The atheists thing again

[Gonzo1 10]

Merlyn,

I Wasn't aware of it, can't comment on it either. But, a brief bit of research thanks to google revealed:

 

In August of 1998, it all came to an end. At that point, National split Exploring in two. The various career oriented Exploring Posts, as well as the Career Awareness Exploring, would be moved over to the BSA's Learning for Life subsidiary, after which they would be refereed to as the Learning for Life/Explorers. By doing so, Explorers would no longer be members of the BSA, no longer needing to adhere to BSA membership standards. The rest of Exploring: the arts/hobbies, sports, youth group, outdoors, etc., plus the Sea Explorers (now renamed Sea Scouts), would form the new Venturing Division. This was pretty much a name change, as the Venturing program was almost identical to the pre-1998 Exploring program in most ways.

 

So, since it was moved to learning for Life and "not a part of BSA", then I guess it's OK, as Venturing came along and is BSA.

 

Lisa,

 

I agree with your first two paragraphs in your last post. But, as the WHY? BSA has in it's literature that BSA believes that people become the best citizen by their faith. Not quoting chapter and verse here though.

 

Now, I agree that we may disagree on this and perhaps many things in BSA. I think we agree that we will support the BSA programs, we may not always agree with it. As a retired member of the armed forces, I took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic". I may not always agree with our laws or the citizenry, but, I would defend to the death your rights and beliefs. For example, I'm opposed to abortion but for the death penalty. There are many other examples, but these two illustrate that while many disagree with abortion or the death penalty, they remain the "law of the land". This is not to mean that either or both are leagal where you (or any other poster) live. Just an example.

 

So, IMO, dropping the DRP would indeed have a devastating impact on BSA. Try doing your duty to God or be reverent without God. Maybe we should then have optional oaths or laws. I suggest keeping it the way it is. Besides, BSA doesn't go witch hunting. The only time I'm aware that there has been a problem is when someone (the atheist or agnostic) brings it up.

 

 

[evmori 11]

How can an athiest do their duty to God?

[GernBlansten 10]

How can a fat kid do his Duty to Self?

[Gonzo1 10]

evmori,

That's my point, he can't. He won't say the Pledge of Allegiance, Scout Oath or Law. He certainly won't say grace.

 

Maybe Spiral Scouts may be in order, check spiralscouts.org

 

 

[KC9DDI 11]

To take a slightly different approach: what's the harm in allowing atheist scouts/leaders to join the BSA? No one would be challenging another's religious beliefs, as it wouldn't be an issue. The "issue" would be their outward actions - a scout will still be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, etc. Whether their decision to be these things comes from a religious obligation, social contract theory, or simple desire to be in the BSA is not relevant. So... why not? I, as a practicing Catholic, do not feel at all threatened by atheists, or by those who practice different religions - all long as their action do not affect me in a negative way, I really don't have a problem. I wonder if the BSA simply maintains this regulation for philosophical reasons, or for any kind of practical reason.

[Gonzo1 10]

KC9DD1,

Welcome.

 

Rules are rules.

 

OK, you declare yourself here to be Catholic. If I'm a Methodist can I just go to church one Sunday and take communion?

If not, why not?

 

Can a muslim enter your church?

If not, why not?

 

Can a Jewish person marry one of your members in your church?, that is, the actual building?

 

See where this is going? Your church has rules, BSA has rules.

 

The harm is that they don't qualify for membership. Can an atheist truly be trustworthy, loyal, ....... AND REVERENT? Can he do Duty to God? Uh, I don't think so.

 

The adult application for membership states in part that the BSA "maintains that no member can grow into the best possible citizen without recognizing an obligation to God" and is "absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training". Oh yeah, it also says that "Only persons willing to subscribe to these precepts from the Declaration of Religious Principles and to the bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitiled to certificates of leadership"

 

 

 

 

[KC9DDI 11]

Rules are rules.

Right... I'm suggesting that perhaps the rules aren't practical, and might be changed.

 

OK, you declare yourself here to be Catholic. If I'm a Methodist can I just go to church one Sunday and take communion?

If not, why not?

If you want to. The church says you shouldn't, but you have free will, and provided you can physically walk up to the minister, and consume the wafer and wine, you can take communion.

 

Can a muslim enter your church?

If not, why not?

Do you mean just walk in the door? Sure, why not? We don't really ask for ID before allowing entry. If you mean convert and become a Catholic, sure, that's also possible.

 

Can a Jewish person marry one of your members in your church?, that is, the actual building?

Short answer... it depends on some obscure canon laws that I doubt anyone really cares about. However, if two people love each other, and wish to be married, I'm sure they can find a way to do it that satisfies both of them.

 

See where this is going? Your church has rules, BSA has rules.

Again, I'm saying that the rules might not be good rules. This may be the case both within the church and within the BSA. Comparing the BSA with the Catholic Church is not really a good comparison, as the two organizations have very little in common. Catholics believe that the church is tied to their eternal salvation... the BSA is a youth group. Also, I don't think that "well, if a church can do it, we can too!" is a good argument.

 

The harm is that they don't qualify for membership. Can an atheist truly be trustworthy, loyal, ....... AND REVERENT? Can he do Duty to God? Uh, I don't think so.

With all due respect, you're ignoring the issue. Maybe I wasn't very clear in what I meant... The issue I'm addressing is, in fact, that they don't qualify for membership. In the hypothetical situation I'm presenting, they DO qualify for membership. My question is: what's the harm in that? Responding with "but they don't qualify for membership!" is perfectly true, though doesn't address my question. Can an atheist be reverent? Of course not towards god. But can an atheist show reverence for role models, nature, etc? I think so. And, no, an atheist cannot do his duty to god. How important is it that a scout attribute his reason for being trustworthy, etc to a "duty to god", rather than just being those twelve things for whatever reason he finds important?

 

The adult application for membership states in part that the BSA "maintains that no member can grow into the best possible citizen without recognizing an obligation to God" and is "absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training". Oh yeah, it also says that "Only persons willing to subscribe to these precepts from the Declaration of Religious Principles and to the bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitiled to certificates of leadership"

Just because the BSA says so does not make it correct. I acknowledge that the BSA is well within its rights to exclude whomever the want - its perfectly legal. I'm questioning whether their current choices on who to exclude (specifically atheists, for this conversation) is a positive choice. Citing snippets from the BSA application does not address that question.

(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

[Gonzo1 10]

I've heard it said that a priest could REFUSE to give comunin just because someone believes in this or that, like say, abortion.

 

I doubt seriously a priest would marry a Jew and Catholic, but I could be wrong.

 

I agree that comparing the two is not quite apples and apples. My point is that both have rules. I think the DRP rule is OK. There are other rules BSA has that I don't agree with, but I'll support them.

 

In your example, you don't believe its' an issue. Well, we're sitting around a campfire and i ask, "so, where do you go to church?" or "hey, what's the matter with you? you didn't say the Pledge of Allegiance, your arm broke? can't place your hand on your heart?" And yes, I'd probably have that tone too. So, now it's an issue. Now what? The atheist can't answer.

 

Is it right (always) that some guy in a black robes (or 9 of them) say something is the law of the land and that's it? That what the "Left" is saying with Roe vs Wade or about any other left leaning decision.

 

The BSA and DRP isn't something that's really been that controversial. If you believe in God and meet other requirement, you can join.

 

Now, I believe citing those snipets is exactly the point. The applicant knows in advance what the rule and requirements are BEFORE joining. So, I think it's positive to exclude.

 

How important is it that a scout attribute a duty to God? I think it's at the very foundation of scouting.

 

There are plenty of other groups out there. Try Campfire, they used to be Campfire Girls, but now they admit boys too.

 

[Lisabob 13]

Gonzo, I do think you are missing the point for the most part. It isn't a question of what the rules are, it is a question of whether those rules ought to remain the same or be changed, and what the consequences of such a change might be. Personally I think we, as an organization, could have a positive influence on more people without losing anything by changing the rules. You might make a different decision and I respect that. One of the things I find interesting about this discussion though is that ALL of the people I've ever met who argue that the DRP is crucial have been fairly mainstream Christians. While in itself, this is not particularly important (the majority of religious Americans identify as Christians after all), I wonder what religious minorities in the United States think about the DRP?

 

As for the pledge - you may not be aware, but there are some religious groups (Jehovah's Witnesses, for example) who do not say the pledge at all. I know people who do profess religious belief and yet who do not say the one somewhat controversial line in the pledge for a variety of reasons - they'll say the rest, just not that one line. Among the reasons is because the historical fact is that that line was added as an anti-communist/anti-Soviet tidbit rather than as any kind of true profession of specific belief. This interpretation, I got from a group of (self described) evangelical, fundamentalist Christians who felt offended that the line in question wasn't more meaningful in the eyes of most Americans who blithely recite it. Consequently they don't say that one line because they don't want to water down the meaning by participating in mass recitation without thought.

 

So be careful with how you interpret or challenge someone's decision not to say some, or all, of the pledge. It doesn't necessarily make them non-religious, or even non-Christian.

[KC9DDI 11]

I've heard it said that a priest could REFUSE to give comunin just because someone believes in this or that, like say, abortion.

 

I doubt seriously a priest would marry a Jew and Catholic, but I could be wrong.

You may be right, but I don't think the debate involves Catholic doctrine.

 

I agree that comparing the two is not quite apples and apples. My point is that both have rules. I think the DRP rule is OK. There are other rules BSA has that I don't agree with, but I'll support them.

Yes, both do have rules. I respect your opinion that the DRP is OK.

 

In your example, you don't believe its' an issue. Well, we're sitting around a campfire and i ask, "so, where do you go to church?" or "hey, what's the matter with you? you didn't say the Pledge of Allegiance, your arm broke? can't place your hand on your heart?" And yes, I'd probably have that tone too. So, now it's an issue. Now what? The atheist can't answer.

Well, now we're finally getting to the "what's the harm" question I asked. So, if I'm hearing you right, the issue is a religious person who cannot accept people who have beliefs which differ from theirs. To me, it sounds like the issue is the religious person, not the atheist. As far as the atheist not being able to answer, why not? Does his (lack of) religious belief prevent him from engaging in a friendly, respectful conversation with his friends?

 

Is it right (always) that some guy in a black robes (or 9 of them) say something is the law of the land and that's it? That what the "Left" is saying with Roe vs Wade or about any other left leaning decision.

I don't quite see where you're going with this, but I think the answer is no. However, as citizens, we do have the right and ability to influence the making of laws. Hopefully, if it comes to 9 wo/men having to make a decision and clarify the law, it is something that the majority of Americans can accept. If they cannot accept it, there are reasonable means to attempt to change the law.

 

The BSA and DRP isn't something that's really been that controversial. If you believe in God and meet other requirement, you can join.

No, I don't think it has been that controversial, because no one really cares at the unit level. I'm sure we're all familiar with the requirements, all I'm asking is: are they GOOD requirements? What's the benefit? Where's the harm in not having them? From what you've said, the biggest concern is atheists having to deal with intolerance - and the atheist is not the cause of that problem!

 

Now, I believe citing those snipets is exactly the point. The applicant knows in advance what the rule and requirements are BEFORE joining.

Again, what makes those rules and requirements a good thing?

 

So, I think it's positive to exclude.

It does not follow that exclusion is positive if the excluded is made aware of his exclusion.

 

How important is it that a scout attribute a duty to God? I think it's at the very foundation of scouting.

How so? I would say moral decision making, leadership developing, a healthy lifestyle, appreciation for the outdoors, etc are the foundations of scouting. Many people base their ethics, morals and values on their religious beliefs, but there are other sources of morals and values.

 

There are plenty of other groups out there. Try Campfire, they used to be Campfire Girls, but now they admit boys too.

That's true. But if the BSA sets arbitrary rules for joining, and we cannot identify a good reason for having them, or a negative consequence of not having them, why not just get rid of the rules in question? If it will not harm the organization, and will possibly improve the organization, why stick to the status quo? Granted, change can be difficult, but I haven't really heard a concrete reason for excluding people on the basis of the religious beliefs, or lack thereof.

[Gonzo1 10]

Well now, I think the rules have been in place since 1910? Give or take.

 

BSA is strictly non-sectarian. If someone doesn't want to recite the oath, that's there business. But the person must agree to live by the Oath (promise) and law.

 

I don't know what religious minorities think about the DRP, the USA is about 95% Christian, 4% Jewish and about 1% the rest - give or take. Now, I'm sure one of our colleagues will find actual census data, but that's pretty clos.

 

Lisa, again, I disagree. If a person can't do duty to God, it would be watering down the BSA.

 

At a commissioner college training about 5 or 6 years ago, I heard the speaker 9for the life of me, I can't remember his name) who commented on these "constitutional issues" and he said that if BSA was forced to cave in, the BSA would shut down.

 

Lisa, I usually agree with most of what you say here, not everything. I'm sure we could help more, expose more to scouting, have a positive influence on many more people. Loog at the Tall club example I gave. The tall people could have many more people to influence if they would only cave in and let short people in. The only problem is, the tll people want other tall people as members.

 

I couldn't care less what religions our members are, so long as they believe in God and meet other requirements for joining.

 

So, here we are at an impasse. Perhaps you can try to pursuade national to change and I'll pursuade them to stay the course.

 

We'll agree to disagree. See you at a campfire.

[Gonzo1 10]

KC9DD1,

 

Now it seems you want to bring "tolerance" into play. Wel,, tolerance is a virtue, not a point in the Scout Law. I encourage being nice to all.

 

About judges, I don't agree that all judges are correct and right. I don't believe that rapists, murderers, drug dealers, child molesters etc should be allowed to walk free. I don't agree that Roe vs Wade should be the law of the land. I think the Supreme Court erred in its ruling. The court should have considered ah, never mind.

 

Those rules and requirements are a good thing BECAUSE they are the rules and requirements. BSA has them and we collectively want to be in BSA.

 

You know, the exclude know in advance too. There is Campfire, Spiral Scouting, I'm sure there are others.

 

Indeed, many people base their beliefs andvalues in something other than faith. Let's try this: Fill in the blank: On my honor, I will do my best, to do my duty to ___ and my country

 

Hmm, what goes in the blank?

 

So, if we kick God out of BSA by dropping the DRP, then we will have to change the Oath, the Law, heck, we might not even be prepared or do good turns.

 

I most strongly believe that by lowering the standard, we would break the BSA. Like me and LisaBob, you and I will probably agree to disagree.

 

I don't usually advocate gambling, but i enjoy it from time tom time. Ever play blackjack? Well, if the rule is to not go over 21, do you expect to be paid as a winner with 22? The rule is too not go over 21.

 

Evmori? Packsaddle? Beavah? Eamonn? OGE? Other wise and knowledgable scouters, help me explain this please.

[Lisabob 13]

"So, if we kick God out of BSA by dropping the DRP, then we will have to change the Oath, the Law, heck, we might not even be prepared or do good turns."

 

 

Gonzo, I'll let this go after this but I believe the above is at the heart of the disagreement here. I don't believe that dropping the DRP requires removing religion from the BSA. I believe it allows individuals of all religious or non-religious backgrounds to decide for themselves whether they wish to be part of the BSA, given the fact that there are religious elements to the program. What I'm arguing for is moving from a blanket prohibition on membership imposed from above by the BSA (as the DRP currently requires) to an individual level decision by specific families. Leaving EVERYTHING ELSE the same, let parents decide whether they want little Johnny to be exposed to the Scouting program, regardless of the parents' religious perspective.

 

The campfire sounds great. It's supposed to snow up here again later this week (boo, hiss!) so you're always welcome to stop by but you'd better grab a winter jacket.

[packsaddle 753]

Gonzo1, I've been following this and I will take a crack at your question.....but it'll have to wait until after I cause some anxiety in some students. "And there shall be weepage, and gnashing of teeth." Later...

[Gonzo1 10]

We still disagree. It's sunny and 75 in Georgia, enjoy the snow.

 

Packsaddle (and Merlyn and Lisa), as long as teachers administer tests, there will be prayer in schools. (wink)