The Bright Movement.....

[le Voyageur 72]

Interesting....

 

http://the-brights.net/

 

?....should Brights be excluded from Scouting?

 

thoughts????

[ntrog8r 19]

I'm not sure if you're asking for opinion or BSA policy but they already are...

 

From the membership application: "The Boy Scouts of 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".

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/28-406.pdf

 

Since the Brights share the philosophy of Naturalism, and more specifically metaphysical(or ontological) naturalism, and so are atheists.

[scoutldr 726]

"Think about your own worldview to decide if it is free of supernatural or mystical deities, forces, and entities. If you decide that you fit the description above, then you are, by definition, a bright!"

 

Seems clear to me...no "higher power" there...

 

 

[SSScout 1615]

I hear "ego led" rather than "spirit led".

 

But then, maybe worship of "nature" could be a religion? Or worship of one's self? The supremacy of the individual?

Belive in only what one can "see"?

[Kahuna 172]

Speaking as a Buddhist, if we meet the criteria, they do too.

[Twocubdad 665]

Did you read their web site? It sounds like they're most interested in protecting the copyright on "Bright." Trust me, no one is going to steal this idea.....

 

 

 

 

 

This thread has been brought to you by the California Nut Growers Cooperative

 

 

[mmhardy 10]

What would be the point of excluding them? Is there some kind of test BSA has? What is the threshold that a group has to meet?

[Dimemaker 10]

I don't know if over the pond they have the same restrictions with Boy Scouting but they have some interesting religions due to registration laws a few years back.

 

*clears throat*

 

http://www.jedichurch.org/

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

What is this 'higher power' that so many of us refer to?

The word 'higher' is ambiguous. Sometimes it is synonymous with 'greater' but often means at a greater elevation (ngvd). Or it could refer to someone smoking marijuana. 'Power' on the other hand is a well-defined physical entity. Or it is sometimes misused as synonymous with 'energy' or 'work' or 'force' or political influence, etc.

On the assumption that this is a reference to some religious concept, why not just say what the 'higher power' is? ...Why pussyfoot around with the term when Flying Spaghetti Monster is what you're talking about, or maybe just Rah. If we believe in Rah but fail to give Rah the direct credit Rah deserves by referring obliquely to some 'higher power', does anyone think that perhaps Rah might feel a bit slighted? Rah just might exert some of Rah's power to smite someone who didn't make Rah's position clear. After all, Rah is a jealous god, right? Visiting iniquities all over the place and all sorts of other mischief. Good thing for us that Rah is just a myth though. Things on the planet might start warming up.

 

Kahuna, good point.

 

Edited typo(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[BadenP 93]

Well I admit it is a little unusual but it does contain elements of both the Buddist and Shinto religions which views a "creator essence" within the elements of nature, and since both of these religious traditions are accepted by the BSA then Kahuna is correct as to what grounds are you using to reject them? The BSA requires a belief in a higher power which is not necessarily a Godhead, so ntro & scoutldr definitions are not necessarily correct.

[shortridge 184]

Is there more to the DRP that uses the phrase "higher power"? Or does it just refer to "God"?

[packsaddle 753]

Shortridge,

The DRP uses "God" (capital G). The term 'higher power' is thrown around as a PC attempt to broaden the application of the DRP so that faiths that clearly should be excluded (such as Buddhism) can be included. I view it as a self-deception when it's used by someone...and a pretty transparent one at that, perhaps hypocritical.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

● Declaration of Religious Principle, Bylaws of Boy Scouts of America, art. IX, 1, cl. 1

 

The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise the member declares, On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law. 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. No matter what the religious faith of the members may be, this fundamental need of good citizenship should be kept before them. The Boy Scouts of America, 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 the organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life.

 

http://www.bsalegal.org/duty-to-god-cases-224.asp

 

[BadenP 93]

Pack then it becomes how do you define GOD? Is the true God the Christian one, the Jewish or Muslim one, leaving out the individual denomination definitions, which are mostly imperfect human attempts to put God into some kind of box or context we can deal with. God is in reality a higher power, creative source beyond all human understanding and definition, even the Bible confirms that, and this leaves the DRP definition rather simplistic and theologically innaccurate. Jesus himself states in the Bible, that God's kingdom is not of this world, so how can God be the ruling power of this world? Rather he gave humanity this world "to have dominion over it", and look how we have screwed it up. That is only the Christian idea of God, what about all the other faiths in the world.

 

You see what a slippery slope this argument is, because there is no one correct definition and God transcends all human knowledge and comprehension. So the DRP by its very definition needs to either be broadened in its scope or eliminated entirely.

[packsaddle 753]

BadenP writes, "God is in reality a higher power, creative source beyond all human understanding and definition, even the Bible confirms that, and this leaves the DRP definition rather simplistic and theologically innaccurate."

BadenP, this is your personal view. It might agree with mine or someone else's but as you note, the concept is completely undefined by the DRP. However in the DRP 'god' IS written with a capital 'G' and that implies not just any ol' god but the one and true GOD which, as you also understand, is different for just about every religion, perhaps individual. Not to mention that it is broadened sufficiently to allow for religions that worship no god at all or many of them.

 

I agree with your assessment about the slippery slope and I suggest that the slippery slope is unavoidable. To make my view as clear as possible, I view the DRP as equivocal, nebulous, ambiguous, and idiotic. It obviously is applied unequally and interpreted differently by many people. It should be discarded.