Discrimination Against Me.

[Snake Eater 10]

busylady,

 

Bravo! I was going to post something similar to your message in response to PrarieScouter but I think you've said it well.

 

I'll just say this... my religious beliefs and my opinions on homosexuality are inseperable. I don't know about other religions and denominations but my own church's doctrine is that morality without godliness is worthless.

 

[scoutldr 726]

"To me, the BSA call to "duty to God" (meaning earnestness in prayer, study of Scripture, confession of sin, and effort to "sin no more") is linked to the policy excluding practicing homosexuals through the Judeo-Christian heritage."

 

I don't recall the BSA defining duty to God in quite those terms. The BSA policy is set forth in the Declaration of Religious Principle, found in the BSA Application for Membership. The SCout's duty to God is defined by him, his parents and religious leader, not by the BSA or the Unit leadership. As long as the Scout confesses a belief in a higher power, i.e., "not atheist", he is good to go.

 

I too appreciate the civil discourse. What a welcome change!(This message has been edited by scoutldr)

[Hunt 11]

scoutldr's last post got me to thinking about the two burning issues, and how they are (or are not) connected.

Does "morally straight" grow out of "Duty to God," or is it something independent?

The tension we see here is that BSA's Duty to God requirement, while excluding some people, is nevertheless extremely broad and does not judge among religions at all. On the other hand, "morally straight" has been interpreted by BSA to apply to specific behavior that is condemned as sinful by some religions, but not others. It has not applied the same restrictions to other behavior that is similarly condemned as sinful by some religions--indeed, as far as I know, it has not applied the same restrictions to some behavior (i.e., adultery) that is condemned by essentially all religions.

It's a dilemma for BSA, because "morally straight" has to have some content, or it's meaningless. But the most reasonable way of dealing with this would be a problem for BSA--that would be to define "morally straight" as behaving in a moral way as defined by the Scout or Scouter's own religious faith.

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Hunt,

Very good point, I think, and along the lines of what I've been trying to get at.

 

Brings up a question or two or three in my mind...

 

Is the BSA policy on gays based on a religious argument? If so, if BSA is going to be non-sectarian in their views, wouldn't such a religious argument have to be something that is universal across all religions?

 

Or, is the BSA policy based on an interpretation of "morally straight"? If so, who decides what "morally straight" means?

 

Or, I suppose, is it both? In which case, how do you reconcile an interpretation of "morally straight" with the many belief systems that are a part of Scouting?

[busylady 10]

Hi, Hunt:

 

I agree completely--"morally straight" has to mean something, absolutely! A place to start might be teaching our young people to exercise common etiquette. I'm not talking about reading Miss Manners and Emily Post (heaven forbid), but simple things like holding doors, removing hats when entering a room, or maybe even the old-fashioned one of standing when a young lady enters a room. Can "morally straight" mean showing respect for another by demonstrating common courtesy and respect? It certainly is a place to start . . . And, I'm impressed when a young man can demonstrate that level of courtesy to my daughter when he "comes to call"! Okay, I AM old-fashioned

 

While the Judeo-Christian heritage certainly bans adultery, polygamy is understood by many world religions. It is our civil ban on polygamy that prevents it here in the United States (no, I'm not referring to just to Mormon belief--there are other religions that allow it, too).

 

I see the BSA dilemma over faith issues to be very similar to what our government faces right now. The founders (USA and BSA) had a very specific religious picture in view when they framed the tenents of the "organization" (specifically, Judeo-Christian). It was what they knew best, and they used that understanding as the groundwork for their principles and policies. I'm not going to bite for the Bible vs. philosophy argument re. the US Founders here--that is not the gist of my point. Their culture was overtly Christian, which had to some degree influence their thinking.

 

Fast forward 225/approx. 100 years or so. Religions that weren't common or even heard of now are commonplace, with varying principles and practices. Even within Christianity, the "sola scriptura" folks are going head-to-head with denominations that hold to a more interpretive/"inclusive" theology, even within their own ranks--Episcopals, Lutherans, PCA . . . hopefully with respect and dignity, recognizing their common Bridegroom, but the arguments are getting contentious.

 

I don't know that Baden-Powell could have foreseen a Jew, a Baptist, a Muslim, a Roman Catholic, a B'Hai adherent, a Wicca proponent, a Druid, an animist, a Taoist, a Hindu, and a Native American all sharing the same campfire. While each believes in a "higher power", they don't agree even on what that "higher power" is. Just as a point of information, Wiccans are occultists, and Hindus have a pantheon of gods.

 

That's the reality we possibly face today (though I am not aware of any troop quite this diverse . . . )

 

So, you begin to see the problem. The language of inclusion is wonderful, but the logistics can give every one of us gray hair, rapidly. I could be wrong, but I tend to doubt that Baden-Powell was considering the breadth and scope of world-wide religious expression when he created a movement to build strong leaders. England was strongly entrenched in either the Church of England (Anglican/Episcopal) or Wesleyan (Methodist) expression (though Catholicism was still present).

 

Just as we are having trouble finding common ground in many moral/ethical arguments our government faces (witness the Schinder/Schiavo families), Scouting faces many of the same issues.

 

Now, take impressionable 11 year-olds and add them into the mix. They are bright and capable, but they need direction to be able to understand the implications of standing up for their side of any debate. I'm a believer that we must provide a firm basework for them to start from before they can begin making intelligent, thoughtful choices about the issues that plague our society. Like it or not, ladies and gents, the bumper sticker that says "Be kind to your children, they'll choose your nursing home" has a serious truth behind it--these young people are tomorrow's leaders and the legacy we leave behind. And, if you don't that that's a serious obligation with "gray-hair" potential . . .

 

So, back to the point of the thread.

 

1. Civilized discourse. Thank you all for your charitable discussion--insult and anger in my experience do nothing to engender serious reflection and thought.

 

2. In order to be an organization of worth, Scouting must stand for something. The choices may not be popular (just ask this erstwhile "homophobe", especially with my experience on a campus that sends gay, lesbian, and transgendered welcome letters before any other correspondence to new students.)

 

But, by taking a stand, we are providing a basis from which to grow, for all of us.

 

Long enough post for this time. Thanks for hanging in with me. Do I need to haul some wood?

 

Busylady

[scoutldr 726]

We had a discussion at RT this week about the "Scout Spirit" requirement. One leader stated that he had a Roman Catholic scout who was refusing to become Confirmed in his Church. Based on that, he was considering witholding advancement (Scout Spirit) based on not doing his "Duty to God" as defined by his faith, the RC church. The same leader said that a Scout whose family was unchurched, but who professed a faith in a higher power, would be granted advancement, since he was "practicing" his faith in the tradition of his family, and thus showing Scout Spirit, as opposed to the RC scout who goes to Mass every Sunday, but was being rebellious about Confirmation against his parent's wishes. I had to admit to myself that this was a twist that I had never considered.

 

My opinion is that BSA should clearly define what the requirement is (e.g., as busylady described it), or get out of the religion business. Just like any other requirement, it should be stated and we should not add nor subtract from it. It's not fair to us or to the Scouts to ask us to adjudicate it according to our own personal beliefs or ingenuity.

 

 

[busylady 10]

Oh, drat!!!

 

Prairie Scouter, I sincerely apologize.

 

You were the one with the "morally straight" post, and I gave the wrong credit.

 

A middle-aged "brain fart"--sorry!

 

Busylady

[busylady 10]

Okay, it was Prairie Scouter AND Hunt. Sorry, folks.

 

 

Scoutldr, just a thought. Why should this young man be punished for being honest having doubts? Does he doubt the existence of God, or does he doubt that the RC church is the correct place for him to be?

 

This is a personal decision, and I applaud the young man for taking this obligation so seriously, especially since many young people take confirmation as routine, without thinking through exactly what it is they are obligating themselves to.

 

I cringe at the thought of punishing this Scout for taking a stand based on thoughtful reflection. It would seem to me as CC that I would suggest a heart-to-heart with the young man to find out whether his objections are well founded and thoughtful, or whether this is simply rebellion against parents. (I would point out as well that rebellion against parents could be a reaction to being pushed into a decision he is not yet ready to make.)

 

If he is indeed being thoughtful and does believe in a higher power, it is Scouting's obligation to support him in making a mature, difficult decision.

 

Somewhat off topic--sorry, Eamonn, but I couldn't let this one pass. My comments have roots in deeply personal experience with this situation very akin to the Scout's--this young person, if he is serious about his reservations, needs an understanding, compassionate adult to really hear his side and support him, despite adult flak.

[scoutldr 726]

Busylady,

 

I am thoroughly enjoying your thoughtful, coherent, and obviously educated posts. Welcome to the forum and I look forward to more of your writings! You can bring the s'mores next time!

 

My concern is that the average Scouter, me included, while adept at teaching a Bowline or how to sharpen a knife, is not a Theologian capable of recognizing or determining when a Scout has met his "duty to God", in the tradition of his faith and family. Perhaps that is one requirement that we should leave solely to the Deity to determine. As the Scripture says, only He/She knows what's in the Scout's heart. All we see are his actions.

 

If an adulterer holds the door for his girlfriend, is he still Courteous? Hmmm. If the faithful husband verbally abuses his wife, is he still Morally Straight? I think I'll stick to tying knots and stay out of the Judgement business. By the time we consider all of the possible permutations, none of us will remain standing.

[packsaddle 753]

Busy Lady, this troop is almost that diverse - serves a university community. We haven't had a wiccan, druid, or animist but we have or have had all the others (including Buddhist which you didn't list). Only one of the boys is from a family that is a member of the CO. All the rest are from the community at large.

 

Scoutldr, I agree. In this diverse troop we manage to avoid these needless conflicts by leaving religious matters to the boys' families...where those matters belong.

Edited grammar, sorry.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[scoutldr 726]

While I am thoroughly enjoying the debate, I took the day off to do my "Duty to Country" and finish my tax return! :-( Here it is almost noon already! Gotta go so I can finish in time to make the District Meeting tonight. TTFN!

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

scoutldr,

I think that the leader in the Confirmation issue you mention is stepping out of bounds. I don't believe the Catholic Church has any particular rules on when a person can or can't be Confirmed. If this young man is not prepared to be Confirmed, that should really be his decision. If a leader can start establishing standards for how a religion should be practiced, what's next? Checking to see how often the Catholics are going to confession? Ask the Jewish kids if they are observing the Sabath, and how? I think that's going down one of those "slippery slopes" we don't want to go down. It's probably more appropriate to let the parents be the Akela for that one, and if they're convinced that their son is wrong, then they can refuse to sign off the requirement. When I was a den leader, that was a requirement that we, as leaders, decided that we weren't in a position to make a decision about.

[schleining 11]

Eamonn

I am with you on this one (and on most of your posts).

I think it is clear through this entire Scouter Network who the Scouters are that follow the BSA guide lines and policies and are firm believers in what the Scouting movement offers.

 

There are consistant threads in our postings that lead one to see which side of the fence one sits on and of course those occassional folks that love to stradle the fence.

 

I enjoy this discussion board. As stated it does provide a documented archieve of ideas, thoughts and stimulating discussion.

 

Jerry

 

[schleining 11]

I know this campfire circle is getting huge... but if there is still room on the log, save me a seat. I come with a song and enough Huckleberry Cobbler in my Dutch oven for all...

 

You have not lived till you have a hunk of my Huckleberry Cobbler!

 

Thanks all for being Scouters!

 

Jerry

[cliffgolden 10]

Sorry I'm late.

I've been busy working with my troop.

 

I'm not a regular here, I wander in and out, now and then, as time permits.

 

I don't even have a cool imaginative screen name. (I logged in the first time with my real name, and just continued with it.)

 

I don't know many of you. I do appreciate the discourse on various subjects.

 

Some of the more contraversial subjects probably will never effect Scouting in my troop.

 

Still it's good to read the arguments though, and especially those arguments against Scouting policies are a benefit to hear, in case someone in my locality ever attacks our program, I will be versed in a variety of defensive responses.

 

Those we consider enemies of Scouting might actually be doing us a huge favor by showing us their weapons of argument and reason. It's an opportunity to rehearse those arguments if the need arises in our local communities to defend Scouting policies.

 

Of course, we always need to remember that we are Scouters and the world is watching. A certain decorum of behavior should be sought.

 

How we act might speak louder than what we say.

 

I'd like to stay and sit around the campfire with all of you, I really would, but that's not what I do in Scouting.

 

I've got a bunch of anxious boys here that want to go hiking, so I'm hitting the trail with my Scouts. I'll stop in to see you guys from time to time.

 

OK Jerry, well... maybe a little huckleberry cobbler before I go, just a small hunk. OK, a little bigger than that.

 

Thanks, I'm going now.

 

Really.

 

Mmmmmm! Mmmmmm! Wow!!!

This is really some fantastic cobbler!!!

 

...the rush of tramping feet shuffling through leaves mixed with the lighthearted banter of boys as they hike, growing ever more distant, fading away, slowly melding into the chirping of crickets and the sounds of woods at night, we are gone.

 

Good Scouting to you.

 

 

Cliff Golden