Should the BSA promote creationism?

[CA_Scouter 11]

Mr. LeRoy,

 

My apologies for the offense, I simply meant to challenge you in a similar manner that you challenged the rest of us, albeit in a light-hearted manner, sorry if didn't come across that way. No need for the flame...

 

I guess I'm not understanding why a person with your track record of dislike of the BSA feels it necessary to create an original post in the first place. I may not agree with you in most areas ( notice I didn't say 'all'), so I see your point about replying to subjects that concern government facilities usage and such, in your attempts to correct misconceptions or to quote legal decisions.

 

Why would you create such a post with subject matter in which you so obviously enjoy arguing about, other than to ( for lack of a better term ) bait us?

 

And for the record, I never implied you were a troll..

 

And for the subject matter, the BSA should not promote creationism.

 

And for an additional 'for the record', I have defended persons such as yourself on this forum for the right to post, no matter how much myself and others disagree might disagree with you.

 

 

 

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Why start a thread like this? Well, because the hope is that it begins an interesting discussion. The alternative is to title every thread "the BSA is nice" and have everyone agree. Yawn.

 

But, in answer to the topic question, I'd say no, for the same reason I'd say that Scouting shouldn't promote free market economies as a part of "a Scout is thrifty". It really doesn't have a place. That's a part of religious education, I think. I don't think that BSA should be promoting particular religious views.

[evmori 11]

Bob,

So you think the BSA should promote creationism? Is that what you are saying? It's so hard to tell.

 

And are you saying that if the executive board of the BSA decides to promote Nazism, that would be OK since the BSA is a private organization?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Why is that Bob tries to turn every discussion of what the BSA should do into a discussion of what the BSA can do? You don't have to answer, Bob, it's a rhetorical question. The reason you do so is that you are trying to shut down the discussions, because once the discussion turns to what the BSA can do, there is nothing more to discuss, because the BSA can do almost anything. But the issue of what the BSA should do, vs. what it can do, really are two different issues. As members of the BSA or others interested in what the BSA does, there is nothing wrong with discussing what the BSA should do, from a moral point of view, or based on what is best for the organization, or for any other reason. The fact that some group of people has the ultimate right to make the discussion doesn't mean we shouldn't have an opinion on it, or express that opinion.

 

This thread is a pretty good example. It started because Merlyn decided to post an article written by a guy who, at least purportedly, is offering the BSA some advice on how to best fulfill part of its mission. The mission in question is the BSA's goal to have its youth members recognize and perform their duty to God. Now, this writer believes that there is a problem, because many Scouts believe in evolution, and this may lead them not to believe in God, thus preventing the BSA from fulfulling that part of its mission. Therefore, he says, the BSA should (there's that word) promote a belief that God created everything exactly in the way the Bible says, so that Scouts will believe in God. Of course, I believe the whole premise is preposterous, because a recognition of the fact of evolution is not inconsistent with a belief in God or any other higher power -- it is only inconsistent with the religious beliefs of this particular writer, as well as a few members of this forum. What this writer (and a few members of this forum) are really doing is to equate a belief in God only with what they believe about the nature and details of Creation. But it is yet another illustation (the primary one being the "gay issue") of how what the BSA should do and what it can do are two different issues, despite the efforts of one forum member to stifle discussion by combining the two.

 

Oh, and by the way, to whoever called Merlyn a "troll" for posting this... it's not like he wrote the article in the first place. Someone else wrote the article, and get this, it is actually about the Boy Scouts, unlike some of the recent threads in Issues and Politics which are about peoples' individual religious beliefs and have nothing to do with Scouting. So Merlyn found and it posted it. How is that trolling? I also think he (or maybe it was someone else) draws a reasonable question from it, which is, if the BSA is willing to violate its Declaration of Religious Principles to exclude gays, what else might it do? I do not think the BSA will start campaigning against the teaching of evolution as the article-writer suggests, but it's not quite as far-fetched as some people say, given what the BSA has already done.

 

Oh, and just as a reminder, when I say the BSA, I do not mean the actual people who make Scouting work every day in units and districts and councils, I mean those who currently, but not forever, control the decision-making apparatus of the BSA.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

CA_scouter, I brought this up because Philip Johnson, a fairly well-known creationist (at least with people familiar with creation/evolution debates), not only supports the BSA, but actually advocates that the BSA somehow "counter" school teaching of evolution, lest more Boy Scouts become atheists. I've also seen some people either advocate creationism or disparage evolution in this forum, and there are strong advocates for the Boy Scouts who also advocate creationism. Plus, a lot of people tend to equate evolution with atheism. All of these factors would suggest that the BSA may well favor creationism over evolution.

[Bob White 20]

Bob, So you think the BSA should promote creationism? Is that what you are saying? It's so hard to tell.

 

It's not difficult at all if you read my post without predjudice. I did not say that the BSA should teach creationism, I said that the BSA already promotes creationism, and that it also promotes scientific theories, and that at no time does it suggest that one excludes the other.

 

Why is that Bob tries to turn every discussion of what the BSA should do into a discussion of what the BSA can do?

 

Because the question posed suggested that the BSA did not currently promote creationism, when in fact it does...and at its core asks the question of should the BSA promote any specific opinion on matters, and it absolutely has that authority and the responsibility to do so.

 

You cannot maturely discuss what an organization "should do" if you do not first understand what the organization already does.

 

In a restatement of the original question one could ask "Why shouldn't the BSA promote creationalism?" Since the BSA is a private organization who are you to tell them what they should or should not promote as their organization's standards or beliefs?

 

Do not confuse membership with ownership.

 

 

[evmori 11]

Thanks for your answer, Bob. How about answering the 2nd part of my question, too?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Bob says:

 

Because the question posed suggested that the BSA did not currently promote creationism, when in fact it does...and at its core asks the question of should the BSA promote any specific opinion on matters, and it absolutely has that authority and the responsibility to do so.

 

Maybe both Bob and Merlyn need to read Mr. Johnson's article again. It never even mentions the word "creationism" or any of its synonyms. What it really says is that the BSA should oppose the teaching of evolution, because (the writer says) believing in evolution (or as I would put it, understanding evolution) leads people to disbelieve in God. I do not think the BSA has any intention of campaigning against the teaching of evolution, which is what Mr. Johnson advocates.

 

But I have to know, Bob: Where exactly do you claim the BSA supports creationism in its program? Creationism being the belief that the world and mankind etc etc were formed exactly as described in the allegory contained the book of Genesis? I understand that the BSA encourages Scouts to believe in their religion as it has been taught to them (which may include creationism), but that does not make creationism part of the program. Where is it in the program, Bob?

 

Do not confuse membership with ownership.

 

And do not confuse discussion about the right course for an organization to take, with confusing membership with ownership. (But, by the way, nobody "owns" the BSA, that concept is inconsistent with a non-profit corporation. Those who currently control the BSA are selected to do so under its Bylaws, and that gives them the ability to set policy and program, but they do not "own" the BSA any more than I do.)

[Bob White 20]

Ed writes And are you saying that if the executive board of the BSA decides to promote Nazism, that would be OK since the BSA is a private organization?

 

Ed, as base and distasteful as I find your question to be I will answer it so that you might have a clearer understanding of the realities of being a private organization.

 

If the BSA wanted to promote a specific political party then they have every right to and while you are welcome to disagree you have no athority in altering the decision. We have the freedom to choose at any time as to whether or not we wanted to be associated with such an organization that supported that ideology, but as unit volunteers we do not have any authority in forming the ideals of the program. Thankfully the BSA is guided by better men and women than would propose or support such a scenario as you suggest.

 

But if you do not want to the BSA to promote creationism, or if you would not want to be a member of an organization that promoted creationism than you should have quit scouting a long time ago because it always has.

 

On the other hand if you would not want to be a part of an organization that promoted a more scietific view than you should have quit a long time ago as well, because the BSA supports that as well.

 

At no time has the BSA placed one view above the other but allows both to exist side by side.

 

The discussion offered by both Merlyn and Johnson is an attempt to make the BSA choose one over the other, when in fact the BSA is not obligated to make such a determination. There is no reason why the BSA cannot continue to support both science and religion, it has done so for nearly 100 years and neither Merlyn or Johnson have presented any compelling reasons to mandate a change.

 

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Bob says:

 

If the BSA wanted to promote a specific political party then they have every right to...

 

Well, no. The BSA could not do this and still remain what it is, which among other things is a 501c3 tax-exempt organization, and a corporation with a Congressional charter to carry out a specific purpose. I am sure its bylaws or articles of incorporation prohibit partisan political activity, because such a prohibition is required in order to have 501c3 status. At the same time, if the BSA strayed so far from the purposes specified in the Act of Congress by which it is chartered, I believe it would lose that charter.

 

In other words, I was a bit too quick earlier to agree that the BSA "can" do just about anything it wants, and still remain what it is. It cannot. It is NOT simply a "private organization." It has obligations and restrictions as both a tax-exempt organization and as an organization that is Congressionally chartered for a particular purpose, that govern what it does and doesn't do.

 

The BSA also is an organization that has adopted certain written founding principles that have not materially changed. The leadership has the ability to change the written expression of those principles, but it will not do so in any material way because then it would become obvious that the Boy Scouts is no longer the Boy Scouts. The more I think about it, the more I must reject this foul and offensive notion that the BSA leadership can do "anything" they want and still call it the Boy Scouts. Morally they cannot, and because of the Congressional charter and restrictions on tax-exempt organizations, legally they cannot either.

 

Bob, I can only conclude that you are the one who does not understand what Scouting is all about. Knowledge of the program means little if it is couched in a misunderstanding of the basic reason for the organization.

 

And Bob, unless you have posted again while I was writing this, you still have not pointed out where in the program creationism is promoted.

[Bob White 20]

NJ,

Where did I say that anyone "owned" the BSA? My point was that as a unit volunteer our responsibility is not to develop BSA position statements, but to decide by our membership whether or not you agree with the program.

 

God as creator can be found in many references in scouting. Read the passage in the Scout Handbook on "a Scout is Reverent". Scouting has always acknowledged God as creator of the world around us. Do not be constrained by the Judea/Christian explanation of creation. All faiths have a creation story, some very similar to the Old Testament. I am not aware of any religion that gives random coincidence or evolution credit for creation.

 

Scouting also gives credence to scientific studies and encourages scouts to investigate the world around them. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. And there is no reason that the BSA should have to make them so.

 

 

[Bob White 20]

NJ

 

As you are well aware I never said that if the BSA made such a radical change that there would not be repercussions, that was not germain to the topic. The question was could the do it. YES, as a private organization thaye have the right and the authority to determine the goals and policies of the organization. They decision has no bearing on there 501c3 status. Even if their decision caused them to lose their congressional charter they would still have the right and the authority to make that decision. IT'S a PRIVATE organization, as ong as they do not break a governing law they can do as they choose.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Bob, now you are just making things up. You are rewriting what you said earlier, and you are defining "creationism" so it will suit your argument, as opposed to what everybody else understands it to mean.

 

All faiths have a creation story, some very similar to the Old Testament. I am not aware of any religion that gives random coincidence or evolution credit for creation.

 

A Boy Scout or leader does not have to believe in a particular "faith" or "religion" in order to believe in God. And I know plenty of people who accept the idea of evolution and also are "avowed" members of particular religions, including Judaism and Christianity. I also am sure I can find some movements and denominations (I know Reform Judaism is one) that explicitly accept evolution as being consistent with their religion. So I don't know what you are talking about, and more to the point, neither do you. You are just making things up. (Maybe I said that already.)

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Bob, my last post was written before I saw yours of 9:24:48, it really applies to the one before that. Your latest post is ridiculous for different reasons, which I have already explained. The Boy Scouts can't do anything it wants and still be the Boy Scouts.

[Bob White 20]

Sure they can NJ, And please try to participate in this discussion without the personal assaults.

 

The BSA is whatever the authoritative body of the BSA determines itself to be. It is not required to fit any individual's or group's perception of what it "should" be.

 

The BSA can promote whatever opinion its executive board agrees upon. The only people who need to be in agreement with them are those who voluntarily choose to hold membership or give support. That is what being a private organization is all about.

(This message has been edited by Bob White)