While many churches do host Boy Scout organizations, many BSA packs and troops are not affiliated with a church, nor is the hosting organization permitted to impose religious requirements on the scouts. My cub scout pack was hosted by the local school district; we met for pack meetings at my elementary school, and we met for den meetings at the local middle school.
I do agree with you, as a private organization, BSA should be **allowed** to do pretty much anything it wants. I also believe that BSA policies should prohibit behavior, not people. There's nothing wrong with saying "No sex at scout functions" (which is a legitimate policy currently in place) But, they also have a policy of "If you have gay sex, you can't be a scout"
Their policy against atheists is more an issue of semantics. BSA policy on "God" is that this word and concept is to be defined by the scout and his family. The BSA values "reverence" - not the object of that reverence. There are many religions and philosophies that could be described as secular, non-theistic, atheistic, etc. Secular Humanism, for example, does not believe in a deity. Buddhism does not believe in a deity. But, BSA welcomes Humanist Scouts, Buddhist Scouts, etc.
BSA requires a Scout's reverence toward something.of the Scout's own choosing, and BSA refers to the object of that reverence as "God". Considering the BSA's definition of "God", if the BSA were to define "atheism", it would have to mean something closer to nihilism.
On either point, Baden-Powell's Scout Law included this:
Quote:
A SCOUT IS A FRIEND TO ALL, AND A BROTHER TO EVERY OTHER SCOUT, NO MATTER TO WHAT SOCIAL CLASS THE OTHER BELONGS.
The BSA version condenses this down to "Friendly", but BSA is anything but friendly toward the two classes I mentioned.
"Reverent" was added by BSA. The 1911 version was this:
Quote:
Reverent. He is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties and respects the convictions of others in matters of custom and religion.
This was changed in 1972 to:
Quote:
Reverent. A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others."
Either way, there is nothing respectful (or friendly) about using the confusing, non-standard definitions of "God" and "Atheism" they are using, which forces a person who lacks a belief in a supernatural deity to state a belief in and reverence toward a "god". Should they be allowed to do this? Sure. But they shouldn't choose to do this, nor should the public support them in any way for having done it.
__________________
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Most of the troops I have been in contact with were sponsored by the churches of the area, mine was in the church I grew up going to. Growing up like this, I have also had a long time of being "closed minded" to many things in life concerning those outside of a church up-bringing. I know I have always been naive in a way because of this, thinking that if it said "God" I took that as the Christian God, Father of Jesus. I still default to that thinking. And then also growing up after the years of putting "In God We Trust" on the money, and then also "Under God" in the Pledge, I have always had the mindset of we (United States of America) were founded on Christian values and views. This makes it hard to put myself in others place when it comes to Buddha, Allah, etc. when thinking of a supreme being as God.
Most of the troops I have been in contact with were sponsored by the churches of the area, mine was in the church I grew up going to. Growing up like this, I have also had a long time of being "closed minded" to many things in life concerning those outside of a church up-bringing. I know I have always been naive in a way because of this, thinking that if it said "God" I took that as the Christian God, Father of Jesus. I still default to that thinking. And then also growing up after the years of putting "In God We Trust" on the money, and then also "Under God" in the Pledge, I have always had the mindset of we (United States of America) were founded on Christian values and views. This makes it hard to put myself in others place when it comes to Buddha, Allah, etc. when thinking of a supreme being as God.
I would say that America's religious foundation is, above all else, the freedom for the individual to choose his own religious beliefs. I do agree that the majority of our customs and traditions originate in Christianity. But again, religious freedom is paramount.
The original pledge was written in 1892 and adopted by Congress in 1942. In 1954, "Under God" was formally added to it.
"In God we trust" became the official motto of the US in 1956. Prior to that, the motto was "E pluribus unum", which was created and adopted in 1782.
"In God we trust" did not show up on paper currency until 1957.
"In God we trust" wasn't used on American coins at all until 1861. It was used sporadically on coins from 1861 through 1938.
Personally, when I was a Scout and Scouter, my "God" was similar to Spinoza's. In a word, "Nature" - but not in the sense of rivers and trees and dirt, but more in the sense of atoms to galaxies and everything in between. The description "atheist" best describes my position on divinity.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
.....But again, religious freedom is paramount. ......
Now, I know I will get people disagreeing with me but I have to recall under what context that this was put into the bill of rights. I believe it was put into place to prevent government from forcing one religion onto the people. It has since been distorted into a freedom FROM religion altogether applying not only government but businesses and sometimes even private citizens.
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Seems pretty clear what they meant to me. Nothing about freedom from religion her at all. In fact it is clear to me this part..."..prohibiting the free exercise thereof.." is getting busted all to hell.
I for one have had my fill of the PC crowd and they are hearing about it every chance I get.
Now, I know I will get people disagreeing with me but I have to recall under what context that this was put into the bill of rights. I believe it was put into place to prevent government from forcing one religion onto the people. It has since been distorted into a freedom FROM religion altogether applying not only government but businesses and sometimes even private citizens.
I disagree with you completely on the idea that there's any sort of distortion to mean society should be free from religion. Churches are free to exist. Religious messages are routinely posted on billboards. Most of AM radio and several TV channels are devoted to spreading religious messages. If there was such an opposition, explain to me why I've got to put up with those Westboro Baptist ******nozzles.
Sure, private businesses tend to stay away from promoting one religion over another. They aren't required by law to do so, but it's a stupid businessman who alienates a segment of his customer base. Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and Atheists will shop at a secular grocery store. Why annoy a percentage of your customer base by promoting one religion over all others? Is that a smart business decision?
I'm not speaking of the bill of rights (which is actually a bill of restrictions on the government, not rights of the people). I'm speaking of the principles that demanded those restrictions. Our founding fathers put those restrictions in place based on the principles they valued. It is those principles - the ones that led our forefathers to adopt the establishment clause - that I'm referring to.
The religious principle that demanded the establishment clause is the freedom for an individual to choose his or her own religion, rather than being compelled to feign belief in someone else's religion.
The BSA incorporates this principle with the words "respects the beliefs of others" - and yet BSA policies show no such respect to the religious beliefs of certain people. Their policies are internally inconsistent.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
........
I'm not speaking of the bill of rights (which is actually a bill of restrictions on the government, not rights of the people). I'm speaking of the principles that demanded those restrictions. Our founding fathers put those restrictions in place based on the principles they valued. It is those principles - the ones that led our forefathers to adopt the establishment clause - that I'm referring to.
The religious principle that demanded the establishment clause is the freedom for an individual to choose his or her own religion, rather than being compelled to feign belief in someone else's religion.
The BSA incorporates this principle with the words "respects the beliefs of others" - and yet BSA policies show no such respect to the religious beliefs of certain people. Their policies are internally inconsistent....
I'm not certain what "principles of the founding fathers" you are referring to that aren't included in the bill of rights... If I try to look up "principles of the founding fathers" it comes up with ALOT of stuff about religion and god being important to maintaining a free country, people and government not rought with corruption. I'm assuming you are talking about some different principles....
I don't think that the BSA principle you quoted is inconsistant at all. It is one thing to "respect the beliefs of others" and another thing completely to EMBRACE fully the beliefs of others.
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."
I'm not certain what "principles of the founding fathers" you are referring to that aren't included in the bill of rights...
Answer this question: "Why did the founding fathers put the establishment clause in the constitution?"
The answer to that question is the principle I'm referring to. I hold that this principle can be summarized as "Respect the beliefs of others".
Quote:
If I try to look up "principles of the founding fathers" it comes up with ALOT of stuff about religion and god being important to maintaining a free country, people and government not rought with corruption. I'm assuming you are talking about some different principles....
The question of whether religion is important to a free country is subordinate to the idea the principle that individuals must be free to choose their own beliefs.
Quote:
I don't think that the BSA principle you quoted is inconsistant at all. It is one thing to "respect the beliefs of others" and another thing completely to EMBRACE fully the beliefs of others.
You are right, they are two different things, but BSA policy is internally inconsistent. You can't respect another person's beliefs and determine their human worth based on those beliefs. The second you say "I hold belief X" and BSA says "We don't tolerate belief X; you may not join." they have violated their own principle.
The first amendment respects the beliefs of others. BSA policy does not. The Westboro Baptist Church is allowed to exist in the USA, but BSA will eject a Scout because his high school sweetheart has a penis?
__________________
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Linear Mode
