religion as a core component of the BSA

[Jeffrey H 25]

packsaddle,

 

No one has told me the "dirty little secret". You better tell me now so this happy-go-lucky Cub Leader doesn't destabilize the system.

 

I have to say your remarks about the BSA are the most negative I have ever seen on this forum. Your opinion is yours, but it lost it's credibility when you began comparing the internal issues of the BSA with racism and the civil rights movement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

JeffreyH,

One upside (downside) to a good long-term memory is the ability to assemble quotes from a variety of sources - in my case from members of my past church (Presbyterian, if you're interested), from council officials and other official sources, and from other scouters some of whom I've read in these forums. (I've often admired this ability in some other forum members as well, my sympathies, you guys)

 

In order to illustrate his ideas, Hunt used an analogy (to Elvis). I was employing a more real-life analogy and attempting to apply reductio ad absurdum to the idea being discussed. This was evidently more accessible to you than Hunt's was.

My analogy was not merely between those opposed to civil rights and BSA but also to scouters who interpret BSA policy in a comparable manner. The scouters are the ones who, in the 'local option' system, are most important for implementing policy. It did get your attention, didn't it?

 

If the comparison is invalid, explain how to me, I want to know. If you want to address ideas, address them. Put your best reasoning out on the forum for everyone to examine. I can be persuaded.

 

Your argument loses credibility if you merely dismiss an idea by attaching a label. If you don't agree with the comparison, it is incumbent on you to explain why it is not valid. Merely saying you don't like it is OK and telling me I'm negative is OK, but it doesn't really contain any useful information.

 

Your turn.

 

Edited part: Oops, forgot (so much for memory ). The 'dirty little secret' is a metaphor for something that nearly everyone understands but tries not to discuss openly because, like an STD or something, it is for some reason, unsavory. In the case of BSA, protestations to the contrary, official policy is winked at routinely and the de facto practice is a "don't ask, don't tell" approach to the issues of membership by gays and atheists. This exists at the local level and at other levels although I'm most familiar with it at the local level.

But I didn't need to explain this, did I? You probably were already aware and were just asking rhetorically, right? Anway, as such, the reality is a system of deceptions that permeate the organization top to bottom. Lisabob, I think, was implying something like this in the original message and asking for a little more honesty. I could be wrong.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Hunt 11]

Lisabob, I think while this thread has wandered, to me it shows that the "core component" question is really important: in fact, it is the apparent disconnect between BSA's statements that Duty to God is a core component of the program, and the perception that people have of the actual program, that is the problem. So, for example, Merlyn's question:

 

"So religion is a core part of scouting, but not a core part of Little League, even though Little League ALSO has a pledge that includes 'god' (and thus excludes atheists and polytheists)? Why don't you support Little League's right to practice religious discrimination just because you can't appreciate how vitally important it is for all members of Little League to be monotheists?"

 

Clearly, religion is a core component of some activities--surely even Merlyn would not object to a church's confirmation class restricting membership to adherents of the religion. On the other hand, it really doesn't seem to be a core component of other activities--especially if the activity was historically carried on without any religious element, as the Little League was. Where is BSA in this continuum? It's not so clear. "Duty to God" has been there from the beginning, but it is debatable how significant an element of the program it actually is.

 

Here are a few propositions I would propose: First, we all understand, I think, that it is legal for a private organization to decide that membership is only open to people with specified religious beliefs. To determine whether it is fair and reasonable for the organization to do so, one can fairly look to the role that religious belief plays in the purposes and programs of the organization. The smaller the role, the more unreasonable is the restriction.

 

Oh, Packsaddle--I almost missed the shot in your last post. To compare BSA's highly inclusive religious views with discrimination against "mud races" is a pretty laughable analogy, even compared to the Elvis one. I also thought of a benefit to people excluded from BSA on religious grounds: they get the opportunity to understand that their convenience is not necessarily enough to make others compromise their principles. See if you can answer this question: what is the benefit of Roman Catholics of requiring one to be a member of the church in order to receive Mass? What is the benefit of that requirement to non-Catholics?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Well Hunt, your last message would lead me to think that you would approve, not disapprove, of the town where Little League was disbanded and a Christian-only ballclub was started. After all, it's obviously 1) a private club, 2) started with the intent to only allow Christians, and 3) presumably all the non-Christian kids who are now excluded learn the same lesson that kids excluded from the BSA learn that you seem to think is so important - namely, that private organizations don't have to change their rules for your convenience. Or is that a useful message only if atheists are the only ones excluded, because that doesn't exclude you, personally, which makes it OK?

[packsaddle 753]

Heh, heh, Hunt, I didn't intend for that to be taken as a 'shot'. The analogy of BSA to Elvis worship is yours after all. I think Groucho was in a uniquely better position to see the humor of his status. Perhaps better than the good people who were at the receiving end of the fire hoses. I used the civil rights movement as a real example in which legal exclusion was ended...with positive results (or do you disagree?) My attachment of alleged biblical authority to those who sometimes violently opposed integration may be distasteful in retrospect but it is undeniably factual. My contention in that example is that similar 'opening' of BSA would also have no negative outcome (except, perhaps, to those who really see Trevorum's identified 'benefits' as something positive).

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Right on cue: "confessions of a former girl scout":

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54591

 

Yep, gotta exclude Buddhists, Wiccans too! Oddly enough, the article implies that all monotheists are welcome in American Heritage Girls, even though it's specifically Christian (but you have to look hard enough; even the front page of their web site doesn't reveal this, as it talks about "Judeo-Christian" heritage and "god", and only brings up the trinitarian requirements later). Here's a clear example of how someone likes AHG because of all the nasty people that are excluded, like Buddhists, Wiccans, and Jews (but don't spell out that Jews are excluded!) Not really very much on why people SHOULD join, except for all the people who can't join.

[Trevorum 24]

And you can bet that those on the "inside" feel pretty dang virtuous about excluding those on the outside.

[Hunt 11]

"Well Hunt, your last message would lead me to think that you would approve, not disapprove, of the town where Little League was disbanded and a Christian-only ballclub was started. After all, it's obviously 1) a private club, 2) started with the intent to only allow Christians, and 3) presumably all the non-Christian kids who are now excluded learn the same lesson that kids excluded from the BSA learn that you seem to think is so important - namely, that private organizations don't have to change their rules for your convenience. Or is that a useful message only if atheists are the only ones excluded, because that doesn't exclude you, personally, which makes it OK?"

 

Subtlety is lost on you, so I'll give it a try again, and be more explicit. 1. It is LEGAL for private groups to set religious membership requirements. 2. It is REASONABLE and FAIR for them to do so if religious belief or practice is, in fact, a significant element of the aims or program of the group. 3. It is UNREASONABLE and UNFAIR for a group to use religious requirements as a mere pretext to exclude others from an activity which has nothing to do with religion. Thus, I disapprove of what the baseball league did because it appears to me that they didn't do this in order to preserve any principle, but rather to exclude what they considered to be undesireable people. They changed the rules, adding a religious requirement where one did not previously exist, to an activity that does not appear, on the surface anyway, to be religious in nature. So while I think they could do this legally, it seems unreasonable and unfair. Now, let's compare that to BSA's requirement. First, nobody who knows anything about BSA's history thinks that the duty to God and reverent elements were added in order to exclude atheists--rather, they were included because the founders of BSA thought they were important values, along with other values embodied in the Oath and Law. On the other hand, it is fair to ask whether the religious element of Scouting is significant enough for it to be fair and reasonable to make religious belief a requirement for membership. That's what this thread is about. In other words, it is OK for a religious organization to discriminate on the basis of religion. It is OK for an organization with a viewpoint to discriminate on the basis of the viewpoint, but not OK to discriminate against people because you don't like their kind. So, it is OK for the Elvis fan club to discriminate against people who don't like Elvis, but not OK for the Elvis fan club to discriminate against people because they are black. Again, the question here is whether BSA in fact holds and promotes the viewpoint involved strongly enough to justify excluding people who don't share it. And while I don't see what the American Heritage Girls have to do with anything, don't you prefer their approach to BSA's, since they make it clear that they are an expressly Christian organization? I thought your criticism of BSA's religion requirement was that it was too diffuse to have theological meaning--you certainly can't say that about the American Heritage Girls. It's not unfair for the American Heritage Girls to exclude Buddhists--it's a Christian club, and it was started to promote Christian values because the founder felt GSA wasn't doing that. Maybe it's just a pretext (like the baseball league), but that's not the impression I get from their website.

 

"And you can bet that those on the "inside" feel pretty dang virtuous about excluding those on the outside."

 

Do you think members of a church feel virtuous about excluding those on the outside? To the contrary, most churches are looking for ways to persuade those people to change their views and come inside. Personally, I don't feel virtuous or superior when I hear that somebody is an atheist, I feel sad, because I think that person is making a tragic mistake, sort of like I do when I find out that a person has the wrong political views, only more so. (I will note that at least some atheists feel the same way, see http://www.atheists.org/welcome.html, in which atheists are urged to evangelize for atheism.)

 

"My contention in that example is that similar 'opening' of BSA would also have no negative outcome (except, perhaps, to those who really see Trevorum's identified 'benefits' as something positive)"

 

What do you think about my idea that BSA could open its membership to anyone, but with the understanding that they will be exposed to religious program content?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Hunt, it doesn't look like you read what I wrote about American Heritage Girls carefully; they, too, are NOT upfront about their religious requirements, since their front page does NOT spell out that they are for Christians - indeed, their use of "Judeo-Christian" and "god" (without Jesus) on their front page gives the decidely FALSE impression that Jews are welcome - until you read their statement of faith, required of adults:

http://www.ahgonline.org/ahg/about/sof.php

 

In the same vein, the way the BSA chartered cub scout packs to public schools for DECADES while somehow never insisting that these schools exclude atheists (I wonder why) tells me that either the BSA's religious requirements are a complete sham, or the BSA is utterly dishonest. Or both. I STILL can't find where their membership application form (youth or adult) spells out that gays can't join...

 

And, by the way, Little League could easily follow the BSA's lead and suddenly decide to make their god-motto mandatory, and decide to exclude anyone who refuses. After all, it's been around for 50 years, they just haven't mandated it. I also found a 2004 newspaper story about an atheist who was less than pleased in finding this out only after he invested a lot of personal time & money in uniforms that Little League even had any religious component. Plus, the Little League spokesman quoted in the article emphasized that Little League was a "private organization" (he seems to be unaware of court decisions that have found LL to be a public accommodation). Ring any bells?

 

So who are YOU to insist that baseball can't have a religious component dating back 50 years, but a camping program can? You're just special pleading to match your own prejudices.

[GernBlansten 10]

What do you think about my idea that BSA could open its membership to anyone, but with the understanding that they will be exposed to religious program content?

 

Wouldn't that require dropping the DRP as I have advocated here for over a year? Is there a difference between your idea and mine?

 

Not speaking for Merilyn but if your idea was adopted, he wouldn't have a dog in this fight anymore would he? Schools and fire departments could charter packs again. The US Military could support the Jamboree. Balboa Park controversy would go away. Thousands of boys would suddenly be eligible to join. Free thinking parents wouldn't just throw the recruiting flyer in the trash. Boys could invite all their friends to join.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Whether public schools would be able to charter units again (ignoring the issue of excluding gays) rather depends on what Hunt means by members being exposed to religious content.

[GernBlansten 10]

Well assuming that most units (non-fundamentalist charter orgs) make religion a personal growth choice of the scouts and not a mandatory element, and that there are no religious requirements for advancement, there would be no legal issue with public schools chartering. The DRP doesn't cover the homosexual prohibition, but as previously noted, there is no check-box on the application for that.

[packsaddle 753]

Returning late, sorry. Hunt, Yes, it sounds very similar to what Gern has advocated for quite a while and I agreed with it. I think he's correct and what you advocate would require elimination of the DRP. I personally have no problem with the free and open discussion of ideas, including religion. I am not certain that some persons of faith would care to engage in such discussion, but anyone should be free to opt out of the discussion.

 

One twist that I think hasn't been added (sorry if I missed something) is that if public schools and fire departments DID start chartering units again, the religious component, if present, would almost certainly be more non-sectarian in application. There would indeed be much greater availability of the program to more boys. There would be many benefits and no downside that I can see.

 

I would like to address one thing about discussion versus proselytization. I would support, as I said, free and open discussion of ideas, including religious ones. I would not support proselytization in which free and open discussion is unavailable. It is one thing to state one's opinion and then listen to criticism and alternatives. It is another quite different thing to present dogma and doctrine, not to be questioned. And while I would welcome the former, I wonder how many faiths are willing to subject their ideas to that type of forum...as opposed to the latter. Which approach would you advocate for your proposed religious content?

[Hunt 11]

I'm not sure my idea would require that the DRP be dropped--what would be dropped is the requirement to assert belief in God in order to be a member. BSA would still be a religious organization, with religious principles, but it wouldn't have belief as a membership requirement. Look, for a model, at the mission statement of the University of Notre Dame: http://newsinfo.nd.edu/content.cfm?topicid=32. Notre Dame doesn't impose a religious belief requirement on students, and yet it remains a Catholic school, and that has implications for how it does certain things. If you choose to go there, that's part of the deal. So, what I suggest would not allow BSA to go back into the schools, because it would still be a relgious organization.

And for the American Heritage Girls--sure, their website's first page refers to "Judeo-Christian values," but there are links right there to "Creed" and "Statement of Faith." Anybody who doesn't find out in two seconds that it is a Christian group just isn't paying attention.

 

And gee, I'm really sorry about the guy who found out that Little League has a religious element, and was "less than pleased." Does Little League have a religious membership requirement? No. Does it have any required relgious observance? No. In fact, the only thing I know about is the Little League Pledge, which has a reference to God in it--but nobody is required to recite this pledge. Could Little League change its rules and impose a religious membership requirement? Sure, legally. I don't think it would ethical for them to do this, given the expectations they have created. However, BSA is not in this position, because the "duty to God" and "reverence" elements have always been evident to anyone who got involved.

 

Finally, I take your point about BSA being in the schools for decades without expelling atheists. But I think BSA has now proved that its religious requirement is not a sham, because if it were merely a sham, it could have tweaked it enough to remain in the schools. It didn't do that. Was BSA dishonest for not expelling atheists during the earlier period? Well, maybe. However, the reality is that atheists were so thin on the ground (or so quiet) that this was a non-issue for most units. Perhaps BSA was de facto following the practice that I suggest: Allowing non-believers to join, but exposing them to the BSA values, including the relgious ones.

[GernBlansten 10]

Hunt, what value does the DRP provide BSA besides creating the membership barrier?