Scouts and Religion?

[Loki]

Atheist Scout fights decision to boot him (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134564883_boyscout29m.html)

The Chief Seattle Council of the Boy Scouts has given Eagle Scout Darrell Lambert about a week to decide "in his heart" if he's truly an atheist. If he insists on sticking to his belief that there is no God, the Council will terminate his membership.
"No way" is he going to change his beliefs, says Lambert, who has been in scouting since he was 9 years old. "It'd be like me asking them to change their belief. It's not going to happen."
...
The Scouts exclude atheists and gays.
...
"You need to have a recognition of a supreme being," said Farmer. "We as the Boy Scouts do not define what that is, but you need to have a recognition."
...
Whether Lambert will be allowed to stay remains in doubt, but last night he explained his predicament to the parents of the kids in his Port Orchard troop, Troop 1531. He laid out the choices and asked for their support.
...
The parents were crowded into a back room in the basement of a chapel at the Washington Veterans' Home in Retsil, Kitsap County, while their children celebrated Halloween. They asked him questions and came to his defense.

"Did your belief change some time when you were going up?" asked one mom.

"I don't see where religious beliefs come into play when we teach them to camp" said another.

I guess it's legal, but sensible? Or moral?

[PotatoStew]

Sensible? No, at least I don't think so.

Moral? Probably. From the organization's point of view, it's moral because it is consistent with their morals, values and beliefs. From the atheist's point of view, I would think it would have to be considered moral as well, in the sense that if there is no objective, God-given morality, you must allow that the organization's morals are as valid as any other set of morals, and since they are adhering to their own morals, the act is therefore by definition a moral one.

[Franko]

I don't know ... if you form a club ... you meet at Your house -- your friends.

Is it fair that someone else tells you who is allowed to come over?

I mean ... isn't it Your club? Why should someone else with a different agenda get to control your club? Why can't they start their own club?

[Checkmite]

I may be able to offer a little bit of insight into this matter. I'm an Assistant Scoutmaster for Troop 318 (Lorain, Ohio), and have been in this particular troop since I was 15 or so - though as a precaution, I should assert that I can't really speak for the troop or BSA as a whole.

The BSA. as the article notes, requires that its members believe in God, though it does not specify which particular God. God features alot in scouting; "A scout is reverent" is the 12th point of the Boy Scout Law. He's also mentioned in the Scout Oath, in which a Scout promises on his honor to "do my duty to God and my country". Many Scoutcamp-hosted activities involve religion, such as prayers before meals, etc.

In other words, unlike the Pledge of Allegiance (to which God was added only later), God has been part and parcel of Scouting since the very beginning, and is an integral part of the organization's cultural identity. To ask the Boy Scouts to take a neutral stance on God is like asking the Salvation Army or the A.F.A.M.'s to do the same. Tradition is important; the Boy Scouts are more than just a club where "we teach them to camp". (That statement from the parent is the only thing about this article that bothers me...it tells me as a leader that either the troop in question isn't doing it's job, or there's a serious lack of communication somewhere.)

Having said that, I suppose the logical question to ask would be "Why can't the Boy Scouts keep the religious references and still allow atheists to join?" While I would have no problem having an atheist in the troop (a former scout in my troop was atheist for certain, though he never admitted it openly, and I suspect a current one is), I think the problem the organization is mulling over is one of accomodation. The atheist scout in my troop had no problem pledging to obey God and reciting the Reverent point of the law (although this may be moot; my Troop is something like the Bad News Bears of Scouting :D), and apparently the Scout referred to in the article had no problem declaring his alleged faith until now, and I don't think it's a stretch to suppose that many troops throughout the world have such members. When a Scout says "Yes, I believe in God", we give him the benefit of the doubt. When, however, one complains about "all the God stuff", we have a dilemma. Being a Scout means living the Oath and Law, and a Scout who declares that he doesn't believe in God can't really do that. And abolishing the stance on religion is, as I have already argued, out of the question. Thus, the Scout is offered two alternatives: play by the rules or leave.

Seeing a kid who is a freethinker (even an athiest) inspires me greatly - it's just that this particular organization is not one that wants to deal with those issues. And right now, I think the lessons the kids do learn in Scouting are too important to take a back seat in the face of this issue.

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by Franko
I don't know ... if you form a club ... you meet at Your house -- your friends.

Is it fair that someone else tells you who is allowed to come over?

I mean ... isn't it Your club? Why should someone else with a different agenda get to control your club? Why can't they start their own club?

But if he then goes and talks to all of your friends, and convinces them that he should be in the club, and then they stop meeting at your and meet at their houses?

Sheesh. It's not like he's trying to get a court ruling. He's trying to convince members of the Scouts that he shouldn't be excluded. Change from within and all that.

[Victor Danilchenko]

I think what the Scouts are doing is not unreasonable. Unethical and discriminatory, sure -- but they have a right to do so. What they don't have a right to, is the state support of their discriminatory practices. Currently, I understand, BSA depends on the state in multiple ways for various facilities and functions.

[K-W]

At least in my town growing up scouts advertised in our elementary school.

[zakur]

From American Atheists (http://www.atheists.org/):The Scouting program is far more than a private club; it enjoys a special relationship with governments, especially the federal government. BSA formally incorporated on February 8, 1910 and was "Chartered by Congress" in 1916. It is one of several dozen "Patriotic Societies and Observances" listed under the United States Code, Title 36, groups which include The American Legion, Daughters of the American Revolution, Navy Club of the United States of America, Civil Air Patrol, Little League Baseball, Inc., Gold Star Wives of America, and Former Members of Congress. It is this special status -- acting under a Congressional Charter -- which critics of Scout discrimination say should qualify the BSA and its programs for coverage under anti-discrimination statutes. In addition, the President of the United States is consider the honorary head or "Commander-in-Chief" of the Boy Scouts organization.AA's article on this latest controversy can be found here (http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/bsa9.htm). Check out his doozy from that article:The District Chairman, Glen Schmidt, reportedly said, "I asked scouts during the training if they believe in god and if they don't I boot them out. In order for scouts to become good citizens they must believe in god."

Schmidt then continued, "Anyone that doesn't believe in god isn't a good citizen." He delivered a homily stating that if an Atheist happened to find a wallet laying on the ground, they would "pick it up (and) plunder the money."

Another scout leader identified as Dave Jones then reportedly told Lambert's mother, "If you have any other boys in the scouts that don't believe in god they need to be kicked out..."

[evildave]

Boy Scouts of America: Religious and sexual orientation discrimination (http://www.religioustolerance.org/bsa.htm)

The BSA and its funding sources (http://www.religioustolerance.org/bsa_4.htm)

More related research info. It seems the United Way already pulled the plug on all their BSA funding over 'gays'. Other sources have been drying up as well.

Hey! Maybe they can sell "Boy Scout Cookies"!


The ReligionToday News Summary reported on 2000-AUG-30 that: "Some support for the Boy Scouts is eroding. In the two months since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts of America has a constitutional right to exclude homosexuals, Chicago, San Francisco, and San Jose, Calif., have told local Scout troops that they can no longer use parks and schools...Large companies including Chase Manhattan Bank and Textron Inc., have withdrawn hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding, and numerous United Ways have cut off funds amounting to millions of dollars a year."

The Connecticut state government "banned contributions to the Scouts by state employees through a state-run charity." The Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities is evaluating whether to allow the BSA to continue to use public campgrounds, public schools, and other state-owned buildings.

The city of Fort Lauderdale, FL, voted in 2000-SEP to discontinue a grant to the local Boy Scouts. They would have given $4,000 to the BSA Learning for Life program which benefits public school children in high crime areas. At a support rally for the BSA, Larry Thompson, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Fort Lauderdale presented a check for $10,200 to the Scouts to offset the loss of municipal funding. In the same area of Florida, Broward County approved a $92,884 grant for the Scouts, but require them to sign a contract which includes a non-discrimination clause. This they cannot sign because one of the prohibited grounds for discrimination is sexual orientation. Also, Miami-Dade schools have postponed a Scout recruitment drive. "Miami Beach City Commission on [2000] Sept. 13 voted unanimously to preliminarily approve a new ordinance that would prevent the Boy Scouts from using city facilities for free." 2

In Michigan, the city councils of Ann Arbor and Detroit banned payroll deductions from city employees to the Scouts and prohibited police and fire departments from sponsoring scout troops. This was required by the cities' human rights ordinances.

[Checkmite]

The District Chairman, Glen Schmidt, reportedly said, "I asked scouts during the training if they believe in god and if they don't I boot them out. In order for scouts to become good citizens they must believe in god."

Schmidt then continued, "Anyone that doesn't believe in god isn't a good citizen." He delivered a homily stating that if an Atheist happened to find a wallet laying on the ground, they would "pick it up (and) plunder the money."

Another scout leader identified as Dave Jones then reportedly told Lambert's mother, "If you have any other boys in the scouts that don't believe in god they need to be kicked out..."

This sort of idiocy, when spouted by an excuse for a Scout leader, truly makes me want to crawl under a rock.:(

On the other hand,

Originally posted by evildave
More related research info. It seems the United Way already pulled the plug on all their BSA funding over 'gays'. Other sources have been drying up as well.

Hey! Maybe they can sell "Boy Scout Cookies"!

...this sort of reaction pisses me off. Individual units have been at odds with Council and with National many times before; the views are not always the same. But when action of the sort defined by the article evildave quoted is taken, National and Council don't flinch. They won't really lose any money, even given the recent spate of funding withdrawal. The people who do lose money are the individual units, the troops and packs - who typically have nothing to do with the controversy.

The only way any money you give to a particular troop goes anywhere else is when you buy Trail's End popcorn (the boy scout version of the girls' cookies). The proceeds from the popcorn sales go straight up the line, with only something of a commission staying with any particular troop. That's one reason our troop doesn't do the popcorn thing - trust me, a lot of the time, the only thing that ties a troop to National or even Council is that they wear the uniform and use the handbook. If you want to make a statement, don't buy the popcorn. But when a troop puts on a car wash or a bake sale, or something similar, your dollars aren't going up to fund the sort of intolerance it seems National may be espousing. Remember, this atheist Scout's troop has voted to support him.

By the way....is it just me, or does "Glen Schmidt" the District Chairman remind anyone else of Franko?

[stamenflicker]

I guess it's legal, but sensible? Or moral?

Man, I'm reminded of how different I really am from folks here on this board. My objections are:

1) I don't think what they are doing is one bit legal. It violates the spirit (though not the letter) of the 1st amendment.

2) It seems completely sensible. If you want your boys growing up theists, then it would be non-sensible to allow atheists.

3) It is completely immoral. Because morality for me demands inclusiveness. How can I know my morality is the best morality unless I have mercilessly beaten all other moralities into skull slivers of idiocy? ;)

Flick

[Loki]

Flick,

1. Legality. Being non-American, I'm loath to try and figure out where the Amendments end and legislation starts - I'll leave it to your Supreme Court to decide. "Legal at least until the Appeal" is perhaps the way to phrase it?

2. Sensible. Okay, an easily overloadable word. I was thinking "not-sensible" as in "making too much out of too little", or perhaps as in "comparing Apples and Oranges". But I guess such a position is intrinsically a relative one, so calling it "sensible" is viable if you define the framework a certain way!

3. Morality. With you on this one. I disagree with Potato's response - I would have thought that such an attitude (exclude those who don't 'see the light') would be directly against some fairly basic christian principles - and would make it very difficult to gain converts! Following on from you 'grace' theories, aren't atheists the sort of people *most* in need of a christian support system?

[stamenflicker]

Morality. With you on this one. I disagree with Potato's response - I would have thought that such an attitude (exclude those who don't 'see the light') would be directly against some fairly basic christian principles - and would make it very difficult to gain converts! Following on from you 'grace' theories, aren't atheists the sort of people *most* in need of a christian support system?

I'm not sure Loki... but I know I wouldn't want my position taken by default. I like honest debate and a good moral kick in the crotch. I don't think PS interpreted the question the same way I did though. I'm curious to hear his position under this manner of interpretation.

Flick

[Loki]

Flick,

(PotatoStew wrote) : From the organization's point of view, it's moral because it is consistent with their morals, values and beliefs.
Not wishing to put Potato on trial in his absence, but this quote seems to say that excluding atheists from activities involving (run by) christians is a moral behaviour. Perhaps it is. Just feels a little "unchristian".

[stamenflicker]

Loki,

I think PS is right (i agree we should not discuss this in his absence) that the organization has the "sensible" right to decide, and perhaps even the moral right.... though I struggle in the latter for the reasons outlined above. True morality must include dissent, IMHO. I realize with the word "must" I have begun to what Adler called, "musterbate," but that seems reasonable given the climate of subjectivity and the dubiousness of absolutist moral claims.

I still think theism is morally superior to atheism, lest I be something other than theist. Yet confident enough to allow all voices into the picture for the sole purpose of refusing a winning trophy by default. This is the ultimate moral issue for me.

Flick

[PotatoStew]

Originally posted by Loki

Not wishing to put Potato on trial in his absence, but this quote seems to say that excluding atheists from activities involving (run by) christians is a moral behaviour. Perhaps it is. Just feels a little "unchristian".

I was looking at it from a slightly relativistic viewpoint (and admittedly trying to bait the atheists here... just a little bit). Really, we would need to agree on a definition or standard of "moral" before we could decide if it was moral or not, wouldn't we? For example, if I drink alcohol, is that an immoral activity? According to some people it is.

From my own personal viewpoint, I definitely don't think their decision is moral. I'm not fully convinced that it's immoral though. Silly and misguided, yes, but I'm not positive that it qualifies as immoral. I'd be willing to be convinced otherwise though.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Loki
Atheist Scout fights decision to boot him (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134564883_boyscout29m.html)


I guess it's legal, but sensible? Or moral?

In my day, I was (and still am) proud to be an Eagle Scout, but I'm ashamed of the stance BSA has taken with atheists and gays. When Lord Baden Powell set up the Scouts, he added the religious element with the hopes that Scouting would encourage boys to find religion on their own terms, not cram it down their throats. Nor did he intend to exclude anyone because they didn't believe in God. This decision by the BSA is outright incorrect and flat out wrong.

Now, I agree that they have the legal right to exclude whomever they wish, Ias a member, I think this is the wrong decision and not worthy of the tradition of Boy Scouts.

Here (http://www.scoutingforall.org/) is an organization that is trying to work from within the BSA to change it's policy about gays and atheists. Even though it more weighted towards the gay side of the issue than the atheist side of the issue, it's still an excellent organization.

Upchurch

[Upchurch]

I'd just like to add that Scouting is the closest thing I have to a religion (despite what some people think). It's trained me to be a good person and to be ready to help other should the need ever arise. It's a solid system of values that does not require a god to make it work. The only reward that BS offers for doing good is the possibility that good might be done for you by others. I think I'm a better person for it.

Upchurch

[Loki]

Potato,

...and admittedly trying to bait the atheists here... just a little bit...
The bait was noted, but I decided to let it go because we've thrashed around the moral relative/objective issue a few times, and I wanted to see how the thread might develop.

At the risk of going back over old ground, I have to say that I do find the theory "if morals are relative, then anything *you* want to do is okay" as being simplistic in the extreme. Equating "Relative" with "only your opinion counts" doesn't help any such discussion much, except to show that taken to a ridiculous extreme then relative morality is ridiculous. I'd see this as a scale, with "completely objective" at one end and "completely subjective" at the other, rather that a simple binary choice.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Upchurch/jkorosi,

Interesting comments from the 'inside'. It seems that you are bascially saying (a) change is appropriate; (b) it won't be easy; (c) it needs to come from within.

[Franko]

Aerosolben

But if he then goes and talks to all of your friends, and convinces them that he should be in the club, and then they stop meeting at your [house] and meet at their houses?

I don’t know Aerosolben. To me this is kind of like saying:

suppose you have a girlfriend, but one day she meets someone who she likes better than you, so she moves out of your house, and moves in to the new guys house.

Are you going to go to court and have a Judge force her to be your girlfriend again? Individuals get to decide who they want to associate with. I don’t believe that intervening third parties decreeing John must be friends with Bill is productive or Just.

Sheesh. It's not like he's trying to get a court ruling. He's trying to convince members of the Scouts that he shouldn't be excluded. Change from within and all that.

On this point I have no problem and I am in complete agreement.

I am not even saying that I agree with the Scouts on this issue. I am just saying that I agree that a person, or group of people, has the right to meet and associate with who they want to meet and associate with.

[PotatoStew]

Loki:

The bait was noted, but I decided to let it go because we've thrashed around the moral relative/objective issue a few times, and I wanted to see how the thread might develop.

True enough. You have my apologies. At any rate, I didn't have any intentions for any serious or lengthy derailments of the thread.

At the risk of going back over old ground, I have to say that I do find the theory "if morals are relative, then anything *you* want to do is okay" as being simplistic in the extreme. Equating "Relative" with "only your opinion counts" doesn't help any such discussion much, except to show that taken to a ridiculous extreme then relative morality is ridiculous. I'd see this as a scale, with "completely objective" at one end and "completely subjective" at the other, rather that a simple binary choice.


Point taken, but I think drawing that line before the "ridiculous extreme" is no small matter. Especially in the matter at hand... no one is getting injured or killed, no major rights are being violated. I think it would be difficult to argue that this case is anywhere near an extreme, and hence I believe my underlying point may still have some validity.

[Loki]

Potato,

Continuing this discussion that we are not having....

...but I think drawing that line before the "ridiculous extreme" is no small matter...
Agreed, it's not necessarily easy - but two quick points. First, just 'cos it might be difficult doesn't mean it can't/shouldn't be done (in other words, picking an extreme just because it's "simple to do" is almost certainly a poor choice!). Second, the line isn't "etched in stone" - it can and should move over time to reflect changes.

...no major rights are being violated. I think it would be difficult to argue that this case is anywhere near an extreme...
A person is excluded from from an organisation because of his attitude to religion (I'd use the phrase "because of his religious beliefs", but then Franko will jump all over me and say "ah-ha - so you admit that atheism is a religious belief!"). Obviously, if he was excluded from the BSA because he was black, it would a *major* issue. So it's not the organisation, or the action, that makes it major or minor - it's the grounds. Racial grounds are major, religious grounds are minor. Okay, if you say so.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Franko
I am not even saying that I agree with the Scouts on this issue. I am just saying that I agree that a person, or group of people, has the right to meet and associate with who they want to meet and associate with.

The arguments you have made in this thread, Franko, have really got me thinking... not to make a big deal of it but I usually find myself in total disagreement with you... this time I have to scratch my head and mull it over.

As a private organization, the BSA would have the right to include whomever they choose to.

To the forum: when does a private organization become an institution... that is to say, when does it become something other than private in spite of itself?

Where would you draw the line? What public resources is it entitled to while still having the legal rights of a private organization?

I'm having a hard time coming up with a clear answer on this one, or to say whether the BSA crosses that line or not.

More thoughts on this?

[PotatoStew]

Loki:

If we were having a discussion, I would respond to you in the following manner...

A person is excluded from from an organisation because of his attitude to religion (I'd use the phrase "because of his religious beliefs", but then Franko will jump all over me and say "ah-ha - so you admit that atheism is a religious belief!"). Obviously, if he was excluded from the BSA because he was black, it would a *major* issue. So it's not the organisation, or the action, that makes it major or minor - it's the grounds. Racial grounds are major, religious grounds are minor. Okay, if you say so.

To paraphrase something Victor said a few times, it's not discrimination if the criteria is actually relevant. The fact that someone is black has very little bearing on anything, and hence is probably never a valid reason to exclude someone from something. However, if an organization exists to promote a given ideology, and a certain person's beliefs are opposed to elements of that ideology, then it may be reasonable and relevant to exclude them. If a group of Muslims whose goal was to further the ideologies of Islam refused to admit me, a Christian, to their ranks, I can't say I would necessarily fault them for it or say that they were doing something immoral.

[Loki]

Potato,

Assuming you *did* post such a reply to a conversation we may one day have...

To paraphrase something Victor said a few times, it's not discrimination if the criteria is actually relevant.
...
However, if an organization exists to promote a given ideology, and a certain person's beliefs are opposed to elements of that ideology, then it may be reasonable and relevant to exclude them.
And thus we arrive at the nub - what is the "purpose" of the BSA. Given that it offically seeks to promote no specific theology (perhaps we can say it seeks to promote an ideology of "at least one theology"?), it would appear that the BSA are happy to admit Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Satanists, and even (shudder) Scientologists. However, atheists need excluding. I guess I could agree that's a "relevant criteria". Still seems a little "arbitrary" to me, but I don't want to be a Scout anyway (sorry upchurch/Jkorosi) so what would I know?

[PotatoStew]

Loki:

I guess I could agree that's a "relevant criteria". Still seems a little "arbitrary" to me

I mostly agree, but that's up to them I suppose. As I said, I think it's kind of silly, misguided, and counterproductive. However I don't think it objectively reaches the level of immorality.

But it would be interesting to see what happened if a Satanist tried to get in.

[KelvinG]

It's funny how this guy has been in the scouts for 10 years, and suddenly he's not worthy anymore because of his belief system.
Seems a little odd to me.
It would appear his atheism did not hinder his abilities up until this point, so why should it prove a problem in the future?

And what exactly will he do? Corrupt the youngsters in the scouts with his blasphemy?

I guess this whole notion of tolerance preached in religions like christianity only extends to those who share a similar belief system.

Interesting.

[Heretic]

I am an Eagle Scout.

And I am anti-Xtian. The BSA's stance on this issue is not about scouting but about religion and the infestation of fundamentalist Xtian dogma into all of our society. Can a scout be an athiest and an Eagle Scout? Absolutely and he can do it without violating any Scout Oath or Scout Law.

Reverence means to be tolerant of others religion and to expect the same reverence in return; it also means to not be disruptive to others religious belief's. Reverence to God is a personal thing that should not be subject to public scrutiny. Belief or non-belief in God is neither pertinent nor necessary for reverence.

"Duty to God"... What exactly is One's "Duty to God?" One man's duty may be to be a minister; but to another it may be to challenge the precepts of false religions - of which Xtianity is one.

There is a specific religious award that is sanctioned by the BSA and religion: The God and Country Award. This reward, as I remember, was for either Xtian or Jewish Eagle Scouts. I chose not to seek this award as I perceived this award in my case as hypocritical. My best friend did get this reward.

Religion should not be a litmus test for Scouting. The next thing would be a religious test for public office, or military service, or for any job...

[aerosolben]

Franko:

I don’t know Aerosolben. To me this is kind of like saying:

suppose you have a girlfriend, but one day she meets someone who she likes better than you, so she moves out of your house, and moves in to the new guys house.


I would say the case of the club is more appropriate, because it's not just your club, it's your's and your friends'. If they all decide they want to see the club change, you're the oddball, not the new guy.

Are you going to go to court and have a Judge force her to be your girlfriend again?

Hardly.

Individuals get to decide who they want to associate with.

Indeed. Including the other people in the club.

I don’t believe that intervening third parties decreeing John must be friends with Bill is productive or Just.

Of course not. The club would be more the case of, "Look, everyone else likes the new guy. We're going to invite him to join us. You can stay or leave."

I am just saying that I agree that a person, or group of people, has the right to meet and associate with who they want to meet and associate with.

I agree. I think if they wish to disagree with government policy, though, they need to cease taking government money/resources.

[Franko]

I guess this whole notion of tolerance preached in religions like christianity only extends to those who share a similar belief system.

Yeah, because we sure as hell know that A-Theists are certainly the MOST tolerant of other people's belief systems! :rolleyes:

[Franko]

Heretic,

Religion should not be a litmus test for Scouting. The next thing would be a religious test for public office, or military service, or for any job...

So if your girlfriend ever dumps you because She decides that She doesn’t want to be with an A-Theist for the rest of her life, you should go to a Judge and get a court order forcing Her to be your girlfriend anyway?

Because if you don’t stand up for your rights with your girlfriend the next thing would be a religious test for public office, or military service, or for any job...

Should a fundamentalist Christian who believes in Biblical inerrancy be bared from teaching high school science class? (… next thing would be a religious test for public office …)

[Franko]

Aerosolben,

Franko:
I don’t know Aerosolben. To me this is kind of like saying:

suppose you have a girlfriend, but one day she meets someone who she likes better than you, so she moves out of your house, and moves in to the new guys house.

Aerosolben:
I would say the case of the club is more appropriate, because it's not just your club, it's your's and your friends'. If they all decide they want to see the club change, you're the oddball, not the new guy.

The club’s membership takes a vote, or decides by some rules which the club as mutually agreed upon, but basically the club is acting as a single entity. If that entity decides it does or does not want to except people with certain beliefs (beliefs in opposition to that of the club), then why do you feel that an outside party is morally justified in forcing them to do something against their wishes?

Can an ugly girl that you do not really care for go to court, and force you to be her boyfriend? How about a Gay man? Should a homosexual be able to go to court and force you to have gay-sex with him against your wishes? What is the difference?

Franko:
Individuals get to decide who they want to associate with.

Aerosolben:
Indeed. Including the other people in the club.

I agree with you on this point, if the club (internally) decides to allow this or that person in, than that is their business, and if the scouts decided to let Gay’s or Atheists be scouts, that is their business. I’m just saying that they should NOT be forced to accept members who they do NOT want to accept by an intervening outside party.

Franko:
I don’t believe that intervening third parties decreeing John must be friends with Bill is productive or Just.

Aerosolben:
Of course not. The club would be more the case of, "Look, everyone else likes the new guy. We're going to invite him to join us. You can stay or leave."

Franko:
I am just saying that I agree that a person, or group of people, has the right to meet and associate with who they want to meet and associate with.

Aerosolben:
I agree. I think if they wish to disagree with government policy, though, they need to cease taking government money/resources.

I think we are pretty much in agreement on this topic.

As soon as any club is getting money from the government, then as a taxpayer, I have become a defacto member of the club, and I get to vote on their policy just like the members do. In other words, if they are taking my money, then I get a say; otherwise, don’t take my money.

But I wasn’t aware that the scouts get money from the government?

[synaesthesia]

Franko points out that if it was tax funded, taxpayers are in a sense members of the club and so should not be excluded.

But this kid IS a member isn't he? His nonbelief in God didn't cause them a problem before as they accepted his thousands of hours of volunteer work.

Should the scouts be legally bound to accept him? I really don’t know. What I do know is that, legal or not, what they are doing is wrong. It is cruel, parochial and absolutely exemplary of the sort of danger that superstition poses to society.

The question here is not whether it is legal to exclude this evidently hardworking young man, the question is whether it is right. Thus, the analogies to skinheads in the NAACP don’t hold any water. Skinheads are out to persecute black people. This evil atheist wants to contribute to society - a goal hardly at odds with the main ideals of scouts.

But hey, if people want to kill each other over whether they say two hallelujah or three, cruelly exclude each other over whether an invisible man who doesn't do anything is hiding in the sky - that's the kind of society they'll get.

Regards,
Synaesthesia

[zakur]

Originally posted by Franko
But I wasn’t aware that the scouts get money from the government? How Your Tax Dollars Support the Boy Scouts of America (http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/BSA_Funding/Taxes_and_BSA/taxes_and_bsa.html)

[Franko]

Zak,

Though no level of government directly funds the operating budget of the BSA ...

Bottom line.

The A-Theists or Gays cannot complain because the local police force offers outreach programs to the scouts. If an A-Theist, or Gay group went to the police the police would offer the same outreach program. Where's the discrimination?

[zakur]

Originally posted by Franko
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though no level of government directly funds the operating budget of the BSA ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearly, we are not dealing with a question so basic as whether the BSA has a right to discriminate if it wants to. Defined as a religious organization (or, to some extent, even as a private club or business), the BSA can pretty much exclude who it pleases. But the BSA is not a mere private entity. It is entangled with government at every level -- local, state, and federal -- receiving endorsements, preferential treatment, goods, and services. Taxpayer dollars thus support it to a significant degree, creating a blatant violation of church-state separation that could never have escaped notice if the religious entity in question had been Campus Crusade for Christ or the Church of Scientology. Ironically, it is only the BSA's latter-day assertion of religious privilege -- cooked up as a response to charges of discrimination -- that suddenly render its government entanglements such a serious constitutional question.

They can't have it both ways: if the BSA is religious, it must sever all government ties; if it is secular, all discrimination must cease.

[Upchurch]

On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country, to obey the Scout Law, to help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.
That's the Scout Oath. I've said it many a time in my youth and still can call it and the Law up on a moments notice. But what do you do, when different aspects of the oath conflict?

"I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country" By forcing a child to believe in God, I'm not doing my duty to my country (by way of the 1st amendment). I believe that by allowing the child to find his own way, I can accomplish both duty to God and duty to country.

"to obey the Scout Law" I agree with Heretic. The twelfth point of the Scout Law, A Scout is Reverent, means that a scout is respectful of his beliefs and of others. If the scouts were to disrespect the beliefs of athiests, is that being reverent?

"to help other people at all times" I believe that the principles of Scouting is a good and beneficial thing. To deny scouting to those who want to participate is to harm them and not to be helpful.

By disallowing atheists (and gays), BSA is breaking three points of it's own oath and 6 of it's 12 laws (loyal, helpful, friendly, curtious, kind, and reverent), in my opinion. As a member, I'd rather they help boys become good men instead of playing exlusionary politics.

Upchurch

[evildave]

I like it.

Either the BSA "fixes" the damage these latter-day fundies are doing in their little "crusade" to make Christians of everyone... or every level of government support has to diverce themselves from the BSA.

Rock. Hard Place.

Maybe that special congressionally mandated monopoly should go, no matter what happens. Somebody had better move that up on the agenda.

I'm sure the 'Christian Right' can exclusively fund it all out of their televangelist and political lobbying "war chests".

[Franko]

Zak,

But the BSA is not a mere private entity. It is entangled with government at every level -- local, state, and federal -- receiving endorsements, preferential treatment, goods, and services. Taxpayer dollars thus support it to a significant degree, creating a blatant violation of church-state separation

So what? Present your evidence that those same resources are not equally offered to other groups besides the Boy Scouts? Are you claiming that there is an A-Theist or Gay Scout group that the police force has refused to offer the outreach program for? If my business gives the Scouts an endorsement would you order government goons to come over and force my company to similarly endorse an A-Theist or Gay group?

The fact that the scouts take advantage of “Free” government programs does NOT preclude A-Theist or Gay groups from taking similar advantage of those same “Free” programs. And even if it did, then that is a governmental issue, NOT one for the Scouts.

[Upchurch]

I was going to start a new thread on this subject (in relation to one currently going on over in Politics) when I remembered that there already was one. And, looking back over it, other posters and myself have already said everything I was going to say.

So, to make a long story short: bump.

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I was going to start a new thread on this subject (in relation to one currently going on over in Politics) when I remembered that there already was one. And, looking back over it, other posters and myself have already said everything I was going to say.

So, to make a long story short: bump.

Hey, I remember this thread! Franko and I agreed on something! Such a momentous occasion...

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by aerosolben


Hey, I remember this thread! Franko and I agreed on something! Icky! ;)

What did you agree about?

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Icky! ;)

What did you agree about?

Franko: I am just saying that I agree that a person, or group of people, has the right to meet and associate with who they want to meet and associate with.

Me: I agree. I think if they wish to disagree with government policy, though, they need to cease taking government money/resources.

Franko: I think we are pretty much in agreement on this topic.

Mutual and explicit! Ooh la la!

I think I was on the Forces of Evil list at this point, too.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by aerosolben
Mutual and explicit! Ooh la la!

I think I was on the Forces of Evil list at this point, too. Ah, carp. I agree with that too. Now I really am on the Forces of Evil list....

[VicDaring]

Originally posted by Upchurch


In my day, I was (and still am) proud to be an Eagle Scout, but I'm ashamed of the stance BSA has taken with atheists and gays. When Lord Baden Powell set up the Scouts, he added the religious element with the hopes that Scouting would encourage boys to find religion on their own terms, not cram it down their throats. Nor did he intend to exclude anyone because they didn't believe in God. This decision by the BSA is outright incorrect and flat out wrong.

Now, I agree that they have the legal right to exclude whomever they wish, Ias a member, I think this is the wrong decision and not worthy of the tradition of Boy Scouts.

Here (http://www.scoutingforall.org/) is an organization that is trying to work from within the BSA to change it's policy about gays and atheists. Even though it more weighted towards the gay side of the issue than the atheist side of the issue, it's still an excellent organization.

Upchurch

Great link, Upchurch.

If I had kids (likely coming soon to a VicDaring near you) I dunno which direction I'd rather take.
A) Try to help change the BSA from within. As an Eagle Scout circa 1985 I've got some sentimentality on this, so there's a certain appeal there...or...
B) Support a more inclusive organization, like Boys & Girls Club or Campfire USA. I think I like this one better.

Truthfully, BSA may be one or two more stupid public statements away from receiving all my Eagle Scout stuff in the mail with a brief note about why I no longer wish to be associated with their organization.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by VicDaring

If I had kids (likely coming soon to a VicDaring near you) I dunno which direction I'd rather take.
A) Try to help change the BSA from within. As an Eagle Scout circa 1985 I've got some sentimentality on this, so there's a certain appeal there...or...
B) Support a more inclusive organization, like Boys & Girls Club or Campfire USA. I think I like this one better.

Truthfully, BSA may be one or two more stupid public statements away from receiving all my Eagle Scout stuff in the mail with a brief note about why I no longer wish to be associated with their organization. I'm still an idealist, I guess. I'm still very loyal to BSA, even though I don't agree with the policy. I want BSA to be the thing I feel it ought to be rather than the thing it currently is and I think the only way to make it what it ought to be is to do it from the inside.

The question that keeps coming up in my mind is: What do you do when your "duty to God and my country" are (apparently) mutually exclusive?

[VicDaring]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'm still an idealist, I guess. I'm still very loyal to BSA, even though I don't agree with the policy. I want BSA to be the thing I feel it ought to be rather than the thing it currently is and I think the only way to make it what it ought to be is to do it from the inside.

I understand completely.

The question that keeps coming up in my mind is: What do you do when your "duty to God and my country" are (apparently) mutually exclusive?

Unfortunately, while people like you and I grapple with that question, BSA has a pretty simple answer: Get out!

[Lord Kenneth]

The BSA is not an advocating of critical thinking, they do however support belief in unsubstantiated preconcieved notions.

Do you want your children to be affiliated with such an irrational organization? Kicking people out simply because they aren't attracted to members of the opposite sex like heterosexuals are?

No, this is NOT a good group for children. A bad influence.

It doesn't matter if they teach good behavior or sing songs around campfires. I'm sure there are other, better organizations that do that and don't discriminate based on irrational dogmas.

[VicDaring]

Good points all, LK.

My thing is, much like Upchurch, I have a history and an affection for the Scouts. I'd really like to see them do the right thing and there's a part of me that thinks if I could help that happen...man, that'd be cool.

Also, they teach more than good behavior and campfire songs. They do a terrific job teaching how to be self-sufficient. There are a ton of little things I learned in Scouts that have helped me not have to depend on others later in life. If you can learn to cook on a campfire, a stove is a piece of cake.

[Heretic]

Originally posted by Upchurch

The question that keeps coming up in my mind is: What do you do when your "duty to God and my country" are (apparently) mutually exclusive? [/B]

As an Eagle Scout and atheist, agnostic, or deist, I see no conflict with my "duty to God and country." Nor do I have any qualms about the questioning of any religious doctrine. I am not a christian, nor a member of any other organized sect. Therefore all dogma's are suspect and according to my God or Non-God all such dogmas are not only open for investigation but investigation and questioning are demanded of me - That IS my duty to God.

[Ratman_tf]

"You need to have a recognition of a supreme being," said Farmer. "We as the Boy Scouts do not define what that is, but you need to have a recognition."

This statement has always tickled me. How about Zeus or Primus or Galactus? Those are some pretty supreme beings. Hell, depending on your definition of 'supreme' you could call Yahoo Serious a supreme being. :roll:

[Brown]

One of my old friends is an Eagle Scout. He is also an atheist.

He did not make a big deal about his religious beliefs, and when asked about them, I understand he answered diplomatically but truthfully. He said he was not a member of any church, but he did not deny the existence of the Almighty. He expressed reverence and awe for nature. He felt that many ethical questions involve consideration of entities higher than oneself.

And he did not get kicked out of the Scouts.

Ten years ago, however, the outcome might have been different.

[Mercutio]

Thanks for bumping this thread, Upchurch, I had not seen it before.

A few random thoughts...

It's nice to know that the popcorn sales are part of the national organization. Makes me feel better for refusing to buy them. I always tell the sad-eyed little scamp that I'd be glad to buy them as soon as boy scouts starts admitting atheists and gays. I have had one adult tell me that I shouldn't say that to the kid--it's not his fault, after all; perhaps I should have a written statement for him to pass on to the higher-ups. I figure if he knows and agrees with the policy, he deserves the rejection, and if he does not know, he deserves to know.

When I was growing up, I started out as a cub scout, and quickly found that, in our area, scouting was a complete joke. My parents ran a (non-scout) camp which was far superior (and of course, lost money like a sieve and had to close after just a few years). I know that scouting has been an incredible experience for some of my friends. My point, I guess, is that it is not the organization which makes it good or bad, but the local realization of the troup. So, in my view, screw the national organization.

As for supreme beings, I have alway tended to agree with Randi that Sophia Loren comes about as close as any. Recently, Laetitia Casta would get my vote. So, you scouts out there, if I could obey the letter of the pledge while pledging to do my duty to Laetitia Casta (or to address both the atheist and gay aspects, Johnny Depp), would that suffice? Or am I kicked out?

There was a thread within the past year about a summer camp for atheists. Don't know if it survived the re-organization. Anyway, it looked pretty terrible, if memory serves. Seems any time one's beliefs come before one's peer interactions (in a camp setting, anyway), it makes for an awkward growth experience.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Heretic


As an Eagle Scout and atheist, agnostic, or deist, I see no conflict with my "duty to God and country." Nor do I have any qualms about the questioning of any religious doctrine. I am not a christian, nor a member of any other organized sect. Therefore all dogma's are suspect and according to my God or Non-God all such dogmas are not only open for investigation but investigation and questioning are demanded of me - That IS my duty to God. Actually, I was refering specifically to American Christian Boy Scouts. On the one hand, the scout has a country that believes "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." On the other hand, the scout has a religion that believes that homosexuality is a sin.

In other words, you have one side telling you that gay boys should be allowed in BSA and another side telling you that gay boys should not be allowed in BSA.

The answer, in my mind, is obvious. It is called "The Boy Scouts of America" not "The Boy Scouts of One Specific Religious Belief System". Why a specifically conservative Christian morality system is allowed to dominate the BSA is beyond me and should stop immediately.