The latest Ask Andy

[John-in-KC 311]

HFE:

 

Whenever I sit a BOR, I talk about God. As a Scout starts the S-L-E path, I talk more about God.

 

BUT! What you described is one reason I'm on a minor crusade (or is it a windmill tilt) to have "earn the age-appropriate religious emblem of your faith. If one is not available for your faith, earn one age-appropriate religious emblem which gives you insights on your faith" added to the S-L-E advancement matrix."

 

 

[Lisabob 13]

hotfoot, for starters the interpretation you give probably differs greatly from unit to unit. I've not seen a religious litmus test at Eagle BORs, myself, though that doesn't mean it never happens elsewhere. Second, it also assumes that a boy who spends time in scouting but doesn't earn Eagle, did not get the full measure out of his time in scouting. Eagle isn't every kid's goal.

 

Merlyn, I wasn't impressed by the clarity of Andy's answer to this particular set of questions. I try to keep in mind that Andy doesn't speak for anybody but himself, and is not a paid representative or mouthpiece of the BSA (as far as I can tell). But I also haven't yet met any scouters who look for reasons to kick a kid out. And if I did I would personally do my best to keep my kid and all those whom I counsel, away from such an individual. Religious witch hunts aren't going to help anybody and they can certainly hurt plenty of people. The situation as described in this AA column suggests to me that there are some zealots involved, and that both the SM in question and probably Andy too, are attempting to shield a youth from idiotic adult zealotry. That, to me, is an honorable intention, even if explained rather clumsily in Andy's responses.

 

By the way, asking someone's age is not nearly equivalent to asking their religious beliefs. While both might be considered in poor taste in many circles, the first is fairly innocuous; the second is a deeply personal matter.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Lisabob writes:

And if I did I would personally do my best to keep my kid and all those whom I counsel, away from such an individual. Religious witch hunts aren't going to help anybody and they can certainly hurt plenty of people.

 

How is checking if someone meets membership requirements a "witch hunt"? Is it also a chronological witch hunt to ask when they turn 18?

 

By the way, asking someone's age is not nearly equivalent to asking their religious beliefs. While both might be considered in poor taste in many circles, the first is fairly innocuous; the second is a deeply personal matter.

 

But if you join an organization that has both age and religious requirements, how is asking if a person meets the requirements poor taste? I can see it as poor taste if these requirements didn't exist, but they do. Is it in poor taste to make sure the presidential candidates meet the constitutional requirements for office? Both McCain and Obama have had people speculating about whether they actually meet the natural-born US citizen requirement, and in 2000 there were lawsuits over whether Cheney was a resident of Wyoming or Texas, because if he was legally considered to reside in Texas, both he and Bush could not get Texas' electoral votes, and Lieberman could be the legal vice-president.

 

Now, certainly questions like these can be handled well or handled badly, but it doesn't even make sense to forbid people from even inquiring if someone meets them or not. Is it somehow better to throw someone out at their BOR after they've put in hours of work finishing their Eagle project?

[packsaddle 753]

I discovered this through the spun thread to which I have already responded. Interesting. I think Merlyn made a fair observation in the first post and lately has asked a fair question. I think that no one has produced a good response yet except, perhaps, to confirm his initial observations.

[Lisabob 13]

Hold on now Merlyn, you are mistaking what I said. Please read for the context of the remarks that you quoted.

 

I did not say that it should be forbidden to inquire into a youth's religious background, though I do in fact find that to be in poor taste. As has been noted by other posters, asking a youth, especially one with whom you do not have a strong relationship, to expound upon their religious principles is often kind of meaningless. By definition, children tend not to have a full understanding of these sorts of topics, and so questions of this nature are likely to uncover either a) what the kid has been taught via rote memorization at home/school/house of worship or b) half-formed, wavering thoughts of the child's own which may reflect nothing more than a passing fancy or desire to explore, be different, rebel, what have you. In either case, I don't think most youth are in a position to give an answer that is so clear and so firmly rooted as to justify removing them from scouting. Now there may be exceptions I suppose, an unusually mature child whose thoughts on and understanding of religion are fully formed at a young age. But I think that's quite rare. So, given the above, I think it is both tactless and fairly useless to ask kids to define their religious beliefs. The only people likely to do so are those with an agenda to push, and those folks aren't interested in what's good for kids anyway.

 

So if I were to hear about some scouter engaging in this sort of behavior, putting random kids who do not know him/her on the spot, I would most certainly attempt to shield "my" kids from such boorish, agenda-driven, inappropriate behavior. And from the sound of the questions and comments made in the AA column, that's the sort of individual the SM was trying to figure out what to do with.

 

Incidentally, in the main I think you were right in your initial observation. And I'm also appalled at the notion that some idiot professional out there has decided (apparently on his own because it isn't even BSA policy) that Jehovah's Witnesses are unfit for membership too, for who knows what reason. But idiots abound.

 

(typos)(This message has been edited by lisabob)(This message has been edited by lisabob)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

The Jehovah's Witness remark sounds like some scoutleaders think that scouts need to pledge allegiance to the flag in order to be members, and any JW who refuses on religious grounds to pledge should be kicked out. It also wouldn't surprise me if JW children wouldn't distinguish between pledging allegiance vs. merely reciting it to show you know the words, and refuse to recite it.

 

This didn't read like he was putting random kids on the spot; he'd heard that one of his scouts didn't meet the membership requirements. I don't think it's unreasonable to simply ask if he really meets the requirements or not.

[skeptic 1004]

Mr. LeRoy:

 

It seems to me that you have, as part of your agenda, the idea that everybody in the BSA should abide by your understanding of how membership requirements should be administered. What you appear to never see is that most of the people who actually work within the program are not there to be nit pickers, but rather to do whatever is reasonable to bring the program to the greatest amount of youth possible.

 

Your constant harping on the idea that a youth's statement made from a still maturing mind set should immediately be a reason to "kick them out" simply proves to me how narrow your mind is. Most of us realize, as has been noted many times, that these youth are likely still searching for a final conclusion. Expecting an adolescent to have made an absolute decision about spiritual matters is really showing poor understanding.

 

Of course I realize that you will have your usual flippant comeback that our allowing gray areas in our interpretations is being hypocritical. Most rational individuals see it for what it is; simply allowing them to search and grow.

 

 

(This message has been edited by skeptic)

[Nike 94]

So, Merlyn, what are we supposed to do about certifying religious belief and duty to God? Ask everyone to declare after the opening? Make it the one mandatory SM conference and BoR question? If a question comes up about a Scout or Scouter, do we take them into a BoR or executive session of the committee? Have everyone sign an affadavit of belief?

[packsaddle 753]

I'll answer that for you, Nike. Not one damn thing. It has been made quite clear that the membership requirements are set by BSA and most of the rest of us have little or no control over them. Therefore, if someone signs the application, there is nothing more that you or I need to inquire about. They signed. BSA will accept that. The matter is between the signer and BSA.

If, however, BSA ever does officially allow a 'local-option' approach rather than the 'central-authority' approach, in that case the CO and leadership might have more input to membership.

[Nike 94]

I always get the sense that these type discussions are a vague veil covering the wishes of some to impose their orthdoxy and orthopraxy on the rest.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

skeptic writes:

It seems to me that you have, as part of your agenda, the idea that everybody in the BSA should abide by your understanding of how membership requirements should be administered.

 

Not my idea. The BSA's idea. What they have testified under oath in court. What they write on their official legal website. Why belong to an organization that has "standards" if those standards aren't being followed?

 

Your constant harping on the idea that a youth's statement made from a still maturing mind set should immediately be a reason to "kick them out" simply proves to me how narrow your mind is.

 

Again, not my mind. The BSA's mind. They've said six-year-olds can't join if they're atheists. Your argument is with the BSA, not me. I'm just asking why so many BSA supporters refuse to enforce their own organization's requirements.

 

Of course I realize that you will have your usual flippant comeback that our allowing gray areas in our interpretations is being hypocritical.

 

I'm not the one who created the BSA black & white membership requirements.

 

Nike, if there's some question whether a member meets the membership requirements, whether it's belief in a god or being under 18, why not ask them "do you believe in a god" or "are you under 18"?

[SSScout 1616]

The whole shebang boils down to:

1) the BSA is a "religious" organization but NOT a religion.

2) Folks that join are reminded about this (a)with the not-so-fine print on the application and (b)with conversations with leaders and © the reciting of the Cub Scout Promise and the Scout Promise and the Scout Law and (d) various well publicized court cases and (e) by overly zealous folks that wish to make BSA one kind of "religious" organization rather than another (which the rest of us have to do damage control about).

3)Those that join and participate are, 99.9% self selecting. They participate because they agree with what is proposed and promulgated and said and written. When they don't agree, in my experience, they ask questions and then either find greater agreement or allow for the differences ("BSA isn't really Christian after all?") or say "no thanks" and move on.

We had a wonderful woman, good parent, talented teacher, sign up to help with CSDC. She read thru the Adult Application and talked to me about the DRP. She said they did not teach their kids anything about religion, that they (the parents) weren't about to cloud their kids mind with such mythology. It had never been a question for her when her son aasked to be a Cub in his friends Pack. I replied that was certainly their responsibility, that Scouts weren't about to tell them what to believe. She and her Cub participated that year, but she later told us she had to resign and withdraw from Scouts because she ultimately could not find agreement with the DRP on the application. And that's how it should work. We were sorry to see her and her son go, but there you are. At that point, it is the parents who decide.

4) Scouting attracts folks with questions and folks whose minds are already made up. Our District hosts Troops sponsored by Muslim Mosques, Jewish Synagogues, ultra-Catholic home schooling associations, Volunteer Fire Companies, PTAs, and service clubs like Kiwanis and American Legion. Some overtly REQUIRE a certain type of belief and some do not ask the first question about it. It is, as one Scouter told me at a R/T, "none of our damn business".

5) Certain social mores are active here. In my bus system, you pay the fare and our bus will take you along the route. You can't tell the driver to CHANGE the route, you can only ride the bus from the station to 5th and Main, not Cedar and North. If you want to go to Cedar and North, you either a) get out and walk or b) pay for a taxi or c) find another bus company or d) start your own bus company. Oh, I forgot, You can also petition the Transit service to change the routes and if enough people ask for the change, it could happen. But probably not tomorrow.

 

Howbout them Cowboys?

[packsaddle 753]

Nike, I'll offer a different way to look at what you described: membership requirements are (almost by definition) an attempt to impose orthodoxy of some sort on the membership. In the case of religion that would be 'religious orthodoxy' of a very vague and almost meaningless kind.

 

Merlyn's observation is interesting to me because the moment that BSA staked out their "religious organization" status, the conundrum he has addressed was inevitable. Either BSA was too stupid to see it coming or else they don't really care except for the sake of appearances (translated: membership numbers). Given the reality of the don't-ask-don't-tell aspect with which Merlyn is taunting us, I suspect BSA was indeed smart enough to see it coming. The discomfort that Merlyn seems to be causing is actually caused by the inconsistency between regulation and practice. He's just making sure no one is able to ignore it.

[Beavah 205]

Nah, packsaddle, you and Merlyn have to stop lookin' at the world through your black-and-white glasses, eh? The world is in technicolor. Da BSA's position on this has never changed. All that's happened is that they've responded to attacks by folks with personal agendas.

 

When yeh write a legal brief or a legal document to make an argument in an adversarial court proceedin', by necessity yeh have to draw sharp contrasts and accentuate the "lines." Like some of da stuff on the Unit Money Earning Application, yeh "reserve all rights" and even push da limits of the rights that you might have. That's makin' the best argument in a dispute, and it's how our legal system is structured.

 

Da legal system is not our business, eh? It really has very little to do with day to day, high-quality Scouting, because workin' with kids generally doesn't involve people with personal agendas tryin' to hijack the organization. So if a lad joins up and muddles through the Oath with his fellows, we work with him as a scout. If along the way he has doubts, questions, becomes rebellious, tries on a bunch of religious and areligious hats... we work with him as a scout.

 

Only when someone shows up and says "I refuse to agree to the "God" part of the program but I insist on joining anyway" does it become a dispute, eh? And only then do we dust off the policies and such that say "we reserve all rights." We aren't dealing with kids in a youth program, then, but with disputatious adults in da bigger world.

 

So if yeh ask us informally, as a friend, how we mentor youth in our youth program who question the existence of God, that has one answer. A youth program, mentoring answer. If yeh dispute with us your right to participate in our program even though you refuse to share our values or meet our expectations, that has a different answer. A legal, adversarial, answer.

 

Same with anything, eh? Some scouts in uniform soliciting contributions for troops overseas at their CO's church, nobody is goin' to bat an eye. A scouter in uniform appearing on a political commercial to endorse the Libertarian candidate is goin' to earn a "cease and desist" letter. As BobWhite points out from time to time, our documents lay claim to all uses of da uniform, everywhere (and even claim some rights which we don't have ). By Merlyn's argument, we should be servin' legal notices on kids for askin' for donations for our troops, to be black-and-white consistent. But that's not the reality. We're consistent with bein' a youth program in a technicolor world.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[evmori 11]

SSScout,

 

Having religious elements to your membership requirements doesn't make an organization a religious organization.