Scouting Pet Peeve?

[MattR]

Seeing advancement become the sole purpose of scouting, then watching it get watered down to one and done and finally watching people in scouts wonder why parents don't put their kids in scouts anymore. 

 

[TheScouterDude]

6 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

The declaration of religious principals, god is male and pretty much defined as monotheistic "The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members."

And yet Scouting America has recognized the religious emblem awards of Buddhism and Hinduism for decades. The Guide to Advancement also states that "Scouting America does not define what constitutes belief in God or practice of religion." Both policy and practice contradict the notion that one must believe in a male monotheistic god in order to comply with the religious principles.

[mrjohns2]

3 minutes ago, TheScouterDude said:

Both policy and practice contradict the notion that one must believe in a male monotheistic god in order to comply with the religious principles.

To register as an adult, though, we all have agreed that we must "Subscribe to the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle." I'm not saying I like it, I am just saying all adult leaders have agreed to "The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members."

[TheScouterDude]

24 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

To register as an adult, though, we all have agreed that we must "Subscribe to the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle." I'm not saying I like it, I am just saying all adult leaders have agreed to "The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members."

Your previous post interpreted the Declaration of Religious Principle as "pretty much" requiring monotheism and belief in a male god. My post was arguing that there are many decades of precedence that the organization has not interpreted the Declaration of Religious Principle that way. The debate is about interpretation of the Declaration.

Additionally, the adult application does not require the applicant to agree to the entirety of the Declaration of Religious Principle:

Quote

Scouting America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life. Only persons willing to subscribe to these precepts from the Declaration of Religious Principle and the Bylaws of Scouting America shall be entitled to register.

It says "Only persons willing to subscribe to these precepts from the Declaration of Religious Principle and the Bylaws of Scouting America shall be entitled to register." That does not require agreeing to the entirety of the Declaration of Religious Principle and its exact wording, merely the precepts of it, which are summarized on the application.

Edited yesterday at 12:49 AM by TheScouterDude

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

18 hours ago, skeptic said:

Not sure what you are saying.  It specifically states "respect others' beliefs" and does not mention anything about monotheism or otherwise.  Pretty broad and subjective it seems to me.  But, whatever floats your boat, as some say.  

Sure, the Swedish Scout Law is very clearly broad, but the Scouting America version lends itself very, very easily to the misunderstanding demonstrated above. Retaining the original phrasing "Duty to God" with the g capitalized to boot is practically an invitation for certain Christians to interpret it as that being Christian is required when that would actually antithetical to the scouting movement has has been for many decades - as previously pointed out, one can easily quote BP on the subject, the current WOSM constitution defines Duty to God as “Adherence to spiritual principles, loyalty to the religion that expresses them and acceptance of the duties resulting therefrom,” there are religious awards for polytheist and non-theist religions in Scouting America already, and millions and millions of non-Christian (and non-theist, including atheist) scouts have existed for again many decades. It's a faît accompli. In fact, you can't be part of either WOSM or WAGGGS if you require a religious "purity test". 

It's a pet peeve of mine because it's so patently absurd that it's happening from my POV, having grown up in a non-Christian scouting organization, especially when other scouters get aggressive about it and even start telling me that having signed that religious declaration means I have to believe in a single god, as again demonstrated above. It comes off as gaslighting or crazy disrespectful at best. Should it be happening? Of course not. Does it happen anyway? Yes, yes it does, as demonstrated above.

What floats my boat is being left alone to pursue my "Duty to God" in peace and having other scouters respect my beliefs, and to never again have scouters telling my scout to practice Christianity randomly in a crowd at a scouting event. I do not want them to be a Christian and I don't appreciate other adults taking over religious instruction of my child.

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

8 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

The declaration of religious principals, god is male and pretty much defined as monotheistic "The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members."

You missed the fine print - Scouting America explicitly says that they mean nothing in particular by the word "God" in the Declaration of Religious Principle.

And the reason they do this is that they can't require what it says if "God" means the usual everyday interpretation in US context of the Christian god and still stay in the Scouting movement. Either the statement can't mean what it seems to say, or they have to exit the movement. TBH it seems like a setup - they want it to be read as the usual everyday meaning but rely on a legalistic trick of not meaning anything in particular with the word "God" to stay in the movement.

I balked at the statement because I knew this immediately and therefore read the fine print associated with the asterisk on the word "God" - and there it was. God can be your cat if you like, Scouting America means nothing in particular with the word in that declaration. But that's of course not what most readers will take away from it. It sets up this very situation.

[scoutldr]

I just realized a pet peeve....people who disagree with and are obviously unhappy with the organization, yet continue to voluntarily sigh up for it.

[InquisitiveScouter]

5 minutes ago, scoutldr said:

I just realized a pet peeve....people who disagree with and are obviously unhappy with the organization, yet continue to voluntarily sigh up for it.

So, you'd rather everyone drink the Kool-aid? And if they do not want to, nor fall in line with everything, then they should leave?

[Armymutt]

2 hours ago, scoutldr said:

I just realized a pet peeve....people who disagree with and are obviously unhappy with the organization, yet continue to voluntarily sigh up for it.

It's definitely something that confuses me.  Why would you sign up with an organization that has ideas you disagree with and then change them?  Why not create your own organization?

[Eagle94-A1]

1 hour ago, Armymutt said:

It's definitely something that confuses me.  Why would you sign up with an organization that has ideas you disagree with and then change them?  Why not create your own organization?

Some folks had signed up with an organization that you agree with, and over time the organization changes their ideas in an attempt to attract new members..

[Tron]

15 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

So, you'd rather everyone drink the Kool-aid? And if they do not want to, nor fall in line with everything, then they should leave?

OH YEAH

 

13 hours ago, Armymutt said:

It's definitely something that confuses me.  Why would you sign up with an organization that has ideas you disagree with and then change them?  Why not create your own organization?

I think Eagle94 has a valid point but ... 

11 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Some folks had signed up with an organization that you agree with, and over time the organization changes their ideas in an attempt to attract new members..

I see your point, there are definitely a lot of 1940s crowd that I can understand feel bamboozled as the organization has evolved over the years. There is also the issue of all of BP's original writings, trying to reconcile the purpose statement from the congressional charter with the current aims and methods, etc ... what this organization is at the core is definitely something different than what most units/districts/councils are running. 

I will say that there are some evolutional things that people are fighting that is just absurd (use of technology for record keeping, stricter youth protection, updating of manuals to include modern knowledge/research into youth development and personal growth). If an evolution of the program does not contradict the congressional charter or BP's writings I think we should be open to that change in order to meet the needs of modern society and the survival of the program. 

[qwazse]

Now that we’re in the throes of WW-III,  I can see that belief in God should face a healthy dose of skepticism, and faith in atheism is not the same as abdication to totalitarianism. Those were merely the exemplars that were elevated in the last Cold War.

But while I was a young adult sorting things out, I came to divide people into a more subtle rubric, and I think the BSA of the 70s gave me a framework to do this. There are those who want to follow their religion, and those who want their religion to follow them. I’d be tempted to say that actions of the latter would be a pet peeve, but the Good Lord put them both here for a reason and learning from both is part of our journey.

[InquisitiveScouter]

The OP also ignores elements of complexity in the organization...

When you first "sign up", you really have no idea what you are getting into.  The organizational structures and policies are discovered or revealed to you over time. (Or they change...)

It is also naive to expect anyone to agree 100% with every policy or decision that comes down the pipe.

The organization is made of people... and people often make poor decisions. 

I agree with the ideals, aims, and methods of Scouting, and I pursue those.  I find the organization is often at war within itself because of policies, actions, decisions taken which do not coherently align with the ideals, aims, and methods.

Here is a case in point... The Scout Oath presents a tenet to us to be morally straight.  For most of its history, BSA prohibited open homosexuals from being adult leaders in the organization.  They even won a challenge to this policy in the Supreme Court.  In my faith and belief, acts of homosexuality are a moral evil.  Therefore, I did not, and do not support the BSA's reversal on this policy.  I can tolerate the policy, but I do not accept it.  There is a difference...

I have learned to reconcile this, given the circumstances of BSA's other policies surrounding the issue... to wit, our CO has the latitude to prohibit adults who openly profess or practice homosexuality, and our Troop Committee / parents will not accept a leader into our fold who does so.  These parents do not wish their children to be exposed to these ideas in our Scouting environment.  Further, BSA policy specifically prohibits discussions of these matters in a Scouting setting.  So, the issue should never be brought up.  In effect, this is equivalent to a don't ask, don't tell policy.

I do encounter volunteers in BSA who openly push the issue.  I simply disengage and walk away.

See item 6. in the Scouter Code of Conduct: "I will not discuss or engage in any form of sexual conduct while engaged in Scouting activities. I will refer Scouts with questions regarding these topics to talk to their parents or spiritual advisor."

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

18 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

So, you'd rather everyone drink the Kool-aid? And if they do not want to, nor fall in line with everything, then they should leave?

I notice you got no reply, probably because you have a good point. Especially because this forum is full of complaints from many people who refused the Kool-Aid on various points.

Once a scout, always a scout. If everyone started a new scouting organization every time they disagreed with something in an existing NSO or MO, there would be no movement left. People's Front of Judea/Judean People's Front kind of stuff. The Scouting America Scout Law even has Loyal in it - you don't go splinter off in a huff just because you see a problem.

No, you go fix the problem instead, which starts with defining and talking about it. Clearly not everyone even agrees that pressuring non-Christian scouts and scouters to be Christian or at the very least accept second class citizen status and stop complaining about it even is a problem in the first place, so there's obviously a need to talk about it.

[AwakeEnergyScouter]

2 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

I have learned to reconcile this, given the circumstances of BSA's other policies surrounding the issue... to wit, our CO has the latitude to prohibit adults who openly profess or practice homosexuality, and our Troop Committee / parents will not accept a leader into our fold who does so.  These parents do not wish their children to be exposed to these ideas in our Scouting environment.  Further, BSA policy specifically prohibits discussions of these matters in a Scouting setting.  So, the issue should never be brought up.  In effect, this is equivalent to a don't ask, don't tell policy.

We disagree on this issue, but arguably us both being involved and running units makes Scouting America stronger and more able to serve all interested youth. Families that like your unit on this issue won't like ours and vice versa - but the result is that all families can find a unit they feel welcome in.

When there is a single NSO in a country (as opposed to the WOSM NSO being an umbrella organization for several scouting organizations with separate leadership, uniforms, etc), that NSO needs to contain a lot of different kinds of units or be content to serve only a small part of the youth. So, having units with different approaches (sometimes in quite sharp disagreement) is the only way forward unless one is ready to accept niche status, which I imagine no one here is. 

Edited 3 hours ago by AwakeEnergyScouter
Typo