to define it, but it doesn't even require it! Well, except for that fictitious non-rule that BSA keeps lying about.

     

    All that BSA officially requires regarding religion is that definite attention be given to that aspect of one's life.

     

    Atheists have no right to be a member of the Boy Scouts in the same way Jews have no right to be priests of the Catholic Church.

    Where exactly in BSA's officially published policies does it say that atheists cannot be members of BSA? Cite it and quote it!

     

    Of course, you may have difficulty doing that, besides for the obvious reason that it does not say it. That other difficulty would be just gaining access to the documents. Back around 1990, copies of BSA's Rules and Regulations and Bylaws were readily available for sale in the Scout Shop. But then BSA suddenly pulled them all off the shelves and restricted access to them on a need-to-know basis. Why? Because they started showing up in court in the hands of the victims of BSA discrimination. And because they clearly showed the courts that BSA was violating its own officially published rules, regulations, bylaws, and policies. Faced with the truth, BSA did what all liars do, which is to try to hide the truth.

     

     

    Let me ask you a question. Both "A Scout is Reverent" and the description of "Duty to God" in the first Handbook require the scout to respect the convictions of others in matters of custom and religion. Obviously, a religious bigot cannot do that.

     

    Why then would a religious bigot ever want to join the Boy Scouts? Especially since his beliefs are in direct opposition to the religious principles of BSA and of Scouting.

     

     

    And, yes, I do fully realize that I'm yet again casting pearls before swine. My minister kept warning me about that, but here I go again.

  8. :)

     

    There are only 4 options in life:

     

    1) I believe and there is a God. - Well in that case I have it made in the shade.

    2) I believe and there is no God - In that case I've wasted a lot of time and energy in this life, except maybe I was a bit more "moral/ethical" than I would not normally have been.

    3) I don't believe and there is no God - It's a wash, life was good/bad or indifferent, but that's all there is to it.

    4) I don't believe and there is a God - I'm screwed.

     

    Everyone takes their chances. How's it working out for you?

     

    Take all the scientific knowledge we possess and lump it all together and still the human mind has no idea of how this masterfully intricate existence has coincidentally came into being. There is far more we don't know than what we do, scientifically. Our high-tech medical knowledge/practices will be barbaric 200 years from now just as it was 200 years ago.

    Science is not the journey, it is only a wayside along the route.

     

    If I have a balloon in my hand, one can never scientifically tell if it will rise up, float away or fall to the ground until AFTER they have analyzed, probed, and tested it. Well we have not yet been able to analyze, probe and test everything everywhere. Until then one has to place their faith in what I say the balloon will do.

     

     

    One can hardly hope to dilute an argument that is already rather weak. If you had bothered to review the objections via Google, I would hope that you had read the Princeton philosophy course page at http://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/Pascal.html. A problem that Hajek's objection brings up is that we don't have much choice over what we believe and don't believe, but rather at best we can only try to believe. As a result, the "four choices" really turn out to be 16.

     

    I've been involved with "creation science" since 1981. One of the big problems for "creation science" is that its "scientific" claims are not only blatantly false, but also outrageously so. Since creationists also use "creation science" to proselytize, I could never understand what value there could possibly be in using such unconvincing claims and arguments. A couple decades ago in a Yahoo groups forum, a creationist answered my question. In typical creationist fashion, he presented with full confidence a false claim that had been refuted decades before, in this case the amount of sodium in the ocean. After repeating the same old refutation yet again, I asked him what he thought he could accomplish with such an unconvincing argument as that. His reply was that the only reason that I found it unconvincing was because I was not yet convinced. BTW, the other problem with his claim, that it gave an age for the earth of millions of years and not the 10,000 maximum that his religious beliefs required, he also answered by saying that all he cared about was that it contradicted what science says.

     

    So similarly, the only reason why you find unconvincing Pascal's Wager convincing is because you are already convinced of it yourself.

     

    The point being everyone believes except the agnostic.

    You really don't have any clue about what agnostics and atheists think and believe, do you?

     

    One cannot say they know God exists or doesn't exist.

    That is correct! And that is also the basis for agnosticism! The agnostic believes that we cannot know. That is indeed the only honest position to hold. Theists holding the honest agnostic position then believe what they cannot know, which comes under the heading of faith. Atheists holding the honest agnostic position do not believe. So in reality, since a number of theists are agnostic, your statement about what agnostics think and believe is decidedly wrong.

     

    Similarly, the position of most atheists is that they do not believe. Most do not go so far as to declare the non-existence of the gods, while some do. So your statement about what atheists think and believe is also decidedly wrong.

     

    You should try to learn something before making such statements. Most people have learned that ignorance doesn't work.

  9. :)

     

    There are only 4 options in life:

     

    1) I believe and there is a God. - Well in that case I have it made in the shade.

    2) I believe and there is no God - In that case I've wasted a lot of time and energy in this life, except maybe I was a bit more "moral/ethical" than I would not normally have been.

    3) I don't believe and there is no God - It's a wash, life was good/bad or indifferent, but that's all there is to it.

    4) I don't believe and there is a God - I'm screwed.

     

    Everyone takes their chances. How's it working out for you?

     

    Take all the scientific knowledge we possess and lump it all together and still the human mind has no idea of how this masterfully intricate existence has coincidentally came into being. There is far more we don't know than what we do, scientifically. Our high-tech medical knowledge/practices will be barbaric 200 years from now just as it was 200 years ago.

    Science is not the journey, it is only a wayside along the route.

     

    If I have a balloon in my hand, one can never scientifically tell if it will rise up, float away or fall to the ground until AFTER they have analyzed, probed, and tested it. Well we have not yet been able to analyze, probe and test everything everywhere. Until then one has to place their faith in what I say the balloon will do.

     

     

    There are only 4 options in life:

    Pascal's Wager. It has many problems which followers ignore. And it shows up often as a proselytizing too in their "after-life insurance" argument which is little more than a scam -- I wrote of my experience with it at http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/wager.html. You can read objections to it through Google: pascal's wager objections.

     

    To start with, there are far more than 4 options, literally thousands of them. It is not enough to believe that a god exists, but rather you have to believe in the right god. True, some gods don't care, but many gods do very definitely take exception to people not believing in them. That is most certainly true of YHWH and the Christian version of Him upped the stakes very greatly. So out of thousands of gods, you have to choose the right one.

     

    But that is not enough, because you also need to choose the right theology. Pascal was Catholic, so even if you choose the Christian god, if you are not Catholic then you have lost the wager. For that matter, Pascal was a member of a small Catholic sect, so just being Catholic may not be enough.

     

    And it's false that believing doesn't cost you anything. Religions make non-trivial demands on its followers, including banning certain occupations and loving certain people. Far worse, your religion could forbid you from seeking necessary medical care for yourself or, even worse, for a loved one like your child -- this does often happen. You're paying with your life in so many ways when you join a religion. That religious experience could be good, but it could also be bad. Currently, the majority of children raised in fundamentalist/evangelical/conservative Christian homes are fleeing religion altogether -- estimates range from 65% to 80%. If you were to visit forum sites like ex-christian.net, you would read personal testimonials of what these ex-Christians had experienced growing up.

     

    When the "after-life insurance" scam was tried on me in the guise of a car insurance analogy, I responded with the following assessment:

    So I told my after-life insurance salesman that his after-life insurance was a rotten deal (unfortunately, I didn't think of that name for it until the next day, but that poor guy was already hurting too much). We had to pay an exorbinant price for a policy that would only pay in the most restricted and oddest of circumstances. By the car insurance analogy, it would only pay if you were hit by a green Edsel -- on the northbound side of the Santa Ana Freeway -- while it was exceeding the speed limit -- backing up -- at night -- with its lights off -- being driven by a one-armed Lithuanian midget.

     

    So your Pascal's Wager is not a sure thing, but rather ... now how did you put it? Oh yes ... you're screwed.

  10. I am happy that I do not believe anything that is in the Bible. All of the stories in the bible are just recycled stories with different names and slight twists from earlier cultures. Very little of the Bible to me is good advice or comforting. I find most of it brutal' date=' horrific, and scary.[/quote']

    Actually, that is how I became an atheist. Around age 12, about a year after having been baptized, I decided that I needed to get serious about this religion business. So I started to read the Bible. Pretty soon, I realized that I quite literally could not believe what I was reading. Well, since I couldn't believe what I was supposed to as a Christian, then it was time for me to leave.

     

    That was half a century ago. I'm not sure how far I had gotten, but I'm pretty sure that I had not gotten to the part where Lot's daughters got him drunk so that they could rape him, because a pre-adolescent boy would not have forgotten that! And, of course, I had proceeded from a very possibly false premise, that my church would have required a literal interpretation of the Bible. That particular element came nearly a century later, when the "Jesus Freak Movement" suddenly swelled the ranks of fundamentalist Christianity circa 1970. By that time, as a "fellow traveller" (like McCarthyism's "fellow travellers" of Communism that they sought to ferret out), I learned a lot about fundamentalist Christian beliefs and realized to my very great relief what a wonderfully correct decision I had made to be an atheist.

     

    The entire bible makes no sense. I read it to my kids to see if they were interested. We got through two books' date=' and they were sitting there mouths open. "Poeple believe this nonsense?" I told them, "People do not read this nonsense. People say they read it, but really they only listen to surgically plucked phrases and quotes while never actually reading it."[/quote']

    I have heard an explanation for this and it brings us right back around to the "Jesus Freak Movement". Traditionally -- and I mean back to the turn of the last century, around 1900 -- , Fundamentalists and Baptists (not necessarily the same thing back then; that changed circa the late 1970's) pretty much kept to themselves. You were pretty much born into the faith and studied the Bible your entire life. That meant that there was a study plan for each individual that spanned multiple decades. Then circa 1970, there came the "Jesus Freak Movement." 1960's hippies burned out on drugs suddenly "got hooked on Jesus" (a catch-phrase of the time). Suddenly, small fundamentalist churches saw their numbers soar overnight and they became mega-churches; our local example in Orange County, Calif, was Chuck Smith's small Calvary Chapel on the corner of Greenville and Sunflower in Santa Ana, which grew to a circus tent in a vacant field at Fairview and Sunflower, which became buildings and a Christian high school built in that vacant field.

     

    The problem is that this religion called for many years of Bible study, but now you had most of the congregation unschooled in the Bible and needing to be brought up-to-speed very fast. Which is what happened. So instead of careful methodical Bible study, everybody had to be given a crash course. What replaced the normal course of Bible study was a system of telling them what the beliefs were and here are the isolated verses to support that.

     

    Now, there was a very long Baptist tradition leading up to this point. Actually, it goes back to the Reformation. In the Catholic Church, the priest told you what the Bible said. For the first millennium, lay-persons weren't even allowed to try to read the Bible for themselves (literacy disregarded) and there are stories, possibly true or not, of punishments meted out to those Catholics who dared to try to read the Bible for themselves. But with the Protestant Reformation, it now became the duty of Protestants to read the Bible for themselves. When BBC TV journalist James Burke treated this issue in his Connections series, he pointed to the art work in the churches. Catholic churches had very vivid artwork depicting the stories from the Bible. But that wasn't artwork, but rather learning. You had all the lessons memorized, so the artwork would remind you of a particular Bible story and that would trigger your memory of the actual story. In contrast, the Protestant Reformation was coincident with Guttenberg's printing press -- for that matter, it has been argued that Martin Luther's 99 Theses would have remained local had someone not have used a Guttenberg press to run off immense copies to distribute throughout Europe. The primary difference in the Protestant Reformation was that everybody was expected to read the Bible for themselves. Certainly, this marked the start of the modern German language, since it was based on Martin Luther's translation of the Bibel into German -- instead of just using Latin terms, he translated the Latin stems into their German equivalents -- (eg, express became Ausdruck and impress became Eindruck, words that are still used in German today). But you also saw it in the "artwork" in the Protestant churches, in that there was no longer any artwork. You didn't need to be reminded of the stories of the Bible, since all you had to do was to read them for yourself. In another note, the first Sunday Schools were intended mainly to teach members of the congregation of all ages how to read so that they could read the Bible.

     

    I've read the entire book cover to cover - unlike any other Christian I am aware of. Reading it as if reading a novel left me with my eyes bugging out at the goofy things I was reading and horrible advice I received.

    And I trust that you also could see where the same stories were being told over and over again.

     

    Admittedly, I have not made it through the Old Testament, nor at the age of 61 do I feel inclined to (not when I have so much to write about BSA and about network programming). But I did read through the New Testament a couple times through. I have also read thePirke Avoth ("Sayings of the Fathers", part of the Talmudic tradition). I found the teachings of Jesus himself rather good, especially when he agreed with the Pharisees (spirit of the law vs the letter of the law, especially regarding the Golden Rule), but Paul's reinterpretation of Jesus into The Christ was very troubling and, most unfortunately, that is what Christianity is based on.

     

    People saw scary things' date=' attributed thunder, lightning, comets, etc to Gods. Then a smart guy in the tribe saw opportunity and became the "priest" as a way of taking power without being chosen. If the chief was uncooperative, the medicine man said "The Gods have spoken. He is evil!" It's still done today by people claiming that God wants this and that when really it is just them who wants it.[/quote']

    Tja! (please pardon my German -- there is an almost completely horrid movie, "Iron Sky", about Nazis on the far side of the moon, but then so much of the dialog is in German, though in one scene where all kinds of weird stuff is happening and a black astronaut from earth whom the Nazis had "albinocized" (Ich vergesse wie man das auf Deutch ausdruckte) could do nothing more than to say, "Na ja!")

     

    An opportunist priest could make sense, but in reality there was a very real social purpose served by the priest. In our modern society where we have some scientific knowledge, a opportunistic priest would be such a charlatan. But in the ancient societies, he would have served a very real purpose. But let us move ahead a couple/few millennia to the mystery religions. These had a secret teaching in their "Inner Temple" that was known only to those initiated into the mystery, while most of the celebrants were part of the "Outer Temple" where all the religion's teachings were presented to them in the form of obstruse symbols and [parables whose meanings were not known to the masses, but rather only to the initiates "who had eyes to see and ears to hear." Does that sound at all familiar from Mark? Where Jesus taught in parables so that the multitude could hear but comprehend not. And then he drew the disciplines off to the side to explain to them the "mysteries of heaven". Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

     

    I was raised with religion. I am happier and my children are happier in a home with no ghosts' date=' no alien abductions, no bigfoot, no lochness monster, and no God.[/quote']

    About a decade ago, I had a lunch with a friend from church. He had been a fundamentalist Christian for many years. He described how he had to live each day of his life, surrounded by so many things that directly contradicted his fundamentalist Christian beliefs. He described how he had to every day turn a blind eye to all those things, to try in vain to deny that they existed. That sheer amount of denial is a very heavy burden to have to carry and eventually it became too much. One day, he decided to apply the Matthew 7:20 Test to Christianity -- "by their fruits, you will know them". Yes, there were some things that Christianity did right, but then there were also so many things that it did completely wrong. As a result, my friend became "a complete atheist and a thorough humanist" and as a result he says that he is now so much happier and so much spiritually fulfilled than he ever was before as a Christian.

     

    I believe religion is something that humans still feel they need' date=' but eventually will just outgrow. No earth-bound religion will survive the arrival of a superior alien species or man's spreading out through space to other worlds. Once all of the events in the bible are easily explained with technology we possess ourselves, it's no longer going to interest anyone. It's all just a matter of time. [/quote']

    So many think that religion is about finding answers, but that is not true.

     

    Religions is about seeking answers. More specifically, religion is about finding the right questions to ask.

     

    Os as our minister preached, the ultimate religious question is, "How, then, am I to live my life?"

  11. Yes, I feel that the "gay" issue has hit critical mass due to the fact that it will not be going away. Kahuna compared the issue to "women's rights" which I think is apt. I think that we as a society, will also find out that this will both have unforeseen benefits and negative consequences - just like the changing perceptions of what the role of women in society ought to be. With more women in the workforce, they are less dependent on someone else as a provider - that has boosted divorce rates and increased the amount of children raised in single parent homes. It also allowed many women to leave abusive relationships and has added an immense critical addition to our workforce expanding productivity.

     

     

     

    Anyone care to predict the effects that societal acceptance of gay marriage will have on our culture? I can't really think of much negative effects myself.

    I certainly cannot think of any negative effects.

     

    Positive effects would be far fewer families operating at an unnecessary disadvantage and in danger of being torn apart by anti-same-sex marriage laws. About a year ago I listened to a report on All Things Considered (NPR) in which same-sex families were visiting Washington, DC, to personally lobby their congressmen and senators for support. The most pressing concern for most of the families was that the parents lost all parental rights in a state that didn't recognize or banned same-sex marriages. That meant that if any of their children were to have to go to the emergency room or come to the attention of the authorities, then all their children would be taken away from them and placed in foster care.

     

    Societal acceptance of gay marriage means the preservation of families.

  12. DWise1 - God and religions are funny things. They mean many different things to many different folks. The BSA has their declaration of religious principle stated on their application. You keep giving what appears to be a circular argument to me - you apparently did or said something that someone felt was in violation of membership. Possibly, you posted something that upset an individual and they (rightly or wrongly) looked for a reason to kick you out of the BSA. Sort of like tax evasion for Al Capone?

     

     

     

    I stated my opinion on the BSA's previous stance on avowed homosexuality on this forum but I did not "preach" that to Scouts, at roundtable events or bring it up at my Wood Badge training. Was that due to cowardice? Prudence? I'm sure everyone has their opinion. Bottom line, for the general public the DRP, Scout Oath and Law (I'm Boy Scout oriented) are the guidelines. Does the BSA have not so public position papers? I'm sure they do but I'm not interested in picking a fight.

     

     

     

    Now, is any of the following untrue?

    In 1989, six-year-old Mark Welsh, after receiving a flyer advertising membership, attempted to sign up for Tiger Cubs, the Boy Scouts of America's Scouting program for six- and seven-year olds. To become a member of the Tiger Cubs, each child must have an "Adult Partner", typically a parent, who also becomes a member of the organization. Mark's father, Elliott Welsh, agnostic, informed a BSA official that he did not want to sign the "Declaration of Religious Principles" section of the adult application. The Boy Scouts of America, therefore, denied Mr. Welsh membership, thereby also denying Mark membership. One year later, when Mark had reached the age of eligibility for Cub Scouts (who do not require Adult partners), he was still denied admission into the Scouting organization as he refused to repeat the phrase "to do my duty to God and my country" in the Cub Scout Promise.

     

     

     

    From what I gather from the above, no secret regulations were used. I don't see the issue of "supreme being" relevant in the decision.

     

     

     

    P.S. Anyone else ever gotten this error message?

     

    The string you entered for the image verification did not match what was displayed.
    Yes, I'm familiar with the Welsh case. I met Elliott on-line on CompuServe immediately upon joining their Scouting Forum. And the BSA spy there printed out just about every message posted there and turned them in to BSA, whose lawyers then presented a thick stack of those messages in federal court as evidence in the Welsh trial. In fact, the very first message I posted there was included and marked "ATHEIST LEADER" in big red letters.

     

    We followed reports of those CompuServe forum members about the proceedings and the actions and statements of BSA officials and of other participants. While that is an accurate account of what had happened, it is also true that BSA frequently invoked its non-existent "rule requiring belief in a Supreme Being" in the Welsh case as well as in all the other cases involving religious discrimination. That included BSA's persistent and well-publicized direct lies to the public about having a rule requiring "belief in a Supreme Being".

     

    I would also point out how the Welsh case started as being a prime example of the problems caused by the surface wording of the DRP in absense of any explanation of what officially published BSA policy actually says. In fact, on recruitment night for our pack there was one parent who balked at that wording, so I sat down and explained what it meant according to officially published policy and she found that she could agree with it. Rather, it is when that policy is kept secret from the parents so that all they have to go by is the surface wording that these kinds of problems even arise.

     

    You keep giving what appears to be a circular argument to me

    How so? Please explain why you think that and what you think is circular about my arguments. I think that I've been very straight-forward in my reasoning and in my presentation. For that matter, I cannot see how officially published BSA policy could be construed to say something different.

  13. We accept the idea of a Supreme Being because our founder, Baden Powell, told us to.

    In contrast to the Christian-only Boys' Brigade, which started two decades earlier, Robert Baden-Powell founded the Scout movement as a youth organisation (with boys as 'Scouts' and girls as 'Guides'), which was independent of any single faith or religion, yet still held that spirituality and a belief in a higher power were key to the development of young people

    The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) in the United States takes a hard-line position, excluding atheists and agnostics.[11] The BSA has come under strong criticism over the past years due to their religious policy and stance against agnostics and atheists:

    "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. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise the member declares, ‘On my honour I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law.’ The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of his favours and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members."[11]

    The Boy Scouts of America has accepted Buddhist members and units since 1920, and also accepts members of various pantheistic faiths. Many Buddhists do not believe in a supreme being or creator deity, but because these beliefs are still religious and spiritual in nature, they are deemed acceptable by the BSA since their leaders subscribe to the BSA Declaration of Religious Principle

    While the BSA associates with the WOSM for mutual benefit, the WOSM does not control the BSA

     

    Earlier I asked about how an atheist can have religious beliefs since religion implies the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power. I can accept you have moral beliefs or idealistic beliefs; I would just not call them religious

     

    Is Where Have All the Boy Scouts Gone? your website?

    We accept the idea of a Supreme Being because our founder, Baden Powell, told us to.

    In contrast to the Christian-only Boys' Brigade, which started two decades earlier, Robert Baden-Powell founded the Scout movement as a youth organisation (with boys as 'Scouts' and girls as 'Guides'), which was independent of any single faith or religion, yet still held that spirituality and a belief in a higher power were key to the development of young people

    All your links to http://www.scouter.com/wiki are broken, which is too bad since I would have wanted to have seen what this forum's Wiki had to say about "higher power". But needless to say, while it may be your own narrow sectarian interpretation that a "higher power" must be a "Supreme Being", reality and the world's religions say otherwise.

     

    A "Supreme Being" would be what is referred to as a "personal god", which Wikipedia defines as:

    A personal god is a deity who can be related to as a person instead of as an "impersonal force", such as the Absolute, "the All", or the "Ground of Being".

    That definition alone indicates that a "higher power" need not be a personal god. We also have other examples, such as the Tao, Hinduism's Brahman-Atman (the ultimate reality -- "The personal God is impersonal reality reflected upon the mirror of ignorance and illusion." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman#Brahman_and_Atman), Confuscianism's natural social order, the physical laws of the universe, all of which are higher powers than each individual and none of which are personal gods (aside from a tiny bit of wriggle-room with Brahman, depending on which school).

     

    You are bound to your sectarian view of "higher power" because of your own religious tradition. The rest of us are not similiarly bound, except for those whose religious traditions share your sectarian views. As per officially published BSA policy.

     

    To paraphrase the idea and purpose behind officially published BSA religious policy:

    We want to be absolutely nonsectarian regarding religion' date=' but we don't know anything about it. We are not experts in all the different religious beliefs that exist, so we don't try to be. Instead, we leave the evaluation of any member's religious beliefs and of the performance of his religious duties up to the experts in that particular religious tradition, which would be the member's religious leaders and religious community (which includes the family). The most that we can possibly do is to strong urge that each member does give attention to his own religious duties, whatever they may be.[/quote']

     

    While the BSA associates with the WOSM for mutual benefit' date=' the WOSM does not control the BSA[/quote']

    Which also invalidates your attempt to use Baden Powell for support. You cannot have it both ways.

     

    I would remind you of the reason why I quoted from WOSM's definition of "Duty to God". I have moved since the time of my direct involvement, so my printed Scouting materials are packed away somewhere. That means that I do not have at hand the definition and explanation of "Duty to God" that is contained in the Boy Scout Handbook, the Cub Scout handbooks, or officially published BSA policy -- what I've been quoting is from my notes and correspondence that I have on disk. When I Google'd for BSA's definition, all I was able to find was WOSM's. That is all as I had stated. I also stated that what I remember BSA's definition and explanation as saying was the same as what WOSM is saying. I feel that I was quite clear on that.

     

    That renders your objection to WOSM's definition both moot and irrelevent. Now, what would have been relevent would have for you to have provided BSA's official definition and explanation. But you didn't do that, did you?

     

    Earlier I asked about how an atheist can have religious beliefs since religion implies the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power. I can accept you have moral beliefs or idealistic beliefs; I would just not call them religious

    Religious beliefs only imply that to you because you are bound by the sectarian views of your own religious tradition. I am not bound by your sectarian views. As per officially published BSA policy. And while you would not call somebody else's religious tradition "religious" because of your own sectarian views, that does not prevent us from considering our own religious beliefs to be religious. As per officially published BSA policy, that judgement is not yours to make for anyone except yourself and for someone within the same religious tradition.

     

    For more information, maybe you should have a chat with a minister from my church, the Unitarian-Universalist Association (UUA). I'd like to know his reaction and response when you tell him that UU beliefs are not religious.

     

    Quite honestly, once when I was asked what I believe in, I quite literally responded with, "Truth, justice, and the American way." Corny, but true. And of the American way I particularly value religious liberty and am dedicated to preserving it.

     

    Is Where Have All the Boy Scouts Gone? your website?

    No, it is not. I haven't put it up yet. Actually, I had a single page marking "more to come" on my old website, but then that provider suddenly went out of the hosting business and I've been putting my site up elsewhere in my "copious spare time" (engineer parlance -- we have too much work to do to have any spare time).

  14. Hi DWise:

    Please catch me up with this. You say you don't accept a Supreme Being, but had no problem with accepting Duty to God. How did/do you define "God"? Also, in a later reply you talked about your religious beliefs. How can an atheist have religious beliefs?

    Peregrinator:

     

    I thought I was quite clear on what I meant by being "strongly agnostic". Here it is again (with a key part in bold):

    The gods are supposed supernatural beings that we have created to explain what you do not understand. The basic problem is that we are unable to perceive the supernatural or even determine whether it actually exists. As a result' date=' I am strongly agnostic, because I believe that we cannot know anything about the supernatural.[/b'] If a theist were honest about it, he would also have to hold the same agnostic position. All anyone can do with the supernatural is to make guesses and assumptions. A theist makes the assumption that supernatural beings do exist and then tries to figure out what he can about the gods. An atheist makes the opposite assumption that the gods don't exist, or at the very least realize that what we call "gods" are of human invention. Even if real gods do exist, it is the invented ones that we use, which may come close to the real thing or miss by tera-light-years. Even with the Christian God the image that believers hold is a pale substitute, but it's the best that the human mind can work with; thus a believer should engage in a life-long attempt to understand God, something that should be ever growing (I have a brochure from church about a book co-written by a rabbi whose thesis was that most adults have a childish view of God because they formed their ideas of God in childhood and never returned to form a more mature view as they grew up).

    Could you please point out what part of that you did not understand or had difficulty with?

     

    As I just shared with Merlyn, we atheists repeatedly get subjected to theists (mainly fundamentalist/evangelical/conservative Christians) pontificating to us what atheists think and believe. In the process they only succeed in demonstrating how completely clueless they are and yet they absolutely refuse to hear from us atheists ourselves what we actually do think and believe.

     

    Here is a link to a page on the website of the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, religioustolerance.org, entitled, "Agnostic-Atheists. Agnostic-Theists. More definitions. Famous Agnostics.": http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic2.htm I just found it today, but you will notice that many of the definitions and quotations offered say the same thing that I had just repeated for you:

    Can an Agnostic also be an Atheist?

    Theists believe in the existence of a God, or a Goddess, or in multiple Gods, or multiple Goddesses or in a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. Agnostics believe that the existence of a deity can neither be proven nor disproven.

     

    However, some Agnostics consider themselves to be Atheists. That is because the term "Atheist" has two slightly different meanings:

     

    1. Strong Atheist: A person who positively believes that no God(s) or Goddess(es) exists.

    ...

    This is the definition of Atheism used by most Christians, other Theists, and dictionaries of the English language.

     

    2. A person who has no belief in a God or Goddess. ... A person can be a non-Theist by simply lacking a belief in God without actively denying God's existence. This is the definition of Atheism used by many Atheists.

     

    Some Agnostics feel that their beliefs match the second definition, and thus consider themselves to be both Atheist and an Agnostic. Such confusion is common throughout the field of religion. ... A lack of clear, unambiguous definitions for religious terms is responsible for a great deal of confusion and hatred. It makes dialog among Agnostics, Theists, and Atheists very difficult. In fact, when such a dialogue is attempted, it should be preceded with a long session to agree on a set of definitions.

     

    Can an Agnostic also be a Theist?

    Agnostic-Theist: A Theist firmly believes in the existence of a God. An Agnostic has concluded that there is no proof for either the existence or non-existence of God. However, these two beliefs are not necessarily mutually exclusive. An Agnostic could still believe in the existence of God even though they accept that there is no proof either way.

    ...

    George Smith, the author of "Atheism" divides Agnostics into two types:

    Agnostic Theists: those who believe that a deity probably exists, even though god's existence cannot be proven;

     

    Agnostic Atheists: those who believe that it is very improbable that a deity exists, even though god's non-existence cannot absolutely be proven.

     

    Another category of Agnostic are the "Empirical Agnostics." They believe that God may exist, but that little or nothing can be known about him/her/it/them.

     

    Still another category are "Agnostic Humanists." These individuals are undecided about the existence of God. Further, they do not really consider the question to be particularly important. They have derived their moral and behavioral codes from secular considerations. Their ethical behavior would not be altered if a deity were proven to exist.

    ...

    Charles Darwin, ... :

    "The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."

     

    "I think an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind. The whole subject {of God} is beyond the scope of man's intellect."

    You can plainly see them saying the same things as I have. I will remind you that I have held and developed my beliefs for many decades and that I have only just today found this webpage that I just quoted from. I would suggest that it is your own definitions and understanding of "atheist" and "agnostic" that need to be re-examined and corrected.

  15. Hi DWise:

    Please catch me up with this. You say you don't accept a Supreme Being, but had no problem with accepting Duty to God. How did/do you define "God"? Also, in a later reply you talked about your religious beliefs. How can an atheist have religious beliefs?

    Merlyn:

    A better explanation would be like the region in the UK our minister told us about called "The Black Spot" by a major church (CoE?). Populated by Unitarians, it has a reputation for being impervious to all their proselytizing efforts. They hate us so much because they cannot convert us. Kind of like with Martin Luther's vicious hatred for the Jews.

     

    But a better explanation would be that they are acting in ignorance upon their prejudices which they have learned from their churches. I'm sure that you've been pontificated at by Christians who "know" exactly what atheists think and believe, only the more they pontificate the more obvious it is that they are completely clueless. Even worse, they refuse to stop and listen and learn from actual atheists what actual atheists actually do think and believe.

     

    So where do they get their prejudices from? I found it interesting that over the decades some of the same false ideas about atheists would keep appearing. Then one night while browsing through http://ex-christian.net, an ex-Christian sharing his deconversion story remembered what he had been taught by his church about atheists and he even quoted from some Bible verses about those teachings. They were the same false ideas that I had observed appearing over and over again! Unfortunately, when I tried to return to that post the next night to write down the citations, I couldn't find it anymore. So that's it! They're getting some of those false ideas from the Bible!

     

    That could also explain why they work so hard to not learn the truth about atheists. I started studying "creation science" over 30 years ago and have been discussing it for almost as long. Now, mind you, we're talking about biblical literalists there, who are almost exclusively fundamentalists. One of the things that I find very disturbing about them is the brinksmanship that they insist on playing with their own faith. Creationists have repeatedly insisted to me emphatically that if there's even one, just one, error in the Bible, then you should throw the entire Bible in the trash and become an atheist. And that's what they teach their kids! And since their claims about the real world are contrary-to-fact and the truth of the Bible depends on them being true, that's a sure recipe of disaster. So how then do they deal with the evidence of the real world? They turn a blind eye to it and invent their own "evidences".

     

    I think that's part of what's happening in our "conversations" (ie, they pontificate and then refuse to listen to the truth) with that kind of Christians. They're getting their wrong ideas about atheists from the Bible, but if they learn that those ideas are wrong, then that means that the Bible is wrong about something and that's when it all starts to unravel for them. They have a vested interest in remaining ignorant.

     

    And because their prejudices are hateful, they act them out with hatred. Against boogeymen who don't even exist regardless of how many innocent people get trampled.

  16. As to the "rules" about duty to God and their enforcement, I think we need to look no further than the letter of the council Scout Executive in South Carolina who resigned over the gay issue. His letter reveals that his Christian beliefs probably drove many of his decisions over the years he was a professional. He would be the type of guy who would find it necessary to kick out Scouts of uncertain beliefs.
    Kahuna, it looks like you're arguing that council SEs would be acting on their own based on their own personal prejudices. That doesn't agree with what I observed. Searching through an excerpt of the Rules and Regulations (I have sections in disk files that I had copied out, but my paper hard copies are packed away), I passed by some wording to the effect that councils cannot act on their own, or perhaps more specifically that they may not add nor subtract from membership or other requirements. And what was happening in the 1990's was that mountains of FAXes were flowing up- and down-hill between National and Council, such that Council couldn't even begin to consider to think about scratching itself without getting clearance to do so from National. Control was very highly centralized. Furthermore, my DE informed me that he was required to report every single contact he had and I'm sure that Council has the same requirement to report everything to Regional (albeit summarized) and that Regional had the same requirements to report everything to National. Of course, for day-to-day malfeasance the various levels would be operating as per standing orders, but the orders were still coming from the very top at National.

     

    I don't think that that SE's situation was that he could no longer act independently, but rather that he didn't agree with the new orders he anticipated coming from National.

  17. Never heard of them pulling out an adult unless they were loudly proclaiming and promoting being an atheist.. Most the adults I know I have no idea what the believe or if they believe in anything it is just accepted that if they signed up they were at peace with what they signed. Many are not affiliated with any church at all. The only time I have heard of anything is if a boy gets a question at their eagle board, and they proclaim they are atheist or whatever, at which point it is usually as much of a surprise to the scoutmaster, and the boy may not even know that he is saying something that will hurt his chances of getting his eagle (or he does know and it is an "in your face" move)... That it also was an ambush by district leaders tells me that you had a corrupt bunch on your district staff and there was something other then your religion that caused them to want to take you down..
    Khaliela, no apology necessary for not standing up. La familia. Watch out for your family and take care of them. Es lo màs importante.

     

    Pilot? Going for the Air Force? That is the most person-oriented of the services. My father was a Chief Carpenter's Mate in the US Navy Seabees. He never pushed it, but as a child I read through his 1944 Bluejacket's Manual many times over; I could read naval officer's rank early on and found it very interesting that Star Trek:TNG followed US Naval rank of insignia, albeit with pips instead of gold braid -- and I was severely disappointed that it took them several seasons to finally come up with enlisted insigniae of rank, including for Chief Petty Officers. When I enlisted in 1976, it as a toss-up between Navy and Air Force. Since I was about to get married, I went Air Force -- the USAF sends its officers off to get killed instead of the enlisted. Also, my active duty assignment allowed me to attend the local university to get my Computer Science degree, something that active-duty Navy and Army assignments allow much more rarely.

     

    So then after my active duty enlistment, I affiliated with the Naval Reserve (albeit renamed about a decade ago to "Navy Reserve"). In 1991, I made Chief Petty Officer. And I went on to serve until Nov 2011, when I turned 60, the maximum age allowed without waiver. 35 years of service.

     

    Is your son intending to apply for the US Air Force Academy? I have heard much about how fundamentalist Christians have taken over the Academy. I don't know what the situation is right now. Though I have heard within the past year that the US Army requires all members going through a divorce to go through the Baptists' DivorceCare program. A friend had talked me into going through that program (she was promoting dance classes for the Singles Ministry of her mega-church, Saddleback, which was lacking men (150 would sign up for a dance class, 100 of which were women) and the alternative I was considering was on the same night. DivorceCare is only of any possible use to a conservative Christian, or at the absolute least a Christian, since they repeatedly and emphatically emphasized that only Jesus H. Christ could ever possibly help you, that nobody could ever possibly recover from a divorce without the direct and personal intervention of Jesus H. Christ Himself. And the US Army is requiring this very nonsense of each and every member going through a divorce. I have personally been through a divorce. It is, according to some book that my sister has, the third worst stressor in one's life (I have also in very close proximity been through the first). To impose a blatantly religious and sectarian requirement and condemnation like that on somebody going through such an experience is totally inconscionable.

     

    Your son knows what he wants to do. Support him and guide him as much as you can. But at no point can you stop worrying about him. That is the fate of a parent. I know that.

  18. Admittedly, this thread has wandered far away.

     

    Stupid question: You have a member's parent who is in a deeply committed relationship. What do the exact particulars of that relationship have to do with his being a Scouter?

     

    What really does sex have to do with Scouting? Please answer that first for different-gender sex. Nothing whatsoever, right?

     

    So what does same-gender sex have to do with Scouting? Nothing whatsoever, right?

     

    So just what is the difference supposed to be? Huh?

     

    Here is a basic principle that we had to make maximum use of while I provided training services during my official expulsion for atheism: A parent is always welcome to a meeting involving his own child. So gay parents are always welcome, including in den meetings and on campouts.

     

    And if the gay parent has a practical skill to teach, then what? Ignore that valuable resource? Or make use of it? Again harking back to the Penn and Teller Bullshit! episode on BSA, there was a campout set up with gay and non-gay scouts in which, as I recall, the gay scouts out-performed the non-gay scouts. So you ignore what the gay scouts have to teach you?

     

    As for the issue of sex education, I remember a memorable quote from the then-Governor of Mississippi (AKA, "missisloppy" by those, like myself, who had been stationed there) in the mid-to-late 1990's. He was a strong advocate of educational reform. In support for his position on education reform, he said: "We have already tried ignorance, so we know that that does not work." So now the Republicans are doubling down on ignorance -- it didn't work then, so it won't work now either.

    Are you serious right now?

    Quite serious. Scoutcraft is not affected by sexual orientation nor religious belief. Watch the episode for yourself.

  19. The clause "if BSA stopped discriminating" implies that both the promise is changed (or alternate promises are available) and that atheists are allowed' date=' because both would need to change in order for the BSA to stop discriminating.[/quote']

    I respectfully disagree.

     

    The actual meaning of the promise is made abundantly clear by the OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES (sorry, I don't know how to make this editor italicize or embolden text). The actual wording of the promise does not need to be changed SO LONG AS OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES ARE ENFORCED AND ARE MADE KNOWN TO ALL PARTIES INVOLVED.

     

    The problem is that officially published BSA policies are not being enforced, but rather BSA itself is wantonly violating those officially published policies.

     

    In 1991, I could not find any OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES that required the exclusion of any atheist, especially of an atheist who wholeheartedly subscribed to the Scout Oath, the Scout Law, the Declaration of Religious Principles, the RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES of the Advancement Guidelines, and the 1991 Reaffirmation of the Position of the Boy Scouts of America on Duty to God, INTERPRETED AS PER OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES. Since so far nobody here has indicated that there has been any significant change in OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICY, I can only conclude that there is still nothing in OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES that could possibly require the exclusion of an atheist.

     

    Of course, we have some members here, such as qwazse, who would wish to keep all possibly affected members ignorant of OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICY, but their own personal agendae should be considered null and void in the Light of Scouting.

     

    I reiterate: in 23 years, I have consistently failed to find anything in OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES that would require the exclusion of atheists. I have even testified in FEDERAL COURT to that effect. Can anybody at all please offer any reasonable reason why an atheist should be excluded from BSA membership?

    My handbook is buried away in a box out in the garage, but here is the WOSM definition of "Duty to God" which sounds very much like what I remember the handbook saying (http://scoutdocs.ca/Documents/Duty_to_God.php):

    Let us now look at the definition of Duty to God. Duty to God is defined as "Adherence to spiritual principles, loyalty to the religion that expresses them, and acceptance of the duties resulting therefrom" (ibid:5). Fundamental Principles goes on to say: "It should be noted that, by contrast to the title, the body of the text does not use the word 'God'.... The whole educational approach of the Movement consists in helping young people transcend the material world and go in search of the spiritual values of life" (ibid). First, Scouting wants people to adhere to spiritual principles, such as valuing emotions and seeing life as having meaning.

    So "Duty to God" is in fact not making an oath to YHWH nor to any other god, unless the individual's religious duties require it. The problem is that the use of that word, "God", causes too many people to misunderstand and to misinterpret "Duty to God" and to even use it as a weapon against others, which is completely and utterly wrong.

     

    Could you please explain how this is a constitutional problem? I think a far greater problem was BSA's adoption of a lie that their lawyers told them to use in the lawsuits of the earl 1990's, claiming that BSA is and had always been a secret religious organization. Of course, when that was used against them in school access cases, BSA then tried to claim that they weren't a religious organization and had never been. Check which way the wind's blowing so we can figure out which lie they're going to use next.

  20. Hi DWise:

    Please catch me up with this. You say you don't accept a Supreme Being, but had no problem with accepting Duty to God. How did/do you define "God"? Also, in a later reply you talked about your religious beliefs. How can an atheist have religious beliefs?

    Please catch me up with this. You say you don't accept a Supreme Being, but had no problem with accepting Duty to God. How did/do you define "God"? Also, in a later reply you talked about your religious beliefs. How can an atheist have religious beliefs?

    Please explain your strange idea that an atheist cannot have any religious beliefs. How did you arrive at it? What sense does it make? Does it even make sense to you?

     

    The gods are supposed supernatural beings that we have created to explain what you do not understand. The basic problem is that we are unable to perceive the supernatural or even determine whether it actually exists. As a result, I am strongly agnostic, because I believe that we cannot know anything about the supernatural. If a theist were honest about it, he would also have to hold the same agnostic position. All anyone can do with the supernatural is to make guesses and assumptions. A theist makes the assumption that supernatural beings do exist and then tries to figure out what he can about the gods. An atheist makes the opposite assumption that the gods don't exist, or at the very least realize that what we call "gods" are of human invention. Even if real gods do exist, it is the invented ones that we use, which may come close to the real thing or miss by tera-light-years. Even with the Christian God the image that believers hold is a pale substitute, but it's the best that the human mind can work with; thus a believer should engage in a life-long attempt to understand God, something that should be ever growing (I have a brochure from church about a book co-written by a rabbi whose thesis was that most adults have a childish view of God because they formed their ideas of God in childhood and never returned to form a more mature view as they grew up).

     

    "God" works best as a metaphor with which to frame ideas and ideals. The word can be handy for many, but I personally do not use it in reference to my own beliefs. The same holds true for many other people. As you should have read by now, BSA officially forbids itself from defining or interpreting "God" even though they do not hesitate to violate that rule in order to commit religious discrimination. Nor is believing in a "Supreme Being" even a requirement for membership, nor is it explicitly a part of "Duty to God" nor "Reverent", unless of course your own religious tradition and practices require it.

     

    As an atheist, I have no problem with "Duty to God" nor with "A Scout is Reverent" nor with the Declaration of Religious Principle, since I know how they are defined and how they are meant to be interpreted. I do find the particular wording and especially the use of the word "God" to be troubling, because in common usage it refers to one very specific god and thus it misleads far too many people into misinterpreting "Duty to God", "Reverent", and the DRP and leads directly to religious bigotry and discrimination. That word is almost exclusively Christian. A Muslim would prefer his own name even though it's supposed to be the same god. Because less liberal Jews take quite seriously the commandment to not say the name, they are even reluctant to write that word, writing "G-d" instead, and would avoid saying the word. Hindus have their own gods and Buddhists are themselves atheists (the Buddha taught against believing in the gods because that would only keep you from gaining Enlightenment).

     

    Religion, religious beliefs, and religious thought do not need the gods. They can be useful as metaphors for arriving at and dealing with and teaching deeper truths. But far too often, the gods are distractions which lead us astray and lead us to do harm to ourselves and to others.

     

    Does that at all help? And please do answer my questions about how you had arrived at your ideas about atheists. And I would also want to ask another question: Why is it that atheists are so hated? I have never been able to understand that. All I've seen is that churches teach their congregations to hate atheists and feed them lies about us. Why? It doesn't make any sense.

  21. Hi DWise:

    Please catch me up with this. You say you don't accept a Supreme Being, but had no problem with accepting Duty to God. How did/do you define "God"? Also, in a later reply you talked about your religious beliefs. How can an atheist have religious beliefs?

    To help you catch up, you should read what I posted last night, since it quotes from officially published BSA policies. Rather than have you go looking for it (I find navigating in this forum to be unnecessarily cumbersome), I will repost it here.

     

    Kahuna posted the DRP apparently to challenge me, so this was my reply:

     

    So' date=' without getting into rights and wrongs, it's very clear that if you can't support "an obligation to God" you can't be a member. Without doubt, people have expelled over silly BS, but those are the rules.[/quote']

    Yes, the rules are the rules. But precisely are the rules?

     

    What exactly is "an obligation to God"? What is the officially published BSA definition and interpretation of that term? Officially published BSA policy is quite clear on that point and it does not agree with what you are implying here. I read that you are implying that "God" must refer to YHWH, AKA "the God of the Bible". But how does that square with BSA's explicit statement in the DRP?: "it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training." How can any policy that requires belief in YHWH also simultaneously be "absolutely nonsectarian"? That is a direct contradiction which would reduce the DRP to meaningless word salad. While you may wish to see the DRP as devoid of any real meanng, I take the opposite position, based squarely on officially published BSA policy which all the supporters of BSA religious discrimination choose to ignore.

     

    DRP:

    ..., but {BSA} is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life.

    That is what BSA demands, not allegiance to a specific god in violation of its being "absolutely nonsectarian".

     

    Rules and Regulations, ARTICLE IX. PRINCIPLES, POLICIES, AND DEFINITIONS, SECTION I:

    The Scout Law

    A Scout is: ...

    Reverent. A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in

    his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.

    But what is the officially published BSA policy on the definition and interpretation of "God"? More pertinent, the emphasis is on being faithful in one's religious duties and respecting the beliefs of others (meaning that BSA professionals fail in this point of the Scout Law).

     

    Advancement Guidelines, early 1990's, page 5, RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES:

    The Boy Scouts of America has a definite statement on religious principles. The following interpretative statement may help clarify some of the points. The Boy Scouts of America:

     

    1 . Does not define what constitutes belief in God or the practice of religion.

     

    2. Does not require membership in a religious organization or association for enrollment in the movement but does prefer, and strongly encourages, membership and participation in the religious programs and activities of a church synagogue, or other religious association.

     

    ...

     

    4. If a boy says he is a member of a religious body, the standards by which he should be evaluated are those of that group. This is why an advancement committee usually requests a reference from his religious leader to indicate whether he has lived up to their expectations.

     

    Throughout life, Scouts are associated with people of different faiths. Scouts believe in religious freedom, respecting others whose religion may differ from theirs. Scouting believes in the right of all to worship God in their own way.

    Even though "God" is not defined nor may it be. Please note that officially BSA does not and cannot determine whether a member performs his "Duty to God". My minister wrote to BSA twice explicitly informing them that I do indeed perform my "Duty to God" in accordance with our religion, Unitarian-Universalism. Not only did BSA deliberately ignore him both times, but they also deliberately ignored those same letters every time I included them in my repeated requests for information on my review, which dragged on for several years. BSA yet again in flagrant violation of its own rules and policies.

     

    POSITION STATEMENT REAFFIRMATION OF THE POSITION OF THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA ON "DUTY TO GOD", 10 October 1985:

    While not intending to define what constitutes belief in God, the Boy Scouts of America is proud to reaffirm the Scout Oath and its declaration of "Duty to God."

     

    Reaffirmation of the Position of the Boy Scouts of America on Duty to God, 12 June 1991:

    While not intending to define what constitutes belief in God, the Boy Scouts of America is proud to reaffirm the Scout Oath and its declaration of duty to God.

     

    . . .

     

    Virtually every religion is represented in Scouting, and the BSA does not define or interpret

    God. That is the role of the Scout's family and religious advisers.

     

    Relationships Division deals with BSA's relationships with religious organizations. The director in charge of Relationships Division is in a unique position to think long and hard about officially published BSA religious policy and its ramifications.

     

    Letter from William McCleery III, BSA National Director, Relationships Division, 26 August 1985:

    It is NOT our POLICY to require a belief in a 'supreme being' in order to be a member of the Boy Scouts of America, adult or youth. We do require adherence to the 'declaration of religious principles' for adults and adherence to the Scout Oath and Law for youth. Interpretation and definition of 'duty to God' is not our business! It is the business of parents and religious leaders."

     

    Letter from Donald L. Townsend, BSA National Director, Relationships Division, 21 December 1994:

    Scouting is not a religion but Duty to God is a basic tenet of the Scout Oath and Law. Virtually every religion is represented in the membership of Scouting and therefore the Boy Scouts of America does not attempt to define or interpret God. The Boy Scouts of America does not require you to belong to a specific church, temple or synagogue nor does it require a belief in a supreme being. Any Scout that can repeat the Scout Oath and Law in good conscience is welcome to participate.

    Now, both letters explicitly state that "belief in a Supreme Being" is not required. Mark that well! But they were written at two different times under two different circumstances. In 1985, a newly adopted wording, "belief in a Supreme Being", which CSE Ben Love stated was meant to be more inclusive, instead caused a Unitarian Life Scout candidate, Paul Trout, to be expelled. After hundreds of letters of protest (mark that number very well!), BSA relented and reinstated Paul Trout as well as meeting personally with the head of his church, Unitarian-Universalist Association (UUA) President Dr. Rev. William F. Schulz in which BSA CSE Ben Love made personal assurances which included the dropping of that "belief in a Supreme Being" wording as a "mistake". CSE Ben Love then circa 1991 unilaterally broke all those personal assurances (Scout Honor, anyone?) and reinstated that "mistake" as the sole reason for expelling members by the hundreds, all while deliberately ignoring literally thousands of letters of protest (do you remember that I asked you mark those 1985 numbers well?).

     

    In the case of Townsend's 1994 letter, that was at a time when BSA was flagrantly violating its own officially published religious policies as it was flagrantly exercising a frensy of religious discrimination. I see Townsend's position as one of being in a position where his duty was to read and to research into officially published BSA religious policy and to think about it. James Randall, the father of the Randall twins (Randall v. Orange County Council, which when it broke in the local newspapers circa 1991 was my first indication that BSA was violating its own rules and policies; it was also undoubtedly the appeals on this case and the Curran case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curran_v._Mount_Diablo_Council_of_the_Boy_Scouts_of_America) that delayed my own review for so many years), obtained a copy of the Townsend letter and passed a copy on to me. When I showed it to my DE, his immediate response was to exclaim, "But that's what you've been saying all along!" Then I included it in my packet requesting information on my review. A few months later, I heard that Townsend had been bumped down from National back to a local council. I see his situation as one where he could see that truth and he dared to speak it, so the powers that be who are so embroiled in their own lies and deception had to remove him.

     

    BTW, BSA unilaterally and arbitrarily kicked out the Unitarian-Universalist Association. It seems that they could no longer deal with being constantly reminded that they are flagrantly violating their own rules.

     

    I have to admit that I have not had the time to assemble a very rigourous set of direct quotations from officially published BSA religious policies, especially since most of my materials are packed away, but the tone should be inescapable even to the most ardant advocates of BSA religious discrimination (though I am notorious for underestimating the power of the blinders that religious bigots can don). In brief summary, as I wrote in 1996 (https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/rec.scouting/adi4Dl5TlZY):

    1. BSA does not define or interpret "God", "belief in God", "duty to God", nor the practice of religion, leaving all that instead to each member's family, religious leaders, and religious tradition.

     

    2. BSA strongly encourages, but does not require, membership in a religious association.

     

    3. BSA does officially recognize and accept that some members will choose to practice religion according to the dictates of their own personal convictions and will make every effort to determine the true nature of those beliefs as they apply to advancement in Scouting.

     

    4. Every member shall be judged by the standards of his OWN religion, not another.

     

    5. BSA does not judge whether a member performs his "duty to God," but rather only that member's religious leaders can make such a determination.

     

    6. A member's specific religious beliefs are not the business of BSA; rather they are the business of the member's religious leaders.

    So, Kahuna, as you appear to wish to imply that belief in YHWH is required of Scouts and of Scouters, officially published BSA religious policies say the exact opposite!

     

    You are, I trust, aware of the World Organization of the Scouting Movement (WOSM). As I understand, BSA is supposed to adhere to their standards. Here is what they have to say about "Duty to God" (What does Scouting mean by Duty to God? : Scouting embraces diverse spiritual expression, theistic or not, http://scoutdocs.ca/Documents/Duty_to_God.php, by Scouter Liam Morland, 1996):

    One of Scouting’s three Principles is titled "Duty to God." This statement has been interpreted in many different ways, some of which have lead to religious discrimination, a violation of Scouting’s fundamentals. What does Duty to God really mean to Scouting? Duty to God is about the development of the spiritual values of life and is not a statement about any required beliefs about the material world. This essay is based on the World Organization of the Scout Movement’s (WOSM) document Fundamental Principles which contains "the only authoritative statement agreed upon by more than one hundred member organizations of WOSM" (WOSM 1992:1). All quotations in this essay are from that document.

     

    ...

     

    Let us now look at the definition of Duty to God. Duty to God is defined as "Adherence to spiritual principles, loyalty to the religion that expresses them, and acceptance of the duties resulting therefrom" (ibid:5). Fundamental Principles goes on to say: "It should be noted that, by contrast to the title, the body of the text does not use the word 'God'.... The whole educational approach of the Movement consists in helping young people transcend the material world and go in search of the spiritual values of life" (ibid). First, Scouting wants people to adhere to spiritual principles, such as valuing emotions and seeing life as having meaning.

     

    Second, Scouting wants people to be loyal to the religion that expresses their spiritual principles. A religion is a set of beliefs and practises, not necessarily an organization. Some Scouts will be called to join a formal religious organization, others will express their spirituality outside of such institutions. In either case, Scouting believes that people should be loyal to their choice, recognizing that spiritual development would be impaired if a person were constantly changing their religion.

     

    Third, Scouting wants people to accept the duties resulting from their spiritual principles, to be active doers, not just passive believers.

     

    What does Duty to God mean? "[Duty to God] refers to a person's relationship with the spiritual values of life" (ibid) and not to certain beliefs about the material world. The material elements of religions are not important to Scouting. Just as Scouting does not care whether or not one believes in gravity, it does not care whether or not one believes that a god created the universe, in the material sense. Thus, atheists and agnostics are welcome in Scouting as both youth members and Scouters. Excluding such people violates the definition of the Scout Movement which states that Scouting is "open to all without distinction of origin, race, or creed..." (ibid:2). Of course, everyone in Scouting must be open to continual spiritual development.

    I added the emphasis in that last paragraph, but the actual wording remains unchanged, as you yourself can attest to by reading the article for yourself. Unlike the proponents of BSA religious bigotry, I have nothing to hide.

     

    So then, in light of what BSA's actual officially published religious policies say, what do you have to say?

  22. DWise1,

     

    The only way to get a clear answer to you query would be to contact the BSA legal department at the National Council. The only thing that you will get here are posts from the web that you can also find, various opinions and points of view, and some arguments. You are asking for a definitive declarative statement. You can get those from court cases or directly from the BSA if they are willing to make such a statement, which I would doubt. It is not clear to me why you are so demanding on this topic. Do you intend to take something posted here to assail the BSA in a public manner?

    I agree that all I would ever get from BSA itself would be double-talk and lies; I've certain seen far too much of that.

     

    I am preparing to post my experiences on my webpage. Since I have been away from the subject since about 1998, I realize that some things may have changed in the meantime. I am trying to perform due dilligence here. I know what was officially published at the time, so I would need to know whether and how any of that had changed in the meantime.

     

    I also know that when I first started researching in order to properly understand the DRP and whether I could agree with it, the Scout Shop openly sold copies of the BSA Rules and Regulations and their Bylaws. Then when those materials started appearing in court to show what BSA's rules and policies really are and how BSA was violating them, BSA pull them from the shelves and very tightly controlled any and all access to them. I would also want and need to know what the status is on that.

     

    My intent, as always, is to seek and speak the truth. I am also very supportive of Scouting and incorporated its principles in my own life. I am appalled at how BSA is working to destroy Scouting.

  23. The clause "if BSA stopped discriminating" implies that both the promise is changed (or alternate promises are available) and that atheists are allowed' date=' because both would need to change in order for the BSA to stop discriminating.[/quote']

    I respectfully disagree.

     

    The actual meaning of the promise is made abundantly clear by the OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES (sorry, I don't know how to make this editor italicize or embolden text). The actual wording of the promise does not need to be changed SO LONG AS OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES ARE ENFORCED AND ARE MADE KNOWN TO ALL PARTIES INVOLVED.

     

    The problem is that officially published BSA policies are not being enforced, but rather BSA itself is wantonly violating those officially published policies.

     

    In 1991, I could not find any OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES that required the exclusion of any atheist, especially of an atheist who wholeheartedly subscribed to the Scout Oath, the Scout Law, the Declaration of Religious Principles, the RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES of the Advancement Guidelines, and the 1991 Reaffirmation of the Position of the Boy Scouts of America on Duty to God, INTERPRETED AS PER OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES. Since so far nobody here has indicated that there has been any significant change in OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICY, I can only conclude that there is still nothing in OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES that could possibly require the exclusion of an atheist.

     

    Of course, we have some members here, such as qwazse, who would wish to keep all possibly affected members ignorant of OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICY, but their own personal agendae should be considered null and void in the Light of Scouting.

     

    I reiterate: in 23 years, I have consistently failed to find anything in OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BSA POLICIES that would require the exclusion of atheists. I have even testified in FEDERAL COURT to that effect. Can anybody at all please offer any reasonable reason why an atheist should be excluded from BSA membership?

    So just what exactly is "duty to God" supposed to mean. In the prescribed "absolutely nonsectarian" manner?

     

    Does it require an actual pledge to an actual supernatural entity? Only if your own religious tradition requires it. If your own religious tradition does not require it, then no!

     

    Is the problem that one word, "God"? On the bald face of it, devoid of the rest of the body of officially published BSA religious policies, it would indeed appear as it does, like a direct reference to the Christian god. Because a faithful Muslim would most certainly not use that term and a faithful conservative Jew would also balk at it if not refuse altogether.

     

    I've been through this kind of discussion with my friend who is a confirmed audiophile. She doesn't even want to begin to try to listen to something that lacks proper audio. Having read Hermann Hesse's Der Steppenwolf (in the original, of course), I am constantly reminded of the scene in the Magic Theater when Mozart is tuning the wireless to listen to a concert and having to remind Harry Haller that it is the music itself and not how it is presented that is important, Sein vs Schein (existence vs appearance). She is still unconvinced, not having been able to think it through in the original German, so 'ne Schade.

     

    Read the actual officially published BSA religious policy. The actual requirement is not allegiance to any particular supernatural entity, but rather to one's own religious tradition regardless of any necessary supernatural entities, if at all. Yes, the bald wording devoid of meaning from officially published BSA religious policy may appear daunting, but once you realize what it is really supposed to mean there should be no problem.

     

    Though in the meantime that unfortunate wording also encourages the religious bigots to do their worst.

  24. Am I alone in that I don't care about the future of the BSA? We'll be okay for the next five years, and my son will be done. He is my primary concern.

     

    Sure, I d like for him to be able to proudly point to to a venerable organization of which he is an alum; but that horse is gone. BSA has devolved into a prissy politically correct financial enterprise.

    How do the BSA pensions compare to the GSUSA pensions?

     

    What the country really needs is a BSA type organization with a little more testosterone.

    What the frakkin' frik are you talking about?

     

    What you "quote" me as saying cannot be found anyway in what I had posted. That makes you a gorm-darned liar!

     

    Would you please attempt to clarify just what the frak you might be talking about?

    Where the frak did that come from? What was "quoted" has absolutely nothing to do with what I was responding to! What is wrong with this frakking stupid forum software?

     

    And just where did you get that statement from to keep BSA professionals as far away from your unit and your people as possible? Even though that is eminently true.

  25. The question still stands!

     

    In the 1990's, BSA repeatedly claimed to have a "belief in a Supreme Being" rule that required them to expel atheists "against their will", But such a "rule" never actually existed, as verified by the Orange County Council's SE Kent Gibb's forced admission in court to the judge in Randall v. Orange County Council.

     

    So I still ask the very same question as before: has officially published BSA policy changed since the late 1990's? Does BSA still claim to have that "rule" of "belief in a Supreme Being"? Do they still claim that it is an actual rule? Has it in fact actually become an actual rule?

     

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...