Loki
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,406
PotatoStew
Scholar
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2001
- Messages
- 78
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.
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.
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?
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
Skepticifimisticalationist
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
), 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.
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
), 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
Evil Genius
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2001
- Messages
- 2,269
Franko said:
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
Renaissance Man
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2002
- Messages
- 716
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
Unregistered
K
At least in my town growing up scouts advertised in our elementary school.
From American Atheists:
AA's article on this latest controversy can be found here. Check out his doozy from that article:
evildave
Unregistered
E
Boy Scouts of America: Religious and sexual orientation discrimination
The BSA and its funding sources
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 BSA and its funding sources
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"!
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
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,
...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
Unregistered
S
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
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
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,406
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?
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
Unregistered
S
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
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
stamenflicker
Unregistered
S
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
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
Scholar
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2001
- Messages
- 78
Loki said:
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
Papa Funkosophy
Loki said:
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 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
Papa Funkosophy
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
Upchurch
Loki
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,406
Potato,
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.
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.
Aerosolben
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.
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.
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.
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.