Spirited boys in cub scouts revisited

Circe wrote:

Isn't it all semantics, though? I self-describe as an atheist in that I
don't believe in any sentient, divine entity, but I have no trouble using
the word "god" as shorthand for the natural forces of creation and
destruction that resulted in the universe and in humanity. It's not
precisely accurate, but it's better than the longhand version g. Within
that context, I have no particular problem taking an oath to do my duty to
"God" within the scope of my understanding what god is.

The only reason for anyone to have a problem with the Scout Oath's
requirement to affirm duty to God would be because he/she does not feel
capable of interpreting the word "God" beyond some preset definition.
Personally, I think many atheists/agnostics invest the word God with way too
much power; even the majority of true theists don't believe they understand
the true nature of God. Why atheists feel circumscribed by the theists'
definition of the word is a bit beyond me.

To me, that seems like splitting hairs a bit.
After all, the BSA as an organization certainly has a
position here--they clearly do not mean for their
organization to include atheists and agnostics. One
can tap dance around the issue and try to create a
loophole, but their intent is pretty clear. Also, it
seems to me that just as those who believe in God get
to define God however is meaningful to them (whether
that falls in line with an established religion or not),
those who self-identify as atheists or agnostics get to
do the same. Maybe some have a more "hard line"
(for lack of a better word) than you because that's
part of what they believe and that's the way the like
it.
I don't object to groups attempting to find
a loophole and use it to create a more inclusive
scouting experience for boys, and maybe one makes
the argument that change needs to come from within,
but I do think it's pretty clear that the national
organization isn't on board with that philosophy.
Under those circumstances, I don't think one can
honestly make the argument that the BSA not wanting
atheist or agnostic members is just some sort of
semantic thing. That's sort of like saying that
the Catholic church's concept of transsubstantiation
is just a semantic thing because someone could
choose to go along with it by using a more abstract
definition. Well, the Catholic church isn't on
board with that interpretation! Some folks may
adopt it in order to resolve an internal conflict,
but that doesn't mean that the Catholic church
doesn't preach transsubstantiation.

Best wishes,
Ericka

"Circe" writes:
"Brian Westley" wrote in message
...
For Cub Scouts, the boy's parent has to sign a Declaration of
Religious Principle, which states that only god-believers can be
the best kinds of citizens.

Um, no. At least, not that I'm aware of. Neither my husband, who is our
Pack's Cubmaster, or I--the Pack's Advancement Chair--have ever signed or
been asked to sign such a thing, unless that's hidden somewhere in the fine
print of the application for membership and we just never paid attention to
it.

No, it's right there out in the open:

Cub Scout application
http://www.scouting.org/forms/28-102.pdf

The DRP is excerpted on page 4, and it specifies that "Only persons
willing to subscribe to this Declaration of Religious Principle and
to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to
certificates of membership."

....and the parent(s) have to sign that they have read the attached
information sheet (which includes the DRP) and approve the
application.

---
Merlyn LeRoy

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
Circe wrote:
Isn't it all semantics, though? I self-describe as an atheist in that I
don't believe in any sentient, divine entity, but I have no trouble using
the word "god" as shorthand for the natural forces of creation and
destruction that resulted in the universe and in humanity. It's not
precisely accurate, but it's better than the longhand version g. Within
that context, I have no particular problem taking an oath to do my duty
to "God" within the scope of my understanding what god is.

The only reason for anyone to have a problem with the Scout Oath's
requirement to affirm duty to God would be because he/she does not feel
capable of interpreting the word "God" beyond some preset definition.
Personally, I think many atheists/agnostics invest the word God with way
too much power; even the majority of true theists don't believe they
understand the true nature of God. Why atheists feel circumscribed by the
theists' definition of the word is a bit beyond me.

To me, that seems like splitting hairs a bit.
After all, the BSA as an organization certainly has a
position here--they clearly do not mean for their
organization to include atheists and agnostics. One
can tap dance around the issue and try to create a
loophole, but their intent is pretty clear. Also, it
seems to me that just as those who believe in God get
to define God however is meaningful to them (whether
that falls in line with an established religion or not),
those who self-identify as atheists or agnostics get to
do the same. Maybe some have a more "hard line"
(for lack of a better word) than you because that's
part of what they believe and that's the way the like
it.
I don't object to groups attempting to find
a loophole and use it to create a more inclusive
scouting experience for boys, and maybe one makes
the argument that change needs to come from within,
but I do think it's pretty clear that the national
organization isn't on board with that philosophy.
Under those circumstances, I don't think one can
honestly make the argument that the BSA not wanting
atheist or agnostic members is just some sort of
semantic thing. That's sort of like saying that
the Catholic church's concept of transsubstantiation
is just a semantic thing because someone could
choose to go along with it by using a more abstract
definition. Well, the Catholic church isn't on
board with that interpretation! Some folks may
adopt it in order to resolve an internal conflict,
but that doesn't mean that the Catholic church
doesn't preach transsubstantiation.

While I understand what you're saying, given that the BSA allows boys who
are Buddhists to earn an emblem of faith, it's hard to see that they have a
hard-and-fast definition of "God". (There may even be an emblem of faith for
Hindus, although I'm not 100% sure of that.) In other words, there's not
some sort of collective agreement that only people who define God
monotheistically within the Judeo-Christian tradition can claim to believe
in God under the BSA's rule!

As long as *I* am willing to accept (and my son is willing to accept) that
he has some sort of duty to something we feel comfortable referring to as
"God", I don't think they're in any position to tell us that our concept of
God isn't acceptable to them (even if they knew it, which they
don't--although I suppose if Big Brother of the BSA is here monitoring what
I write, we're in a heap of trouble g!). We're adhering to the absolute
spirit of the oath, IMO.

Others may choose to disagree with my interpretation and feel uncomfortable
with the Oath as a result, and I respect that. I don't feel, however, that
the BSA is under any obligation to modify its oath so that those people will
feel comfortable taking it, any more than I feel that the Girl Scouts should
be required to remove the word God from the Girl Scout Promise. (Girl Scouts
specifically state that atheists are permitted in Girl Scouting, but they
have not taken "duty to God" out of the Promise to suit atheists, either.)
--
Be well, Barbara

"Circe" writes:
"Brian Westley" wrote in message
...
No, the official BSA line is that atheists and agnostics can't
be leaders OR members. Here's their official legal website on it:

http://www.bsalegal.org/faqs-113.htm
...
Q. Can an individual who states that he does not believe in God be a
volunteer Scout leader or member?

A. No. The Scout Oath represents the basic values of Scouting, and it
addresses the issue of duty to God before duty to country, others, and
self.
...
Q. What harm would come of admitting young people who are unwilling to
do their duty to God?

A. The Scout Oath and Law have served as the foundation of Scouting for
94 years. It would be a disservice to over five million youth and adult
members of Scouting to allow members to pick and choose among the
elements of the Oath or Law.
...

Isn't it all semantics, though?

No, if it was all semantics, atheists wouldn't get thrown out.

I self-describe as an atheist in that I
don't believe in any sentient, divine entity, but I have no trouble using
the word "god" as shorthand for the natural forces of creation and
destruction that resulted in the universe and in humanity. It's not
precisely accurate, but it's better than the longhand version g. Within
that context, I have no particular problem taking an oath to do my duty to
"God" within the scope of my understanding what god is.

The only reason for anyone to have a problem with the Scout Oath's
requirement to affirm duty to God would be because he/she does not feel
capable of interpreting the word "God" beyond some preset definition.

Or they don't want to say they believe in a god when they're an
atheist; you know, just to be honest.

Personally, I think many atheists/agnostics invest the word God with way too
much power; even the majority of true theists don't believe they understand
the true nature of God. Why atheists feel circumscribed by the theists'
definition of the word is a bit beyond me.

I suppose some Jews would join Restricted clubs by hiding the fact
that they're Jewish, but that hardly means that Restricted clubs
only exclude Jews in a semantic sense (more like a Semitic sense).

---
Merlyn LeRoy

Circe wrote:
"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...

Circe wrote:

Isn't it all semantics, though? I self-describe as an atheist in that I
don't believe in any sentient, divine entity, but I have no trouble using
the word "god" as shorthand for the natural forces of creation and
destruction that resulted in the universe and in humanity. It's not
precisely accurate, but it's better than the longhand version g. Within
that context, I have no particular problem taking an oath to do my duty
to "God" within the scope of my understanding what god is.

The only reason for anyone to have a problem with the Scout Oath's
requirement to affirm duty to God would be because he/she does not feel
capable of interpreting the word "God" beyond some preset definition.
Personally, I think many atheists/agnostics invest the word God with way
too much power; even the majority of true theists don't believe they
understand the true nature of God. Why atheists feel circumscribed by the
theists' definition of the word is a bit beyond me.

To me, that seems like splitting hairs a bit.
After all, the BSA as an organization certainly has a
position here--they clearly do not mean for their
organization to include atheists and agnostics. One
can tap dance around the issue and try to create a
loophole, but their intent is pretty clear. Also, it
seems to me that just as those who believe in God get
to define God however is meaningful to them (whether
that falls in line with an established religion or not),
those who self-identify as atheists or agnostics get to
do the same. Maybe some have a more "hard line"
(for lack of a better word) than you because that's
part of what they believe and that's the way the like
it.
I don't object to groups attempting to find
a loophole and use it to create a more inclusive
scouting experience for boys, and maybe one makes
the argument that change needs to come from within,
but I do think it's pretty clear that the national
organization isn't on board with that philosophy.
Under those circumstances, I don't think one can
honestly make the argument that the BSA not wanting
atheist or agnostic members is just some sort of
semantic thing. That's sort of like saying that
the Catholic church's concept of transsubstantiation
is just a semantic thing because someone could
choose to go along with it by using a more abstract
definition. Well, the Catholic church isn't on
board with that interpretation! Some folks may
adopt it in order to resolve an internal conflict,
but that doesn't mean that the Catholic church
doesn't preach transsubstantiation.


While I understand what you're saying, given that the BSA allows boys who
are Buddhists to earn an emblem of faith, it's hard to see that they have a
hard-and-fast definition of "God". (There may even be an emblem of faith for
Hindus, although I'm not 100% sure of that.) In other words, there's not
some sort of collective agreement that only people who define God
monotheistically within the Judeo-Christian tradition can claim to believe
in God under the BSA's rule!

I guess I don't think it's particularly far-
fetched to see a dividing line between believing in
some kind of divine power or powers and not believing
in some sort of divine power or powers ;-)

As long as *I* am willing to accept (and my son is willing to accept) that
he has some sort of duty to something we feel comfortable referring to as
"God", I don't think they're in any position to tell us that our concept of
God isn't acceptable to them (even if they knew it, which they
don't--although I suppose if Big Brother of the BSA is here monitoring what
I write, we're in a heap of trouble g!). We're adhering to the absolute
spirit of the oath, IMO.

I don't contest your right to construe it that way.
I contest the assertion that there isn't a problem because
anyone who feels like it can construe it that way, so there
isn't really any barrier to atheists and agnostics participating
in BSA (or that those atheists or agnostics who aren't
willing to conform to that construction are just being
too persnickety).

Others may choose to disagree with my interpretation and feel uncomfortable
with the Oath as a result, and I respect that. I don't feel, however, that
the BSA is under any obligation to modify its oath so that those people will
feel comfortable taking it,

Well, sure. They have a right to have whatever
membership criteria they want as a private organization
(though I have heartburn when they want to have the
privileges of a private organization while also having
the benefits of a public organization...but that's
a different issue... ;-) ). They could decide that
only left-handed red heads could join and be within
their rights. However, if they wish to take a stand
that excludes some on the basis of their religious
beliefs, then it's not unreasonable for them to be
held accountable for them. In other words, I don't
think BSA can claim (nor do I think it *does* claim)
to be an organization open to all. That's absolutely
their prerogative, but let's not mince words about it.
They do not intend for atheists or agnostics to be
members.

any more than I feel that the Girl Scouts should
be required to remove the word God from the Girl Scout Promise. (Girl Scouts
specifically state that atheists are permitted in Girl Scouting, but they
have not taken "duty to God" out of the Promise to suit atheists, either.)

No, but girl scouts aren't required to recite
that part of the promise if they are uncomfortable
with it, nor is belief in God (however defined) a
requirement of membership. The BSA and Girl Scouts
have definitely adopted a different position on this
issue.

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article MzWBf.13159$sA3.640@fed1read02,
"Circe" wrote:

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
Circe wrote:
Isn't it all semantics, though? I self-describe as an atheist in that I
don't believe in any sentient, divine entity, but I have no trouble using
the word "god" as shorthand for the natural forces of creation and
destruction that resulted in the universe and in humanity. It's not
precisely accurate, but it's better than the longhand version g. Within
that context, I have no particular problem taking an oath to do my duty
to "God" within the scope of my understanding what god is.

The only reason for anyone to have a problem with the Scout Oath's
requirement to affirm duty to God would be because he/she does not feel
capable of interpreting the word "God" beyond some preset definition.
Personally, I think many atheists/agnostics invest the word God with way
too much power; even the majority of true theists don't believe they
understand the true nature of God. Why atheists feel circumscribed by the
theists' definition of the word is a bit beyond me.

To me, that seems like splitting hairs a bit.
After all, the BSA as an organization certainly has a
position here--they clearly do not mean for their
organization to include atheists and agnostics. One
can tap dance around the issue and try to create a
loophole, but their intent is pretty clear. Also, it
seems to me that just as those who believe in God get
to define God however is meaningful to them (whether
that falls in line with an established religion or not),
those who self-identify as atheists or agnostics get to
do the same. Maybe some have a more "hard line"
(for lack of a better word) than you because that's
part of what they believe and that's the way the like
it.
I don't object to groups attempting to find
a loophole and use it to create a more inclusive
scouting experience for boys, and maybe one makes
the argument that change needs to come from within,
but I do think it's pretty clear that the national
organization isn't on board with that philosophy.
Under those circumstances, I don't think one can
honestly make the argument that the BSA not wanting
atheist or agnostic members is just some sort of
semantic thing. That's sort of like saying that
the Catholic church's concept of transsubstantiation
is just a semantic thing because someone could
choose to go along with it by using a more abstract
definition. Well, the Catholic church isn't on
board with that interpretation! Some folks may
adopt it in order to resolve an internal conflict,
but that doesn't mean that the Catholic church
doesn't preach transsubstantiation.

While I understand what you're saying, given that the BSA allows boys who
are Buddhists to earn an emblem of faith, it's hard to see that they have a
hard-and-fast definition of "God". (There may even be an emblem of faith for
Hindus, although I'm not 100% sure of that.) In other words, there's not
some sort of collective agreement that only people who define God
monotheistically within the Judeo-Christian tradition can claim to believe
in God under the BSA's rule!

As long as *I* am willing to accept (and my son is willing to accept) that
he has some sort of duty to something we feel comfortable referring to as
"God", I don't think they're in any position to tell us that our concept of
God isn't acceptable to them (even if they knew it, which they
don't--although I suppose if Big Brother of the BSA is here monitoring what
I write, we're in a heap of trouble g!). We're adhering to the absolute
spirit of the oath, IMO.

Others may choose to disagree with my interpretation and feel uncomfortable
with the Oath as a result, and I respect that. I don't feel, however, that
the BSA is under any obligation to modify its oath so that those people will
feel comfortable taking it, any more than I feel that the Girl Scouts should
be required to remove the word God from the Girl Scout Promise. (Girl Scouts
specifically state that atheists are permitted in Girl Scouting, but they
have not taken "duty to God" out of the Promise to suit atheists, either.)
--
Be well, Barbara



But it is my understanding that girls may elect to leave that part out
when they take/recite the oath. Technically, Boy Scouts may not.

My own choice, for multiple reasons, was to not have my son join Boy
Scouts, but I support other choices that folks make.

I just think it's important to acknowledge that, in fact, NOT all boys
are welcome as boy scouts.

I asked my son once how old he was when he knew he was gay: he said,
"Let me put it this way: there was never a time when I thought I might
be straight."

So, even as a pretty young boy, to be a boy scout he'd have had to
"hide" his true self.

--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article , Ericka Kammerer says...

Circe wrote:

Isn't it all semantics, though? I self-describe as an atheist in that I
don't believe in any sentient, divine entity, but I have no trouble using
the word "god" as shorthand for the natural forces of creation and
destruction that resulted in the universe and in humanity. It's not
precisely accurate, but it's better than the longhand version g. Within
that context, I have no particular problem taking an oath to do my duty to
"God" within the scope of my understanding what god is.

The only reason for anyone to have a problem with the Scout Oath's
requirement to affirm duty to God would be because he/she does not feel
capable of interpreting the word "God" beyond some preset definition.
Personally, I think many atheists/agnostics invest the word God with way too
much power; even the majority of true theists don't believe they understand
the true nature of God. Why atheists feel circumscribed by the theists'
definition of the word is a bit beyond me.

To me, that seems like splitting hairs a bit.
After all, the BSA as an organization certainly has a
position here--they clearly do not mean for their
organization to include atheists and agnostics. One
can tap dance around the issue and try to create a
loophole, but their intent is pretty clear. Also, it
seems to me that just as those who believe in God get
to define God however is meaningful to them (whether
that falls in line with an established religion or not),
those who self-identify as atheists or agnostics get to
do the same. Maybe some have a more "hard line"
(for lack of a better word) than you because that's
part of what they believe and that's the way the like
it.

What hairs to they split to award Scouts with religious medals recognizing their
participation in polytheistic or non-theistic religions?

http://www.scouting.org/nav/enter.jsp?s=by

Banty

*sigh* It's really tiresome that every time scouts is
mentioned, people have to bring up the controversy.
We are a Christian family. DS is too young to want
to date *anybody*. For us, for now, the scouts is
a fantastic organization for him. If there comes a
time when he gets bored with it, or when he feels
that he would have to compromise his principles
to stay in, then we'll leave. Until then, I don't really
care to have every single scouting thread turn
into a thread about how evil scouts are.

Bizby

In article , bizby40 says...

*sigh* It's really tiresome that every time scouts is
mentioned, people have to bring up the controversy.
We are a Christian family. DS is too young to want
to date *anybody*. For us, for now, the scouts is
a fantastic organization for him. If there comes a
time when he gets bored with it, or when he feels
that he would have to compromise his principles
to stay in, then we'll leave. Until then, I don't really
care to have every single scouting thread turn
into a thread about how evil scouts are.

Bizby



From a Google search I've pretty mucn concluded that Brian West must have an
alert set up for "Boy Scouts" and "Cub Scouts" anywhere outside the regular
scouting groups, just so he can leave no opportunity unexploited.

Banty

Banty wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer says...

Circe wrote:


Isn't it all semantics, though? I self-describe as an atheist in that I
don't believe in any sentient, divine entity, but I have no trouble using
the word "god" as shorthand for the natural forces of creation and
destruction that resulted in the universe and in humanity. It's not
precisely accurate, but it's better than the longhand version g. Within
that context, I have no particular problem taking an oath to do my duty to
"God" within the scope of my understanding what god is.

The only reason for anyone to have a problem with the Scout Oath's
requirement to affirm duty to God would be because he/she does not feel
capable of interpreting the word "God" beyond some preset definition.
Personally, I think many atheists/agnostics invest the word God with way too
much power; even the majority of true theists don't believe they understand
the true nature of God. Why atheists feel circumscribed by the theists'
definition of the word is a bit beyond me.

To me, that seems like splitting hairs a bit.
After all, the BSA as an organization certainly has a
position here--they clearly do not mean for their
organization to include atheists and agnostics. One
can tap dance around the issue and try to create a
loophole, but their intent is pretty clear. Also, it
seems to me that just as those who believe in God get
to define God however is meaningful to them (whether
that falls in line with an established religion or not),
those who self-identify as atheists or agnostics get to
do the same. Maybe some have a more "hard line"
(for lack of a better word) than you because that's
part of what they believe and that's the way the like
it.

What hairs to they split to award Scouts with religious medals recognizing their
participation in polytheistic or non-theistic religions?

http://www.scouting.org/nav/enter.jsp?s=by

Are you truly suggesting that there is no
difference between believing in a divine power
(or powers, or force, or what have you) and
not believing in such? Or that there is no
difference between professing a belief in
a religion and professing no such belief?
I don't think the BSA are evil or that
they don't have a right to decide what criteria
are necessary for membership. What I do not
understand is the contention that the BSA
really welcomes any boy as a member. Some
local organizations may do so, but the organization
as a whole clearly has membership criteria that
are intended to exclude some, precisely because
it is the official position of the organization
that there are certain characteristics that
are important and desirable that they wish to
promote--as is their right.
My church requires a profession of belief
in order to be a member of the church. I don't
think my church is evil or that it is bad for my
church to have that as a requirement of membership.
I don't, however, attempt to tell people that
really, it doesn't matter what they believe because
anyone who's interested in joining can just
sort of stretch the definitions to accommodate
whatever they actually do believe. There may
very well be members of the congregation who
do precisely that, and that's their business,
not mine to judge whether that's right or wrong.
But I think it would be disingenuous to claim
that my church doesn't require a profession of
faith for membership, or that it doesn't have
*some* parameters on what they intend that
to mean. It *isn't* just all semantics.

I guess I just don't understand your
argument. Are you trying to say that BSA as an
organization doesn't really mean to exclude
atheists and homosexuals from membership? I'll
certainly grant that local groups often do
elect not to enforce those criteria. I'd be
shocked if our church sponsored troop did, for
example. But I think it's a real stretch to
claim that the national organization intends
to include those groups for membership.

Best wishes,
Ericka