NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/rec/scouting/2257

Text File | 1992-07-27 | 5.9 KB | 118 lines

Newsgroups: rec.scouting
Path: sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!yktnews!admin!Watson!strom
From: [e-mail] (Rob Strom)
Subject: Re: Support for Boy Scouts
Sender: [e-mail] (NNTP News Poster)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:30:49 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>     <[e-mail]>     <[e-mail]>     <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: stockholm.watson.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Research
Lines: 104

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert Losee) writes:
|> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Slagle) writes:
|> ...
|>
|> >I'm not trying to push religion anywhere, Robert.  I just
|> >don't see the necessity of using it as a litmus test for
|> >participation in the Boy Scouts.  You can have your religion,
|> >and you can practice it anywhere you want, as far as I am
|> >concerned.  I am certainly not calling for any kind of legal
|> >sanctions here, but I am arguing for MY beliefs just as you
|> >are for yours.  It is your stand for exclusivity, not mine.
|> >I would be quite happy to share the Boy Scouts and any other
|> >non-government organization with you and anyone else without
|> >regard to religious beliefs, or lack of them.  Have I even
|> >suggested that I would like some sort of oath of unbelief to
|> >parallel your requirement for a loyalty oath to god?
|>
...
|> Alright Mark, I'm sorry if I'm distorting your beliefs but maybe you
|> can help me out here.  Do you have problems with the BSA in particular
|> or in general are you claiming most/all organizations should be open
|> to all, including atheists?
|>
|> If it's the latter I find this a problem as I believe it infringes on
|> first amendment rights.  Right up there with free speech, press, and
|> the right to religion not defined by government is the right to
|> "peaceably to assemble", i.e. join groups with a common interest.  I
|> seek to protect that right, not only legalistically, but by stating
|> that such groups are a good thing in a society, just as numerous
|> species are a good thing in an ecological system.
|>

I am not suggesting that the BSA be legally compelled to
not discriminate.  And I agree that diversity is a good
thing.  We're talking about whether it's better for the
BSA to be an open organization or a religious organization.

My view is that either is OK as long as it's unambiguous.
I would have no problem if the BSA were *more* discriminatory,
so it was obvious to all that this was, for example,
the "Catholic Boy Scouts" or the "Baptist Boy Scouts".
Neither funding agencies nor the community at large would
have any illusions about such organizations' having open
membership.  I wouldn't expect to insist that my children,
who are Jewish, should be allowed to join such groups.

It's much more objectionable when the organization accepts
*almost* everybody except certain groups against which
there are widespread popular prejudices.  If this is
supposed to be an open, non-denominational movement
which teaches outdoor activities, morals, and good
citizenship, if you exclude atheists and gays it is
hard not to make the inference that the BSA accepts
the popular (false) stereotype that atheists and
gays cannot be moral or good citizens.  And in fact,
some posters, such as Mr. Krieger, seem to have stated
this position explicitly here.  My objection is not
the legal one that the BSA should not be allowed
to act on this prejudice, but the moral one that
teaching this prejudice reinforces bigotry and is
detrimental to the overall goal of scouting, which
is promoting good citizenship for a pluralistic
democratic society.



|> I also sense that part of your arguement is based on the idea that
|> you don't seek to add an oath, or exclude anything or anyone and
|> therefore that is a good thing. My problem is that I believe in
|> practice, admitting atheists would eliminate or more appropriately
|> *exclude* a religious orientation in an organization, and thus
|> exclude persons seeking that level or religiousness in an
|> organization.  In short this is also an exclusionary policy.  After
|> all, how could an organization have an oath about duty to God and
|> Country that wouldn't offend atheists.  If they were to be full
|> members it seems the oath and reverent must leave the BSA program.
|>
|> At this point I think you or others bring up that in fact these
|> aren't part of the program.  They aren't important. They are easily
|> eliminated with no impact on the program.  All I can say is that is
|> not my experience here.
|>

I have brought this up.  This may be a characteristic of
scouting in the Bible Belt, where there is more of a default
assumption that everyone is Christian or at least religious.
For example, people have mentioned that advancement in
Cub Scouts and Webelos required membership in an organized
church or synagogue --- this was definitely not the case
here in the Northeast where my son was in scouting.  Except
for the formalities (e.g. "God" in the pledge of allegiance
and the scout oath), there was *no* religion in scouting.

How would your Nebraska scouting program have been significantly
different if "reverent" were interpreted more broadly and
atheists were permitted to advance by making a presentation
of their moral codes similar to those made by members of
organized religions?

(I have shortened the newsgroups line to eliminate the
cross-posting to groups other than rec.scouting.)
--
Rob Strom, [e-mail], [phone]
IBM Research, 30 Saw Mill River Road, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598