Reverence in Scouting

[firstpusk 10]

"Bob,

 

My lack of respect for certain religions does not compel me to badger those who posses those beliefs. Even if I were solicited to share my opinion, I would not be inclined to insult or degrade any individual. Instead, I would clearly explain why I disapprove of such a belief. You seem to be making the assumption that if I disrespect a religion, I must also show contempt for its followers. This is simply not so. Why would I hound or insult someone if I thought they were deceived? If anything, I would try to convince such a person to examine the evidence for his or her belief. At least, thats always my intent going into a debate thats centered around religion that I know to be false. Regardless, the point is, I am not compelled to persecute individuals for possessing beliefs that I disrespect."

 

Your toilet water analogy said it all. Could you be more crass and less respectful in choosing something to compare the befiefs of another? As a scout leader, your job is not to convert others to your beliefs. It is to provide the program.

 

If you think that scout leaders should prostletize, you have the wrong program. Please go find another that more closely suits your proclivity.

[John-in-KC 311]

Excuse me...

 

It seems to me that this stone has rolled far from the path of OPEN DISCUSSION of the PROGRAM (how do we work out the 12th point in our units, districts, and councils). It sure looks like a discussion of the ISSUE of belief in a Godhead being a condition of membership in the BSA.

 

May y'all take this to Issues and Politics please?

 

Respectfully, John

[Rooster7 11]

Firstpusk,

 

Your toilet water analogy said it all. Could you be more crass and less respectful in choosing something to compare the befiefs of another?

 

It was simply an analogy. And if it was disrespectful it was not aimed at any particular individual, or even a particular faith for that matter. So, if someone has taken offense, Id like to know on what basis since a) analogies are not to be taken literally, and b) there was no reference to any specific person or religion.

 

As a scout leader, your job is not to convert others to your beliefs. It is to provide the program.

 

First, not once in this entire thread have I ever stated or even implied that I felt it was my job as a Scout leader to convert anyone.

 

Debate is good. But there are rules, which one should follow if he/she is to maintain his/her integrity. Perhaps the most important rule dont wrongfully attribute words and/or ideas to those individuals who oppose your views. This tactic is not only unethical, but it also demonstrates the weakness of your argument.

 

If you think that scout leaders should prostletize, you have the wrong program. Please go find another that more closely suits your proclivity.

 

Now youre just repeating yourself. As to what suits me, I will do as my God tells me. Yet, that does not mean I intend to share Gods Word as a Scout leader or at a Scouting function. This is an erroneous assumption, a leap in logicthat some have grab onto because it suits their position.

 

Can we agree to debate honestly?

 

John-in-KC,

 

You are, of course, correct this topic probably should be under Issues & Politics. However, since you have not contributed a single post to this thread up until now, I wonder what you have at stake here. Your criticism seems out of place. Regardless, I will consider myself duly chastised and try to refrain from using this thread to further expound on my views.

 

[Bob White 20]

Firstpusk

 

Which Bob? Threre are two Bobs that have posted to this thread and neither of us made any mention of any of the things you have refered to.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Others have pointed out that the pre- and post-1972 explanations of "Reverent" really mean the same thing where "respect" is concerned, but I just wanted to put the 2 passages together to make it even clearer. (By the way, this is an excellent web page that has ALL the changes to the explanations of the Scout Law, and other information: http://www.troop97.net/ideals.htm)

 

1911-1972:

 

"Reverent. He is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties and respects the convictions of others in matters of custom and religion."

 

1972-present:

 

"Reverent. A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others."

 

All they did (other than to rearrange the sentence structure) was to change the word "convictions" to "beliefs" and take out "customs" (but actually they just moved it; keep reading.) They really just modernized the language while leaving the meaning the same. "Convictions" (in this meaning) is a word that is probably not heard as often today as it was in 1911; most people today say "beliefs" to mean the same thing. (I suspect that the negative sense of "convictions," as in conviction for a crime, has probably made the positive sense, a synonym for "beliefs," less popular.)

 

So, Rooster, you are incorrect when you say:

 

Once upon a time, the BSA did not require Scouts and Scouters to respect the beliefs of others rather, they required Scouts and Scouters to respect others who may hold different religious beliefs and/or possess lesser or greater convictions concerning the same.

 

Both versions refer to the beliefs (or pre-1972, the convictions) of others, not simply the people themselves, as the things to be respected. In a later post you refer to the "change" as being a result of the "PC crowd" "infiltrating" the BSA's ranks, and of "liberal philosophy," which frankly is absurd.

 

Also, a couple of people in this forum have spoken of "respect" as meaning respecting or recognizing the "right" of others to have different beliefs, or "allowing" others to believe and worship in their own ways. Notice that this concept of "rights" is not specifically stated, but I believe that is because it is assumed to be part of "respect." What I want to point out is that recognizing someone's "rights" or "allowing" them to do something does not completely cover what "respect" means. It is only part of it. Another important part of it, for example, would be not "making fun," ridiculing, making someone "feel bad" or however you wish to phrase it, for having different religious beliefs, or for that matter for being of a different race or ethnic group, having a different "appearance," being from a different country, having an accent, having a disability, being "poor," or a number of other things. All of these behaviors are disrespectful and un-Scoutlike (and unfortunately I have seen both adults and youths, in and out of Scouting, engage in this type of conduct at one time or another. In fact, these days when I or others point out the wrongfulness of this type of behavior, we are often accused of being "PC." It seems to me that part of what some people think is "PC," actually is required by portions of the Scout Law.)

 

Which brings me to another point. In reading the web site that I posted above, I discovered something I didn't realize, that a somewhat similar and overlapping reference to respect appears in the explanation of "Friendly." It did not appear in the original (1911-72) explanation of "Friendly," which was "He is a friend to all and a brother to every other Scout." In 1972 new language was added, and it has since been revised, as follows:

 

1972 change:

 

(Split existing sentence into 2 sentences and added third and fourth sentences: )

 

"He seeks to understand others. He respects those with ideas and customs other than his own."

 

(Now, notice "customs," removed from "Reverent" in 1972, was simply moved to "Friendly." One could argue that the entire concept of "respect" belongs in Friendly (or Courteous... or Kind, and keep reading for that one, too), but I think they wanted to have it under Reverent also, as a reminder that while you are being faithful in your own religious duties, just keep in mind that you should also respect the beliefs of others. Also notice that the subject of the sentence is other people ("those") and not their "ideas and customs." Rooster believes that is what the "Reverent" explanation said (or meant) before 1972, which is incorrect, but here in Friendly, it is that way. What can we draw from this? I would say it is that the BSA sees no difference between respecting people with different beliefs, and respecting the beliefs of others, and I don't see any real difference either.)

 

Where was I? Oh yeah:

 

1990 change:

 

(kept third sentence, "He seeks to understand others", changed fourth sentence to: )

 

"He respects those with ideas and customs that are different from his own."

 

1999 change:

 

(Merged and rewrote third and fourth sentences into: )

 

"He offers his friendship to people of all races and nations, and respects them even if their beliefs and customs are different from his own."

 

And then there is "Kind." The 1911-1972 version is solely about being kind to animals. However, in 1972 a sentence was added and it is there today, without change:

 

"He treats others as he wants to be treated."

 

I think that includes "respect" as well. The concept if not the exact words, should of course sound familiar.

 

(By the way I am glad I used the preview function for this post, otherwise I would not have put a space in : ) the 3 times it appears, and it would have appeared as

[firstpusk 10]

Bob, my apologies. I was quoting Rooster's response to you. I know I should use the format capabilities. That would have made it clearer.

[packsaddle 753]

firstpusk, it was clear to me.

NJ, thanks for that piece of research, it was illuminating.

As I implied (but didn't make clear earlier) many of these conflicts are needless. We resolve them by allowing parents and families take the primary role in the matters of faith for their children. The BSA requirement is fairly simple. The signature on the application amounts to a simple check-off, yes or no, to the question of reverence. We see no need for further interrogation of a boy's faith by troop leaders... or BSA for that matter. The boy (or his family) is free to change his status at any time. In this context, the interpretation of 'reverence' is left to those whose 'reverence' is in question. I think that allows the broadest possible application of the policy and is fair enough. While it doesn't answer the specific questions that some (including me) have occasionally raised regarding the policy, it does serve as a pragmatic solution in application.

[firstpusk 10]

Rooster,

 

If you choose to be obtuse, that is your prerogative. The choice of analogy was particularly offensive and you would know it if you honestly reflected on it for even a moment.

 

I have noted other such "arguments" from you in the past on a number of different issues. When called on it you claim you have been misread. Soon after that you will question the intelligence, character or honesty of the person. You did not disappoint me this time either you questioned my integrity and asked for an honest debate. That is also your prerogative. However, if the intent of your post was only to discuss how you would proselytize outside of the BSA program, it would be easy enough to apologize for the lack of clarity in your writing and to simply say that.

 

I will reiterate what I said earlier. If you can not honestly respect the beliefs of others, find another program. The BSA can do better than a volunteer that is compelled to compare the faith practices of others in such a crass and mean-spirited manner.

 

[Bob White 20]

Packsaddle

 

In the unit you serve is a scout ever asked to site examples of how he lives by the Oath and Law? For instance is he ever asked how he is helpful, or how he is trustworthy? What about Reverent, or is that simple passed over?

 

Is he asked about his oath to help others at all times? Is he asked how he performs his duty to God or is that bypassed?

 

What activities does the unit do to help others at all times, or to keep the scout physically fit? What about his opportunities to do service to God?

 

You say he just has to sign the application and can change his mind anytime. What exactly do you mean by that?(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Jason OK 10]

I think I want to close this discussion.......I don't believe in all these personal attacks. Rooster and I have said what our faith is but no one else has the nads to say theirs. Let's just stop it here. What is scary is that there are some posts on here that don't even sound like they have any reverence in their life. and to have reverence ...are you not suppose to practice it?

[Rooster7 11]

Firstpusk,

 

If you choose to be obtuse, that is your prerogative.

 

Are you trying insult my intelligence or defame my honesty? Either way, it doesnt sound very friendly.

 

The choice of analogy was particularly offensive and you would know it if you honestly reflected on it for even a moment.

 

I think I defended my position on this rather well. Unfortunately, rather than directly address my argument, you offer slurs claiming I am being obtuse and offensive.

 

I have noted other such "arguments" from you in the past on a number of different issues. When called on it you claim you have been misread.

 

Okay, so now youre insinuating that I am a liar. Please produce some facts.

 

Soon after that you will question the intelligence, character or honesty of the person.

 

How ironic. If youre going to continue to make these statements, you should at least change your username to Mr. Kettle.

 

You did not disappoint me this time either you questioned my integrity and asked for an honest debate. That is also your prerogative.

 

You got me on that one. You attributed statements to me that I did not make. I called you on it that simple.

 

However, if the intent of your post was only to discuss how you would proselytize outside of the BSA program, it would be easy enough to apologize for the lack of clarity in your writing and to simply say that.

 

I see no need to apologize for your erroneous assumptions. Let me offer this instead: Dont jump to conclusions.

 

I will reiterate what I said earlier. If you can not honestly respect the beliefs of others, find another program.

 

Well, Im afraid that theres just no way I am going to respect the belief that a cow is a deity or that one day you or I might evolve into a god. So, if you respect those kinds of beliefs more power to you. Im not going to stand before my God and explain to Him why I gave any such notion any kind of credence.

 

The BSA can do better than a volunteer that is compelled to compare the faith practices of others in such a crass and mean-spirited manner.

 

Hmmmcrass and mean-spirited, I see you couldnt resist one last dig.

 

For a man who apparently takes pride in being open mindedas someone who has respect for every possible faith, you dont have much patience for someone who has a different perspective on the 12th point of the Scout Law. I find your logic difficult to comprehend. You can respect a man who worships a rock, but you cant respect the man whos offended by that belief. Evidently, one must respect all things if he wants to be respectable. The only thing that is not respectable is someone who refuses to respect all things. According to this kind of reasoning, all Scouts must support Universalism. This is the religious concept that proclaims all roads lead to God, and thus all beliefs about God are respectable. The God of the Bible is a jealous God. To say the least, He frowns on this kind of wavering. My faith demands that I recognize Him alone. To give respect to false beliefs is an affront to my God. This is my religious belief do you respect it? If not, for the sake of your intellectual and moral integrity, I recommend that you resign your position as a Scouter. If you do respect it, I think we can be friends.

 

[boleta 10]

 

"Well, Im afraid that theres just no way I am going to respect the belief..."

 

You freely admit that you will refuse to follow BSA guidelines with regard to reverence.

 

There is a clear difference between "accept" and "respect." The tenets of BSA do not ask you to accept these beliefs, only respect others that have them. As I have said before, if you cannot and will not do this, maybe you do not belong in the Boy Scouts of America. Maybe, like the atheist that mouths the words, "duty to God" and the homosexual who says "morally straight", those that do not respect the beliefs of others may continue to participate in scouting for other reasons- service to community and youth and so on. But they are still hypocrites. Methinks those in this thread that feel they are being insulted by observations like this do protest too much.

 

ps my religion has NO bearing on this subject.

 

 

[Jason OK 10]

Anyone that post a reply after this is a rotten egg. Nah nah nah nah nah.

[Rooster7 11]

Respect - to express deference, honor, or esteem towards.

 

Do you honor the beliefs of others, even when some of those beliefs defile your own beliefs about God?

 

As I said, I respect one's right to chose his own beliefs - BUT I do not necessarily respect the belief itself. As to whether or not some wanna-be-lawyer could have me disqualified as a leader, I'm not too concerned about it. I know who I am and what I'm about, as do those who know me. If the BSA expels me based on my treatment of the 12th point of the Scout Law, then they're not the organization that I gave them credit for being. I seriously doubt that this will come to pass.

 

Jason, if you smell something...that would be me...sorry about that chief! ;-)

[Eamonn 61]

I have to admit to not reading every word that has been posted.

I do have a few thoughts that may or may not be relevant to this thread.

I am a Roman Catholic.Raised in a family of Irish Roman Catholics. I attended Catholic Schools and was very active in the church. Serving as an Alter Boy and at one time I thought that I might enter the Priesthood. As a young Lad I felt sorry for all the people that were not Roman Catholics.My thinking then was that "We" were right and everyone else was wrong.

For a couple of years while at college,I questioned my faith and about the same time became active in The Young Socialists Party.All this time I was still active as a Venture Scout in London. Thanks to having many good friends some of them priests who took the time to talk with me, argue with me and spend time with me. I came back to the church. Looking back, maybe I should have quit Scouting for that time when I wasn't in line with doing my "Duty to God and the Queen." To tell the truth I was too busy enjoying the activities and never gave it any thought.

Time passed and I became the Scoutmaster. Even though the Scout Group (Still in the UK) wasn't connected to any church. There was a history of the Troop attending Church Parade. Once a month we would all wear our uniform and attend a Sunday service at the local church. I can't remember what denomination it was. I remember feeling that I was in some way cheating. I felt that I was letting my church down. The service being about as interesting as watching paint dry didn't help.

As the troop grew. we became more and more religiously diverse. With Scouts whose parents came from all over the globe attending this boring service seemed at that time a waste of time and maybe today it would even be considered offensive to the Scouts who were Buddhist's Muslims and Jewish.

I gave the matter some thought and remembered that Baden Powell had said that it was better to do good then be good. So I contacted the local hospital which was big, 15 floors. We as a troop would go to the hospital once a month and wheel the patients down to the hospital chapel for the Church of England Service. As it happened the Catholic mass was in the chapel earlier, so any of the Catholic Scouts could attend Mass with me.

The Scouts could attend the Church of England service or wait in the staff cafeteria until after the service when we wheeled the patients back.

More time passed and I was getting married. My wife is not a Catholic. We went to visit the parish priest. We had already agreed that any kids that we might have would be raised Roman Catholic. The Priest was a super nice chap. His mother was an American and he had converted to become a Catholic. We sat and talked for a while and he asked my wife to be if she was going to convert? She said "No." He then asked why? She looked him in the eye and said that she didn't think that his God was any different then her God. To which he replied "I can't argue with that."

I have sat in on a number of BOR and asked Scouts about God and have to admit to being pleasantly surprised at how many are active in their churches. I have asked if they think that we should take the "Duty to God" out of the Scout Oath and to date everyone of them has been shocked at the very idea.

I am still a Roman Catholic, I have many friends that are active in other religions some are priests and ministers in other religions. I no longer feel that they are wrong or feel sorry for them. I think the Big Fellow has many rooms in his house but the doors are always open.

I really hope so, I'm kind of looking forward to spending time with these guys.

Eamonn