Humanist is now a religion.

[PbW 28]

 

Where did you find those "rules", DigitalScout? I am not aware of any BSA rules or policies that name specific religious groups as being permitted or prohibited. Although it's a little difficult to know exactly what the policy is, my understanding is that if you believe in a higher power you are eligible for membership, otherwise, you are not. I don't know whether that necessarily includes or excludes any of the groups you name - except for Satanism. I guess Satan would be a "higher power." But keep in mind that a Scout also needs to subscribe to the rest of the Scout Oath and Law, not just the Duty to God and Reverent parts. I suspect a true Satanist might have difficulty complying with some of those points.

 

 

There are many different forms of Satanism, but the most common is based on the writings of Anton LaVey. If one follows LaVey's version of Satanism they are actually humanist/atheist. That form of Satanism uses Satan metaphorically and not literally. Satan was chosen as a representational icon of the antithesis of what christianity was about. It all started when LaVey was a organist at a traveling carnival and would see "good christians" being debaucherous and celebrating the flesh then coming to the church on Sunday to repent. He recognized that humans are just animals that celebrate such but feel the guilt placed upon them by religion and wanted some form of forgiveness for that. His thought was to forego the forgiveness and just celebrate being the human animal that one is.

 

Granted there are types of Satanism that actually believe they should follow the christian version of Satan on Earth and repent to God on their deathbed to be forgiven, but those are few and far between.

[LeCastor 641]

I recently bought a copy of Jim Boeger's book The Scoutmaster which is long out of print (1978). It's very inspiring and there are loads of funny stories about things any Scoutmaster has experienced in the out-of-doors.

 

However, one of things that I found interesting was that Boeger says it's worth it to be a Scouter because you get to see boys grow up to be fine "Christian" men. This is something I have often found off-putting when it comes to the public's perception of the BSA. We aren't a Christian organization yet many of our units are chartered to Christian churches/wards, sure.

 

Later, when discussing the character-building aspects of Scouting, Boeger says that he'd be surprised if anyone could find fault with the Movement barring "communists and atheists". That really made me LOL. While we're not so worried about the Russians these days, the atheists are lapping at our shores...ready to take us down! I jest.

[DigitalScout 75]

 

Where did you find those "rules", DigitalScout? I am not aware of any BSA rules or policies that name specific religious groups as being permitted or prohibited. Although it's a little difficult to know exactly what the policy is, my understanding is that if you believe in a higher power you are eligible for membership, otherwise, you are not. I don't know whether that necessarily includes or excludes any of the groups you name - except for Satanism. I guess Satan would be a "higher power." But keep in mind that a Scout also needs to subscribe to the rest of the Scout Oath and Law, not just the Duty to God and Reverent parts. I suspect a true Satanist might have difficulty complying with some of those points.

 

 

You are right, the BSA does not call out specific religious groups as being permitted or prohibited. The BSA Religious Principles are very broad and does not define belief in God or religious practice or require membership in any religious organization. And The BSA respects the "constitutional freedom to practice religion as individuals." In that light, UFO and Lucifer worshippers would qualify.

 

 

[TAHAWK 1420]

Well, then you can rule on whether this organization qualifies: http://rdna.info/ (^___^)

[DuctTape 1231]

Was flipping through one of the many scout books I have in my collection today. It happened to be the 1952 printing of the Scout Fieldbook. I never noticed it before since I used the fieldbook mostly for scoutcraft and campcraft, but in the description of the scout law, specifically reverent the author (West and Hillcourt) wrote "A scout is Reverent. it is important that you show your reverence in your deeds. As a matter of fact, keeping the Twelfth Scout Law, is simply keeping the other eleven. By following the Scout Law, you follow the Law of God also." I thought that writing was interesting in context of this discussion.

[Fehler 118]

Nothing wrong with the Reformed Druids of North America. Fun, good people, several of whom are also Christian and Scouters (myself among those ranks).

[MattR 2667]

"By following the Scout Law, you follow the Law of God also."

 

I'd say that's a good lesson for the entire world. Especially the part in Reverent about respecting the religious beliefs of others.

 

The 12th point is a paradox and that needs to come out in front. My religion or beliefs are absolute and none other can be correct, and at the same time I have to accept that different people have different beliefs that work for them. The only thing preventing people to handle that paradox is religious pride. So if the humanists/druids/wickans/whatever say their beliefs encourage the first 11 points than who am I to judge their beliefs?

 

​I just read Bruce Feiler's book "Abraham: A Journey to the Heart of Three Faiths" and it describes the history of the story of Abraham. Everyone has modified that story to encourage their point of view and encourage their beliefs. The bottom line is getting past religious pride. There has been progress but it has a ways to go. Wouldn't it be cool if the BSA encouraged that?

[AZMike 173]

Sounds like the U.S. Navy and the Bureau of Prisons aren't on board with the "Humanism is a Religion" claim: http://www.religionnews.com/2014/11/06/navy-faces-suit-denying-humanist-chaplains/

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

They'll have to be, though. The Army allows soldiers to put "Humanist" as their religious designation, and they are required to serve the needs of soldiers. Also, excluding a chaplain because of his religious views would be a religious test in violation of Article VI.

 

And just last month in American Humanist Association v. United States, a federal court ruled that Humanist prisoners are to get the same treatment as religious prisoners in forming things like study groups (which, in the prison where the plaintiff resides, prisoners' religious meetings have fewer restrictions compared to other groups of prisoners).

[TAHAWK 1420]

So the Army is the final word in things legal? The Navy? USBP? Was not always thus in ACLU Land.

 

And a federal judge is a federal judge. Was his opinion in a published opinion and order? If not, it has no presidential value even in the district in which His Honor sits.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Why so defensive, tahawk? Religions without a supreme being have been part of US jurisprudence for decades. Why should it even matter to you?

[TAHAWK 1420]

Why so defensive' date=' tahawk? Religions without a supreme being have been part of US jurisprudence for decades. Why should it even matter to you?[/quote']

 

 

Why so defensive, Merlyn?.

 

I didn't cite an opinion that has no controlling legal force as somehow dispositive. That's misleading. There must be better authority for equal treatment in the cases on atheism being treated equally with religions, although those decisions are a problem, are they not?

 

As for citing military practice, the executive branch, from time to time, confuses itself with the other two branches. The military has been wrong on civil rights many times, and the ACLU has reminded them of that.

 

You argument begs the question. That a form of atheism is entitled to equal treatment with religions does not make it a religion.

 

Why does it matter? I dislike arguments based on false assertions of authority. They are a form of bullying.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Why so defensive' date=' Merlyn?.[/quote']

 

Sorry, you can't steal that after I've used it.

 

I didn't cite an opinion that has no controlling legal force as somehow dispositive.

 

I didn't notice you citing ANY opinion, apart from your own. And what I pointed out was accurate -- the Army allows soldiers to designate themselves as "Humanist", so the Army will be required to serve them equally, and having chaplains for Christians but not Humanists isn't equal.

 

That's misleading. There must be better authority for equal treatment in the cases on atheism being treated equally with religions' date=' although those decisions are a problem, are they not?[/quote']

 

No, they are not.

 

As for citing military practice' date=' the executive branch, from time to time, confuses itself with the other two branches. The military has been wrong on civil rights many times, and the ACLU has reminded them of that.[/quote']

 

What are you babbling about now?

 

You argument begs the question. That a form of atheism is entitled to equal treatment with religions does not make it a religion.

 

I haven't been saying that. Can you read?

 

Why does it matter? I dislike arguments based on false assertions of authority. They are a form of bullying.

 

What "false assertions of authority"? Who is being bullied? What are you babbling about? Do you think treating Humanists as having equal rights is somehow "bullying"??

[TAHAWK 1420]

Any questions?

[packsaddle 753]

I admit that I'm glad to interrupt this kerfuffle, but to respond to TAHAWK, I do have a couple of questions. I tried for my entire youth to be a good Presbyterian but there were aspects of that flavor of Protestantism that I could never understand, mainly predestination. Like I've mentioned before, I admit that I sucked as a Presbyterian. And as I've wandered through the other flavors and met similar lack of understanding I have at least managed to understand, albeit in simplistic terms, what atheism is as well as agnosticism (sensu Huxley). But this concept of 'humanism' is right up there with transubstantiation, predestination, and so many others.

[Here I also mention that I've been told that regardless of what I do, I could never become a real 'Jew'....and that actually hurts some, more than sucking at Presbyterianism actually]

 

I've read numerous opinions on what a 'humanist' is but it seems that every one of them is an authority and they don't agree. So...who IS the ultimate authority for the defining characteristics of 'humanism'? What IS that set of defining characteristics? What or who made THEM the authority on 'humanism'? Moreover, regardless of legal precedents (which are almost as much 'gobbledegook' to me as all those religious things I've mentioned already), what is it about 'humanism' that either qualifies it as a religion or alternatively, disqualifies it as a religion. From what little I think I understand about it, I think it might be possible for me to become a 'humanist' but I'm just not all that certain. Maybe all I need to do is TELL people I'm a humanist and that will make me one? Kind of like how so many members of those Protestant flavors do.

Help me understand this stuff.

H'mm....maybe Hinduism? Nah....way, WAY too complicated.