Oregon camp director admits to ignoring 'no atheists' rule

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

I know a lot of troops & districts ignore the BSA's

discrimination, but it's unusual to see it stated in print:

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1091879785213030.xml

...

Likewise, many boys aren't accustomed to beginning a meal with grace.

Scouts have drawn criticism in recent years for excluding atheists from

leadership ranks, but McDonald says Scouts with a variety of religious

beliefs -- and even those with none -- attend the camp.

 

"If a child here has no belief or is struggling, it doesn't affect

anything," McDonald says.

...

 

[acco40 95]

Nice article. I interpreted the article slightly different from the way you must have Merlyn. Mr. MacDonald is just stating a fact, that the BSA does get boys, and adults, from all different backgrounds. I firmly believe we have registered members who are homosexual and/or do not believe in God. Mr. MacDonald did not infer that he knew exactly which Scouts had no religious beliefs, just that there were some who attended.

 

I personnally believe that Scouting is a very worthwhile program for Scouts and Scouters alike regardless of their sexual orientation or religious beliefs.

 

"Attending chapel is optional, but on a Sunday evening, some 300 boys, men and women gather on benches in a clearing in the woods. Just over the bluff, the Pacific roars, and the wind whistles through the trees above.

 

Camp chaplain Don Jackson begins the brief service with a song, and about 300 voices join him in singing the folk tune most every camper knows, "Kumbaya, my lord, kumbaya."

 

Some things never change."

 

(This message has been edited by acco40)

[wojauwe 10]

I beleive Meryln is looking for a job writing for the Enquirer.He sifted through a nice camp promotion article to find a few lines that could be twisted to create a controversal

headline.

So when did ignoring or not ignoreing a scout rule come into

play here?Todd gave a realistic appraisal of the variety of

campers enjoying a week next to the Pacific.Unless someone is using the camp as a pulpit from which they preach atheisim,

the camp director has nothing to do with peoples private beleifs.

I know the people in this article,Don much more than the others.He is amazing at useing the beauty of the camp to help anyone feel closer to God,and he can do this without alieanating anyone.Even the Atheist will have a brush with his spiritual side.He just won't have the word to explain what he feels.

 

[packsaddle 753]

Acco40, I agree with your response, nice post.

In defence of Merlyn (as if he needs it), who among us does not have a slant on these issues?

[evmori 11]

Merlyn can only find bad in the BSA. He sees no good. Therefore, anytime he read anything about the BSA he looks for the bad. If there isn't any he ignores it. If he finds any, he posts it here and tries to tell us this is the focus of the article. What more should we expect from a person like this! Bias & bigotry are Merlyn's weapons.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle 753]

Ed, You said that he looks for the bad and when he finds something bad, he posts it here. Are you saying he found something bad about BSA this time? I thought that, given Merlyn's interest in the topic, an article like this would be viewed by him as positive. At least that's the way I understood his post.

[evmori 11]

pack,

Yeah bad because it states the BSA discriminates! It doesn't state that the Supreme Court ruled what the BSA is doing is constitutional.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle 753]

Ed, Huh? Am I missing something here? BSA does discriminate. Merlyn did say that. But you just did too. It is a simple fact. You and Merlyn may disagree about whether this is the way things ought to be but you are in agreement that BSA discriminates.

[EagleInKY 14]

I think it's a good article. Merlyn is trying to spin it to fit his particular agenda. Bottom line, this is how nearly every scout leader I know treats the subject. We have many scouts who attend church and claim some form of religious belief. We also have some who don't attend church, and have no particular belief. They accept the BSA's definition of what it means to be reverent, and that's it. That's all we ask for.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Ed says:

 

Yeah bad because it states the BSA discriminates!

 

As Packsaddle says, the BSA does discriminate, in several ways. There shouldn't be any dispute about that. It is whether that discrimination is justified or not that creates controversy.

 

It doesn't state that the Supreme Court ruled what the BSA is doing is constitutional.

 

Well, just to keep our legal terminology straight here, what the BSA does can be neither constitutional nor unconstitutional, because the BSA is not the government. To my knowledge, every currently in-force provision of the Constitution affecting the rights of people, restricts the conduct of the government, not of individuals, with one exception that is not likely to come up these days. (That exception being the ban on slavery in the Thirteenth Amendment, which does directly prohibit conduct by private citizens. I believe the Eighteenth Amendment also directly impacted on individual conduct but that one was repealed.)

 

What the courts HAVE ruled is that the government violates the constitutional rights of the BSA when it prohibits the BSA from applying its membership policies, at least in the contexts that have come before the courts so far.

 

As for the article in question, I am not sure how the camp director knows that some of the campers have "no" religious beliefs. Did they tell him that? If so, it may be true that he is not enforcing the "rule." If that is just an impression he has in watching some of the boys at the time grace is recited, then it is just that, an impression. I find it a peculiar statement for him to make, and if he were here, I might have a few questions about it, but he isn't here.

 

What I find really interesting in this article, especially in light of some past discussions in this forum, has nothing to do with religion. I am surprised to be the first one to point it out:

 

These days, scaring the wits out of a boy is a definite no-no, but sending him on a farcical snipe hunt or to the office to request a left-handed smoke shifter or 10 feet of shore line is still fair game, McDonald says.

 

Really? I thought the snipe hunts and wild-goose-chases (smokeshifters, 10 feet of shore line, bucket of steam, blue soap and so forth) were now considered hazing as well, and prohibited. I still do see it on occasion. There was a major snipe hunt in my son's troop some months back, and I was proud to see my son (then one of the youngest Scouts) giving me a look that said "No Dad, I'm not falling for this." I saw the SM watching all this, and he did step in at the point where the older boys were actually going to take the younger guys out into the woods in the dark. He didn't let on that there were no snipes, though.

[evmori 11]

Ummm, NJ, a snipe is a bird.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Ummm, NJ, a snipe is a bird.

 

Yeah, but that's not the "snipe" that older Scouts have been leading younger Scouts on the "hunt" for, in the woods, in the dark, since time began. The "snipe hunt" I'm talking about is the one mentioned in the article. In my neck of the woods snipes are usually big and hairy and have huge fangs, or whatever else the imagination of a 14- or 15-year-old boy can come up with.

 

 

[acco40 95]

NJ, I caught that in the article too, but did not comment on it. However, scary stuff still has a place but one has to be very careful and observant.

 

A year ago, a Webelos den went on an outing with our troop. We were in a neighboring council scout camp in the far corner. It was in October and where we were was right next to a farmers corn field. The Boy Scouts went out after dinner (it was dark) and walked around the corn fields. The majority were in the 11 - 13 year old range. The Webelos asked to go to, so I joined them. My main concern was not to have the older boys scare the younger ones. I also was somewhat wary because we were going on private property. Well the Webelos really wanted to be scared! Something about a moonlit night in a cornfield in October. One or two Scouts did not want to participate and that was not a problem. No goading or harassment existed. But some wanted me to go with them and they slowly crept toward the cornfield. The fear was paltable but they wanted to do it.

 

Well, all of the Webelos that attended that camp-out with us joined our troop. They still say that outing was one of the best. Leadership has to be very careful about "scary stuff" but there is a reason that spook houses, roller coasters, etc. have a big appeal to youth. Not my cup of tea mind you but if done properly it can work out well.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Acco, I agree. I think the article is really talking about 2 categories of things, one is the "scary stuff" such as the "snipe hunt." The other is the "wild goose chase" sort of thing (left-handed smokeshifter, etc.), where in my opinion the purpose is to hold a boy up to ridicule by sending them out for an item that they believe exists (because you told them to get it), but that does not really exist -- and then to make them feel embarrassed and stupid when they finally catch on or when someone takes pity and tells them. I don't see any legitimate Scouting purpose to making someone feel stupid, so that a few adult leaders and older Scouts can get a laugh at the boy's expense. Or am I wrong, is it just "good clean fun?"

 

What I thought I knew was that this sort of thing had been officially banned, but this article says otherwise.

[wojauwe 10]

 

Wow this is amazing.I'm sure the director had no clue what the article was going to look like.It looks like something

that developed out of lots of questions being asked to him while he was showing off the pride and joy of the council.

First the reporter has pieced together what he thought would make a good story.Now those pieces are being dissected by you guys.

I'd lay you odds that he has no idea that he was saying anything controversal.I know the camp program doesn't include the hazeing elements talked of in the article.How those things came into the conversation,who knows.

I know that the staff plays pranks on the staff of the WEBELOS

resident camp right next to them and get them played on them.

One of my sons works at the WEBELOS camp and they made copies of their camp flag and ran them up every flag pole in the

other camp.

They refrain from anything hurtfull.