Jump to content

Question on BSA and religion.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

BrentAllen says: " As I said - equally pertinent."


Really? What serial/mass killing spree has Kudu gone on to make it pertinent to compare him with a list of killers? Kind and courteous, indeed.


Brent also says: "I don't think either list or group is a valid comparison to a Scouter being a troublemaker with his District or Council."


Let's see, Kudu stood up for an issue he believes strongly in by using his words (not guns, at least, unless I missed something in the news lately), without violating the liberties of anyone else. Hmmm... Sounds like social activism to me. Was was that about a duck? Oh, wait, I forgot, to some people, activism is a dirty word, a crime obviously comparable to multiple murders....


Sorry, Kudu, guess it's the death penalty for people like you and me!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see now ...


1. On the one hand we have a bunch of troublemakers who took action to remedy social injustices.


2. Then there are the sociopath mass murderers.


3. And, as you point out, there are the fine upstanding citizens who accept the status quo and don't cause any trouble for anyone.

Hmmm... where to put Kudu? ,,,, where to put Kudu?... (gee this is hard!)


OK. just kidding. I won't try to classify any of my friends, especially those whom I have never met IRL. BUT personally, I am proud to have been called a troublemaker from time to time. Nonetheless, many of my friends and colleagues fit squarely in type #3; they are all great folks and I respect them for their qualities. Luckily, I don't know any type #2's (I don't think).




Link to post
Share on other sites


I will try to explain this again, and this time I will type s l o w e r.


I didn't think Trev's list was a valid comparison, so I made up an absurd list - and said they were equally pertinent - meaning neither one was pertinent. Get it? My list of bad guys was just as valid as his - equally pertinent/neither is pertinent.


Now, please explain to me how being a voluntary member of an organization is the same as having a skin color or ethnicity. Rosa Parks and Jackie Robinson did not have a choice in the matter. Comparing Kudu's complaints about BSA policy, in an organization he voluntarily joined, to the protests against racism is absurd. He always has the choice of leaving. Parks and Robinson did not have a choice of not being black.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brent, I also do not consider such condescension to be kind and courteous either, but that's just me, I guess. MY point was that making such an implied comparison was unkind and unwarranted. And backpedaling to say "oh, it was intentionally absurd" doesn't excuse it in my book.


And how is making a complaint about a park director threatening to shoot a dog a complaint about BSA policy? (which is not to say that Kudu has never made a complaint to his district/council about BSA policy, since I have no knowledge of this one way or the other). He is certainly vociferous here about certain things, to be sure.


As far as your comment about a comparison to racism being absurd, here is where we will have to disagree. To me, social activism is social activism, no matter what the root issue. So someone who was not black who was involved in racial issues was simply a "troublemaker" because they had a "choice"? That is what your comparison implies. And just because the BSA is a volunteer organization doesn't mean we have to agree with every policy. I think the BSA program is wonderful, the best around; however, I think some of the policies of the national organization detract from the program. I think it takes more courage to stand up and say, "Let's change this" than (to use a phrase so popular right now) to cut and run because I'm only a volunteer.


I'm sure you think I am overreacting to your comment, but I see a trend, on this forum, and in the world in general, for people to say something nasty, including calls for violence, and then try to excuse it by saying "oh, it was a joke" or "it was sarcasm". And I think it's time that people start to get called out for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites


I guess you will never get it - I did NOT compare Kudu to a list of killers. In fact, I said the opposite. I said, for the nth time, that neither comparison was valid.


Sorry you do not appreciate my biting humor. That is what it is. Is it possible for me to make something more easily understood by simply typing it slower? Will it change the speed at which one reads the message? No - that is humor. And after all that, you still continue to argue that I made an unkind comparison of Kudu to killers. I dunno - maybe it is just my Southern drawl that is causing the confusion (more humor).


Kudu has some serious problems with the BSA, including the trademark on Scouting and problems with the religious awards and other issues. My guess is he has made those feelings known at the Council level, and may be known as a troublemaker (he has signed his name to posts here, so his real identity is known). I have asked twice about this, in this thread, with no response. I find it hard to believe the Council would label him a troublemaker simply because of the dog issue. I don't know of any leader who would have reacted differently. I think there is more to the story that meets the eye.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One advantage of standing up for what you believe is that if you don't directly confront people IRL, sometimes they quietly acknowledge off the record that they agree with you.


This is not only true for some people working in my local Council office, but I have found it in the belly of the beast itself, Irving Texas.


It was a BSA professional many years ago who first recommended that I read Tim Jeal's biography of Baden-Powell. It was that recommendation that put the influence of Baden-Powell's father and the spiritual-progressive movement on the history of Scouting in perspective for me.


Those of us who do not agree with the essentially fundamentalist religious polices of the Boy Scouts of America must decide individually what compromises we are willing to make. I draw the line at staffing Council training courses in which religious policy is discussed, so I only volunteer to teach outdoor sessions.


Before it was a required course, I was the first person in my Council to push for offering the pilot Introduction to Outdoor Leader Skills (IOLS) course. I was the course director for a few years, but resigned after the spotlight on Darrell Lambert's admission in his local IOLS course made the religious session in our own IOLS a place for volunteers to vent.


When I wear the BSA Uniform, I am silent about policy with which I disagree.



(This message has been edited by Kudu)

Link to post
Share on other sites

But we digress.....

I finally found it....From B-P...





""Reverence to God and reverence for one's neighbour and reverence for

oneself as a servant of God, is the basis of every

form of religion. The method of expression of reverence to God varies

with every sect and denomination. What sect or

denomination a boy belongs to depends, as a rule, on his parents'

wishes. It is they who decide. It is our business to respect

their wishes and to second their efforts to inculcate reverence,

whatever form of religion the boy professes.

There may be many difficulties relating to the definition of the

religious training in our Movement where so many different

denominations exist, and the details of the expression of duty to God

have, therefore, to be left largely in the hands of the

local authority. But there is no difficulty at all in

suggesting the line to take on the human side, since direct duty to

one's neighbour is implied in almost every form of belief.""

(Aids to Scoutmastership, 1919)




Link to post
Share on other sites

""By their fruits ye shall know them""


"The humble, meek, merciful, just, pious, and devout souls are everywhere of one religion; and when death has taken off the mask they will know one another, though the diverse liveries they wear here make them strangers."


= William Penn =


'nuf said.


Link to post
Share on other sites



I went back and re-read your comment at the beginning of this thread. Funny, the awesomeness of the Godhead and of his heavenly creations was part of a substantial discussion at Bible study Sunday:


"Gern, I have never understood the ritual of bowing one's head. During prayer, my way is to turn my face up towards the heavens, not down and away.


I'm going to point you to three places in Scripture. First is Exodus 28. As sinful man, our direct contact with God in OT times was likely to be deadly!


Equally, consider the angel's greetings to Zechariah and Mary in Luke 1: "Do not be afraid."


Finally, consider what the angel told John the Evangelist in Revelation 22:8-9 : "I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of this book. Worship God!"


Now, as to this thread overall, I believe SSScout's post of B-P's quote in 1919 gets to the heart of the matter. The specifics of your individual belief in a Godhead(s) are yours to make. THAT YOU CONFESS a Godhead(s) is essential to Scouting and truly not optional.


I will confess my faith as a Christian. Away from Scouting, I will share the Good News, in part because I believe Christianity is just so efficient as a faith (God did it all!). Within Scouting, my task is to ensure the youth in my charge are doing something about a faith.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...