|
|
The argument and response format is designed to try to encourage you to exercise your own informed judgment. A representative sampling of arguments from actual correspondence provoked by the Nonbeliever Anti-discrimination Project web page are presented here without modification. Argument #3 is excerpted from a public statement made by Mr. Richard W. Walker, an ex-official spokesperson for BSA. Responses to arguments 1, 26, and 35 include excerpts from a speech by lawyer James Grafton Randall. Comments about the military pre-training purpose of BSA were taken almost verbatim from a contributor. Most of the other responses, with some additional exceptions, originate with the Nonbeliever Antidiscrimination Project.
All of the responses argue on behalf of two claims. One claim is that BSA should not exclude non-believers even when BSA is legally entitled to do so. The other claim is that government sponsorship or financing of discriminatory BSA units are inconsistent with United States of America and various State laws.
Admitting nonbelievers does not require the Boy Scouts to abandon their basic goals of humanitarian service, high ethical standards, good will and peace. Nor will the admission of atheist or agnostic or "religiously ambivalent" Scouts distract from the purpose of the B.S.A. as expressed in their federal charter, "..to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in Scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues...". [36 U.S.C. §23].
It is possible that some BSA units have accommodated self-identified atheists. As a result, some self-identified atheists may have advanced through the BSA ranks while omitting the reference to God in the oath. Such accommodation, where it has occurred, has likely benefited the unit, BSA, and the Scout. However, statements of unequivocal refusal to accommodate atheists as Scouts or Scouters have been made by BSA's hired public relations experts and by BSA officials testifying in court under oath. Furthermore, BSA national headquarters has a history of refusing membership to or supporting the dismissal of Scouts and Scouters who indicate that they do not subscribe to official BSA views about the role of certain religious beliefs and practices in society or their own lives even when the unit to which they applied would accept their membership.
Other Scouts may find that they are allowed to advance through the ranks only so far or until an arbitrary age, and then they are told they are no longer welcome because they are still atheists. Some Scouts may decide that they are nonbelievers after joining Scouting. Consequently, some Scouts may conclude that they need to hide their nonbelief if they do not want to risk being penalized unfairly for adopting a legitimate but unpopular dissenting worldview. Thus, this BSA policy teaches nonbelievers to practice self-censorship and teaches believers that expression of nonbelief is justifiably penalized.
Let us be clear and honest about the value BSA is upholding. BSA is upholding the "value" of discriminating against nonbelievers. Nonbelieving parents, like believing parents, tend to prefer that their children adopt religious beliefs which they consider to be compatible with their own. When the BSA has endorsed the expulsion of nonbelieving Scouts it has been for expressing a lack of belief in a god and not for a failure of behavior or lack of character, and certainly not because nonbelieving Scouts are in conflict with their parents beliefs. It is not in any way appropriate or practical for BSA to presume that it acts on behalf of parents as if BSA has intimate knowledge of what theological beliefs a particular Scout's parents consider to be in conflict with their own.
People arrive at their values from many different directions, and non-belief is consistent with the values of moral character and good citizenship BSA seeks to promote. The BSA benefits from the participation of nonbelievers no less than they benefit from the participation of believers, and conversely nonbelievers benefit from what BSA has to offer no less than anyone else.
It may be worth mentioning that all paradigms of deity do not assume ultimate authority over what one can/should and cannot/should not do. Many deists believe in a nonpersonal god that makes no judgments or demands on humanity and some theists believe that god demands worship but otherwise makes no judgments on people's ethical character or behavior. Thus, singling out atheists as being unqualified for membership because they lack ethical accountability to a Higher Power (i.e. 'values' referred to above as commonly understood) while simultaneously upholding the right of deists to be members is inconsistent.
BSA Councils have collectively received millions of dollars in government grants. Also, various chapters of United Way provide money to BSA from their general fund. Private organizations can discriminate on the grounds that such discrimination is necessary for carrying out a function protected by the first amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that BSA is a private organization whose discrimination against homosexuals has such first amendment protection. Nevertheless, the claim that Scoutcraft and kindred virtues encompasses the exclusion of atheists remains false and prejudiced. Also, individual freedom of association would be better accommodated by a policy that would allow each chartering organization to decide what membership policy is appropriate for their unit.
Private organizations have no obligation to be neutral. Some "private" organizations nevertheless have contractual relationships with government institutions which, although not necessarily obligating them to be neutral, still obligate them not to discriminate. The BSA
Some BSA units are chartered to government entities. The chartered organization owns and operates the unit, and often pays a charter fee to BSA. The Chartering Organization Representative is responsible for ensuring that their unit leadership meets "the leadership standards of the BSA" [COR pamphlet #33118A]. Both the indirect involvement in creed based discrimination by government entities that sponsor BSA units and the role that BSA itself plays in telling such government entities that particular atheists cannot be members of their units appears to be legally questionable.
Boy Scouts, was created on June 15, 1916 as part of the run-up to World War I (called at the time the "Great Patriotic War"), and since the war itself had broken out in early 1914, it is reasonable to see in this sequence "foresight" to be prepared for the eventual entry of the United States into that war (which happened on April 6, 1917) by pre-conditioning boys to ensure that they were able "to do things for themselves and others, [trained] in scoutcraft, and [taught] patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, ..." all of which were militarily valuable. The fact that the Scouts wore uniforms and had a pseudo-military organization can be understood as part of what Congress hoped to obtain when it mandated the use of "the methods which were in common use by Boy Scouts on June 15, 1916" in Section 23 of the enabling legislation. Congress thought it was getting a way to pre-train young boys so that they would be more suitable to a military life if (or when) the United States had to go to war. The focus was never meant to be sectarian.
There is a distinction between ideals, which are commitments to that which is good and noble, and beliefs, which are opinions about what is true. No one disputes that a theist may derive his ideals from his belief. Where our own higher ideals originate from is important to each of us. Where the other guys ideals originate from, however, is not relevant to the issue of his fitness to participate in non-sectarian membership organizations. What is relevant is his commitment to those ideals as evidenced by his manifestation of those ideals. Otherwise the message we are giving our youth is one that conflates the majorities religious beliefs with an apriori refusal to associate with people of dissenting beliefs.
Everyone who has joined BSA to further their commitment to their God derived ideals can do so alongside of the other Scouts who derive their ideals from different Gods or without God. Accommodating nonbelievers is not directed at making this more difficult for believers. Believers should be capable of developing and maintaining self-confidence in their religious beliefs in the presence of someone with contrary religious beliefs. Like all knowledge claims, theism gains objectivity and warrant to the degree that it is the product of exposure to the fullest range of criticism and perspectives.
As with many organizations, BSA leaders must put aside their personal views when representing BSA. There is a distinction between acting as a BSA representative and acting on one's own behalf. A BSA leader does both. The idea is that when the BSA leader acts on his own behalf, as for example, when he personally recites the Oath, he can be himself, and when he acts as a representative of BSA, for example, when he instructs Scouts in the Oath, he does so strictly in accordance to standard BSA methodology. It is common for people to wear more than one hat. Juggling two hats requires some judgment. People capable of BSA leadership can manage this, it is easy enough to do.
The unit's sponsoring organization can opt not to select Scout leader volunteers or to replace Scout leaders based on whatever criteria they choose in accordance with local community preferences and the sponsoring organization's own biases. BSA, however, refuses to allow sponsoring organizations to select atheistic Scout leaders. It is this interference with the local sponsoring organization's choice that is the target of criticism here. The existence of an atheistic Scout leader in some units would not interfere with the choice of other units to only select Scout leaders who are theistic.
Scouters who refer to God as Allah or who omit references to God in the context of expressing themselves in accordance with their own beliefs are not intruding on the beliefs of others. A truly non-sectarian BSA with a religious element to it's program would make this basic distinction between non-orthodox individual self-identifying religious expression and orthodox collective group-identifying religious expression. Allowing individual religious self-identifying expression which does not conform to the unavoidable majoritarian secterianism of BSA's standard formulation is requisite if BSA is committed to maintaining a non-sectarian status.
Inviting someone to participate with us in a non-sectarian group activity does not imply acceptance, let alone approval, of that persons politics or religion. Would it surprise you that atheists have religious friends and vice versa? Accepting that a Scout is wrong about God, and that he has as much right to be wrong as anyone else, is all that is required. Nor does a BSA that endorses belief and admits nonbelievers teach approval of non-belief or compromise anyone's deepest convictions, unless the conviction is that mere association with people who hold dissenting views is impermissible. This conflates the act of associating with a person who holds certain beliefs with the act of associating oneself with those beliefs. It is a false equation.
BSA policy regarding acceptable and unacceptable behavior is not in dispute. Equating an unspecified 'offensive way of life' with atheism is unfair and wrong. If BSA wants to exclude people for adopting an offensive lifestyle then they can do so without categorically denying membership to atheists. The atheists are being excluded and dismissed because they failed to hide the simple fact that they do not believe in a God, not because there is any problem with their lifestyles. It is their non-belief, not their lifestyle, that is considered offensive, and it is for non-belief and only for non-belief that BSA has endorsed the expulsion and exclusion of these Scouts.
This argument attempts to justify the exclusion of individuals by defining those individuals according to their group religious identity. Individuals invariably cannot be so neatly pigeon holed on the basis of such crude over generalizations. Aggregate group differences, even when well-established, are not otherwise used by BSA to justify the exclusion of individuals. For example, primary school drop-outs are not excluded from participation in Scouting even though there may be significant statistical positive correlations between dropping out of primary school and youth delinquency. Furthermore, BSA makes no claims that there is significant statistical correlation between atheism and inadequate moral character. Instead, BSA resorts to a nasty guilt by insinuation type of circular argument. The moral character basis for excluding atheists is disingenuous because it is made against the entire group without evidence in defense of actions taken against individuals with no personal guilt and because the same argument is not applied against any other identifiable groups for whom there is supporting aggregate statistical evidence. Note that the context of the argument is all important: An opinion that is reasonable in the context of defending religious belief is not thereby reasonable as an argument for excluding nonbelievers from non-sectarian organizations.
The role that theism plays in promoting the moral character of theists is unrelated to the issue of the atheist' s moral character. Nonbelief does not define moral character. Nonbelief is an opinion about a factual claim (existence of God). It is not the intention of the atheist to be speaking about theists when he is primarily speaking of his own identity anymore than it is the intention of the Catholic to be speaking about the Mormon when he identifies himself as a Catholic. BSA does not exclude the Catholic for undermining the moral character of the Mormon. Theist Scouts and Scouters should not take the atheist Scout's and Scouter's beliefs personally anymore than Mormon Scouts or Scouters should take the Catholic Scout's or Scouter's beliefs personally. Otherwise we are inviting unresolvable religious based conflict.
If atheist Scouts were accommodated BSA would still endorse belief in God, the oath would remain the same for theistic Scouts, the troop would still pause for a Scouts Own, the Scout would still leads the patrol in grace, the character that you see in the adult leadership would not change, the religious emblems programs would remain, discussions of the Oath and Law would continue, the positive motivational influence of belief on the moral character of theists would persist.
The common sense guidelines for these activities remain the same as before. For example, here are some suggestions:
Grace at meals: Although attendance may be required, active participation is voluntary. No disruption is allowed. Encourage consideration for the variety of beliefs present.
Discussion of Oath and Law: Do not require participants to comment on beliefs that are not theirs, allow everyone to identify their own beliefs voluntarily, and instruct everyone that disparaging remarks of others beliefs are not appropriate and not allowed. Try to make the oath and law concrete by applying it to real world situations which everyone can understand and identify with.
Religious services: Make sure everyone knows that they can opt out, but if they do attend they must be non-disruptive. If possible, let everyone know in advance the sectarian nature of the service.
The end result may be the introduction of some additional ideas which may not be agreeable to everyone, but the common sense procedural rules remain the same as they always have, the expression of Scouts is not compromised, the aims of BSA and it's methods are kept intact.
If we criticize the BSA's restrictive membership policy, could we still approve of BSA as being a good organization? Must criticism of a particular restrictive aspect of an organizations membership policies be equated with opposition to the organizations overall aims and methods? When we criticize our exclusion from BSA we are implicitly expressing our sincere agreement with, support for, and affinity to the overall aims and methods of BSA. Those of us who want to join BSA want to do so because we agree with all of the BSA's goals except for the "goal" of excluding us.
Claims that including atheists into Scouting would destroy or weaken it are completely unsubstantiated. In fact, in all known cases, Scouts and Scouters who were dismissed for being atheists did no harm whatsoever to Scouting during their time in Scouting. On the contrary, if BSA suffered any harm it was the harm of losing the positive contributions that these nonbelieving Scouts and Scouters provided to their units and to BSA. BSA unit leaders have, and will continue to have, the authority to exclude people who are disruptive. Also, the chartered organizations have, and will continue to have, broad authority to choose their unit leadership. Placing conditions on membership which effectively pre-exclude nonbelievers as a group is unjustified.
If BSA really wanted to avoid "improper" inclusiveness to avoid social risks then arguably the rational way to go about that would be to restrict membership based on those factors which are known to correlate with youth delinquency. Atheism is not one of these factors. Ironically, BSA, to its credit, makes a point of emphasizing its attempts to reach out to the populations that empirical studies repeatedly show are most likely to harbor delinquency.
People who claim that atheists will destroy BSA by their presence are attempting to hide their unattractive intolerance for atheism behind the more attractive clothing of defending and protecting the good. Scapegoating social ills on atheism may offer psychological comfort to theists but it does nothing else other then divert focus from the real difficulties and burden the innocent.
The denotation of "duty to God" is a variable, depending on each individual Scouts' parental value system, and the intersection of these different "duties to God" among all Scouts and Scouters is the null set. Furthermore, atheists can have "duties" which are identical to a theist's "duty to God" but just called by a different name, and therefore BSA is not actually opposing any specific moral code by excluding atheists. The best strategy for achieving an aim is to target the method to both the objective and the subject. Since the subjects (the Scouts) vary this requires some flexibility in method, in this case permitting nonbelievers to substitute an appropriate word such as "Good" or "humankind" or "study, service, and acts of kindness" for God. This is not tantamount to abandoning the traditional method since the Scout Promise and Oath remain theistic by default. The aim remains unchanged and the traditional method still prevails. Methods are not the ends, they are the means to the ends, and there is more than one acceptable way to achieve a given end.
BSA is the Scouting organization for boys in the United States due to exclusive legal rights to the use of the term "Scout" granted to BSA and GSUSA by the United States Congress. In this case segregation would convenience the believer who stigmatizes religious dissenters while inconveniencing many nonbelievers who would find that the atheistic morror organization exists only in the big city too many miles away. Furthermore, no mirror organization for atheists is going to have the name recognition and reputation or resources or federal charter or international reach or automatic military pay grade increase or resume appeal of BSA. The existence of separate organizations, one for atheists and one for EVERYONE else only, clearly implies that atheists are a bad social influence and/or outside the realm of respectability. Such separation interferes with the free flow of ideas and limits people's exposures to minority and dissenting viewpoints. It really is not such a big deal to accommodate nonbelievers in BSA, as Thomas Jefferson said: It does not break anyone's leg or pick anyone's pocket.
Including every religious viewpoint except that of atheists and calling this discrimination a 'standard' is invidious, especially since the accepted religious viewpoints have nothing in common other than not being atheists, and there is nothing that the accepted religions have in common relating to the program of Scouting which atheists forefeit by virtue of being atheists.
Some people did launch a new outdoor youth organization, Enviroleague, at least partly in reaction to BSA's theism only membership restriction. The problem, however, is the existing guideline of BSA which unfairly pre-exclude a group of people, without regard to their character, on the basis of an appeal to the religious prejudice of the majority. This is not a popularity contest, but an issue of unfairly singling out a group of people who are vulnerable precisely because they are a small, disparaged minority.
The Congressionally granted trademark status actually makes it quite difficult to start an organization that is at all similar to the Boy Scouts. The Girl Scouts got around that problem by obtaining their own Congressional charter with similar rights. But the Boy Scouts have been vigorous in going after any organization that uses the word"scout" anywhere in its name or literature. In 1917 it sued the United States Boy Scouts, previously known as American Boy Scouts, and that organization disappeared. Several other versions of scouting were absorbed on a friendly basis. As recently as 1989, it threatened the Wilderness Scouts of Blairsville, Georgia. The YMCA can't use the word "scout" anywhere in its materials, even thought "scouts" were an important part of the "indian" community that the "Y Indian Guides" are supposed to be emulating (and the YMCA is hardly the place for an atheist to look for an alternative to scouting in any case).
We agree that we live in a polarized world and that to varying degrees our world has always been polarized. Polarization, although not a negative trait in itself, can promote distrust and discord if not addressed properly. Is BSA policy segregating nonbelievers promoting distrust and discord or moderating it? Although under some circumstances separation can be the best way to avoid conflict, over the long term separation provides the ideal environment for stereotypes and misunderstanding to flourish.
The vegetarian would not eat fish oil, nor would the believer find Scouting (or anything else) compelling without God. The presence of a nonbeliever in a Scout unit, however, is not an imposition on a believer any more than the presence of someone eating meat is an imposition on a vegetarian. The nonbeliever does not require the believer to not believe (and vice versa) in order to share in the Scouting experience. We live in a religiously diverse society, like it or not, and this diversity requires us to deal with people that we disagree with, even though we have a natural tendency to prefer to deal with people that we agree with.
We all agree with what BSA says it is trying to accomplish. The disagreement centers on whether endorsing belief is insufficient for BSA to realize it's objectives. BSA is saying, in effect, that only a policy that mandates expressions of belief is sufficient, endorsement without compulsion is insufficient or contradictory according to BSA. If you substitute 'endorsing' for 'requiring' in your above sentence, then we are in agreement.
Actually, the beliefs of a majority of Americans and humans are very different than (and in conflict with) the beliefs of the vast majority of Americans since virtually every set of distinct religious beliefs is in one way or another in conflict with each other. There are numerous other religious minorities in the United States with beliefs very different from the majority American beliefs (who are not excluded from Scouting), yet some of the best American citizens can be found among these very same religious minorities. It is not correct to equate incompatible beliefs with incompatible value systems.
As for our intention to show you the light, could it be the other way around, that BSA policy upholding exclusion of nonbelievers is the result of pressure from some of the churches that sponsor many Scout units who use their leverage to employ BSA as a "non-sectarian" (and therefore more credible) authority for legitimatizing and maintaining negative stereotyping of nonbelievers?
There is nothing more important to us in our civic life then the good will of our fellow citizens. It is ok with us if you pray for us, although we would consider it more productive if you would act on your good will instead of just congratulating yourself for announcing it to the walls.
BSA provides a unique opportunity to instill positive values in a structured environment. Atheist parents who send their children to BSA, although you may think they are misguided, are as committed to imparting those same values to their children as are any other responsible parents. Certainly, segregation of atheists from theists does not help either learn from each other. Theists should have nothing to fear since religion is compelling enough not to be dependent upon segregation to keep it safe from competing influences. However, BSA is not the appropriate place to engage in proselytizing, and unwanted proselytizing of a fellow Scout is a discouraged activity.
Beliefs require discrimination, you choose what is plausible and what is not. Ethics is based on discrimination, there is good and bad, right and wrong, fair and unfair. Competition requires discrimination between the more capable and the less capable as measured by actual performance. But neither beliefs nor ethics nor competition requires discrimination that chooses what others beliefs should be on their behalf, that employ double standards of evidence for ethical fitness (one posteriori the other a priori), and that keeps some players off the field without regard to performance potential. It is the latter type of discrimination which is practiced by BSA, not the former types.
Recognizing the existence of country does not require a religious faith whereas for God it does. Therefore 'duty to God', unlike 'duty to country' is a particular religious conviction. By making public expressions of agreement with this particular religious conviction a condition of membership BSA compromises it's claim of adopting a "non-sectarian". approach.
BSA says nothing about choosing which one of the two to serve in the event duty to God and country are in conflict, as if such conflict were not possible. Clearly such conflict is possible, yet somehow this dilemma gets overlooked and the assumption is made that no compromise is implied or allowed on a singular "foundation of Scouting". Including nonbelievers is not in conflict with retaining duty to country or reverence, or trustworthiness, etc. as immutable standards, nor does it prevent BSA from promoting duty to God. Such inclusion is necessary, however, for BSA to truly be the non-sectarian organization it benefits from claiming to be.
Unlike citizenship, safety, environmental safety etc. service to God is a religious belief. Nonbelief is consonant with citizenship, safety, and environmental responsibility.
For many people duty to God is the foundation for all else, including good sportsmanship which is taught by Little League. The same argument that you are using for Scouting can be used for almost any organization, including youth baseball. The Little League could identify sportsmanship with duty to God and country. There is, however, a difference between embracing belief in God and excluding nonbelievers. The issue here is the latter, not the former. If the Little League excluded people without even giving them an opportunity to demonstrate their sportsmanship as a consequence of non-belief in God then they would be just as wrong as BSA.
You seem to be suggesting that nonbelievers cannot fulfill their obligations as Scouts. How then can you explain the nonbelievers who are Scouts? If no one played the field in baseball there could be no game. If all the Scouts in a troop were nonbelievers the troop would be fully functional. Nonbelievers only become a 'problem' when they stop lying to save themselves from retribution for doing what everyone else takes for granted - identifying themselves according to their beliefs.
In the 1984 case Jacques v. Hilton the 3rd Circuit Court (738 F. 2d 422) stated "The Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts of America both espouse simple codes of personal conduct ... these organizations are clearly not religious."
The extent to which BSA units emphasize religion varies considerably. Some units have no religious emphasis. Other units, particularly among those chartered to religious organizations, may have a religious focus. Excluding atheists and promoting religion are somewhat different. Even in those units where religion is a main focus, excluding nonbelievers does not further the purpose of promoting religion. The exclusion of nonbelievers from BSA has not been limited to those units with religious chartered organizations.
BSA does endorse belief in God. That is O.K. and is not being challenged.
The option is for nonbelievers to be Scouts, not for believers to drop the religious component of Scouting. As an option it would require a public admission of non-belief. Since such a public profession is not an attractive option for most believers it is not such a radical transformation in BSA for believers. Please note that all people are not the same and what is important to the development of many people does not automatically thereby become important to the development of "a person" no matter who he is. Many nonbelievers, not just atheists, do not believe that a religious belief is important to their development, and they should not be penalized for disagreeing with you about what is good for them.
Boy Scouts would not loose their distinctiveness if they admitted atheists anymore then Little League lost its distinctiveness when it admitted girls. BSA's program is too big, distinctive and well-defined for the petty exclusion of atheists to be a defining characteristic. An intolerant membership policy as a defining characteristic of BSA can only serve to promote intolerance and misunderstanding.
"It's the rules" is, I am sure your aware, a circular argument. The Boy Scouts are an international organization and the Oath and the Law vary from country to country. You could be more flexible, you choose not to be. Furthermore, if rules are of primary importance to you, then you should be made aware that there are Biblical prohibitions against oaths to "God", i.e., see Matthew 5:33-37; James 5:12.
If one wants to stand fast on a "it's the rules" argument, then we would all be drinking English tea and serving under the King (or Queen); blacks would still be picking cotton; Chinese would still be working on the railroad and Japanese would still be interned in camps; Jews would probably be non- existent under Hitler's "rules"; and women would still be barefoot and pregnant and staying at home.
Some people describe their feelings for the outdoors, for their deceased parents, etc. as being reverential. This application of reverence is not meant to disparage alternative, strictly religious definitions of reverence. The Scout Law varies internationally and the BSA is one of the only members of the World Scouting Movement (WOSM) with the "A Scout is reverent" in its Scout Law.
Here is the definition from Webster's New World Dictionary, third edition: '1. A feeling or attitude of deep respect, love, and awe, as for something venerable'. BSA could allow for the possibility that reverence can be felt by people regardless of their religious belief (including non-belief).
Your reliance on a higher being does not obligate others to also rely on a higher being. Nor is your reliance on a higher being relevant to the qualification of nonbelievers. Otherwise, the same logic you apply to single out atheists could be applied to limiting the participation of any religious denomination you personally disagreed with, including those you list. For example, why not say that Jesus allowed and helped me become an Eagle Scout, and Scouts do not have to believe in the virgin birth, as long as they believe in Jesus? BSA judges candidates for each rank in Scouting based on what he has accomplished as a Scout, not on what his conscience tells him to think or believe. Suppose a Scout who was a monotheist earned Eagle rank and later became an atheist. Surely that Scout did not loose his Eagle Scout rank upon becoming an atheist. So if he can be an Eagle Scout and an atheist after the fact, why not to begin with?
But even if you were right, how would you ever know that all boys who did not believe as you do were less capable of being a good Eagle Scout if you deny them even the opportunity to try?
To be non-sectarian, all units should have an equal opportunity to lead meal-time grace at BSA events. Encouraging use of the non-Christian, theistic Philmont Grace, although helpful, is not in and of itself adequate to address the religious diversity likely to be found in a large gathering of units. Nor should establishing fair procedures for upholding a non-sectarian standard be left to each council and unit to deal with on their own on an event by event basis. Instead, BSA national headquarters could set rules mandating a process for ensuring equal expressive opportunity to the diversity of religious orientations of units at large events during meal time prayer. For example, a transparent random selection process for assigning a different unit to lead prayer at each of the meals can be a required component of opening ceremonies at council and district level events. Without such a mandated non-sectarian procedure BSA's non-sectarianism has no teeth and consequently sectarianism prevails in practice.
Political parties and religious institutions fall into the category of sectarian organizations. Consequently, there are certain restrictions that apply to them that do not apply to nonsectarian organizations such as BSA. For example, political parties and religious institutions, unlike BSA, do not arrange for elementary public school teachers to distribute recruitment brochures. Also, sectarian organizations cannot impose sectarian participation restrictions on educational programs owned and operated by government agencies as part of a contract with the government agencies. Yet BSA claims it can do just that.
The renewal instructions for Chartered Organization Certification says:
. . . . The chartered organization certifies that all registered adults subscribe to the Declaration of Religious Principle, policy of nondiscrimination, and the Scout Oath or Promise. Adults agree to be guided by the Charter, Bylaws, and Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America, they are U.S. citizens (or have declared intention or are otherwise qualified).The policy of nondiscrimination says:
Youth membership in the Boy Scouts of America is open to all boys and young adults who meet the joining requirements.
Membership in Scouting, advancement, and achievement of leadership in Scouting units are open to all youths without regard to race or ethnic background and are based entirely upon individual merit.
Here is quote from the Blue Ridge Mountains Council web page that describes the "for all boys" policy:
The program of Character Building and Citizenship Training were considered so important by the leaders of our nation, that a Federal Charter was granted to the Boy Scouts of America by Congress, and this charter charges the Boy Scouts of America with the responsibility of making the program available to every boy in America.
How does accommodating nonbelievers equate with telling theists to keep their religious beliefs at home? BSA would continue to endorse theism in it's oath and law and would continue to offer religious merit badges, maybe with one more badge for free-thought. Accommodating nonbelievers does not require BSA to abandon a fundamental basis for it's existence, it only requires some compromise. For example, we accommodate the religious beliefs of minorities by re-scheduling school examinations that conflict with their religious holidays. Doing so does not deny the fundamental basis of the majorities religious beliefs.
In Boy Scouting, the concept and practice of freedom of conscience is fundamentally compromised by the absence of freedom to express one's own beliefs of conscience in language appropriate to those beliefs in important ceremonial and public contexts. One of the most important aspects of freedom of religion is, after all, to be able to profess one's own beliefs of conscience publicly, in words appropriate to those beliefs. BSA does not allow such expression for atheists.
This is not a problem unique to believers sharing a presence with nonbelievers. There is a tendency for some element of disturbance to exist whenever two people present each other with contradictory religious beliefs. People disagree about the most fundamental religious issues, such as who qualifies as a Christian, yet they still participate together in BSA. Many Americans, to their credit, have become at least somewhat accustom to a subset of the variety of beliefs that exist in the world. They did not develop this tolerance from unrestrained segregation.
Religious minorities in the U.S. maintain their religious beliefs even in the presence of an unmistakably Christian, albeit secularized Christian, American culture. A BSA that endorses theism but accommodates nonbelievers would still place the onus of minority status on the nonbeliever. This burden of minority status is a fact of life, one of the inherent unfairnesses of life which needs to be accepted. Similarly, like it or not, there is a civic obligation for majorities to confront the unpleasant fact that not everyone shares the majority world-view. BSA's policy of selectively denying the majorities civic obligation to deal fairly with a dissenting religious minority is no more responsible or reasonable than an insistence by a religious minority that the onus of minority status be eliminated would be.
What is it exactly that the Boy Scouts are attempting to "express", i.e., the right of "expressive association"? This question cannot be clearly answered, nor does the Boy Scouts of America provide any guidance or assistance. It states that there is no religious test for membership; the Boy Scouts of America does not define "God"; it is a nonsectarian organization; "The Boy Scouts of America does not define what constitutes belief in God or the practice of religion" [B.S.A. Policies]; the B.S.A. does not require membership in a religious organization or association to join the B.S.A.; if a Scout is a member of one religious group he does not have to participate in the religious activities of another group; the B.S.A. states that religion is to be taught at home or in the religious organization; and they allow the participation in Scouting of those who belong to religious organizations which do not have either a deistic premise or a belief in "god" at all.
The Boy Scouts of America does contend, however, that "no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God" ["Declaration of Religious Principle", B.S.A.]. This, of course, would be news to literally millions people who are patriotic "good citizens" without a belief in "God" Even if some slight infringement on the BSA's members right of expressive association occurs, this infringement is justified because it serves the State's compelling interest of not supporting discrimination against religious dissenters.
Governmental association with BSA would probably be on sound legal footing if BSA did not impose political or religious based membership restrictions. If BSA decides to maintain it's role as excluder of nonbelievers, then BSA may be liable for violating non-discrimination laws that apply to taxpayer supported institutions as a third party interferer and as such BSA bears some responsibility for ending it's relationships with government. Some government entities may presently be unaware that BSA has excluded nonbelievers from participation or in some cases they may be unwilling to acknowledge that such exclusion places them in violation of state and federal laws. Local governments have been the subject of individual and class action lawsuits by taxpayers because the participation restrictions apply to BSA units chartered to government agencies. All government agencies with BSA charters should, unfortunately, reconsider their charter.
An alternative approach that may help resolve this problem would be for BSA to provide individual charter partners with more leeway to set the terms of their own unit's membership policy. This way the antidiscrimination obligations of public charter partner institutions could be adhered to without interference from the unit's District or Council or from national headquarters. Currently, when a Council, either on its own or at the request of a unit, dismisses a Scout or Scouter or refuses membership to a Scout or Scouter, that refusal apparently applies to all units in that Council and possibly nationwide. Consequently, religious units end up dictating to secular and publicly chartered units which prospective Scouts cannot be accepted for membership.
A related issue is the bias of the policy making process. Wiccan covens claim that they have been denied the opportunity to become charter partners on religious grounds. Charter partners sit on the Relationship Committees which recommend BSA policy, so denying an organization the opportunity to be a charter partner also effectively disenfranchises them from BSA. The Unitarian Universalist Representative to the Religious Relationship Committee was barred from renewing their membership in 1992 after the UUA protested BSA policy on gays and atheists. More recently the Religious Relationship Committee informed the president of the UUA that their Religion in Life badge would no longer be recognized by BSA. As long as Relationship Committee membership is denied to dissenters there is no true democratic fairness in BSA and little prospect for internal reform.
Belief in God is one thing, an interest in learning about our country is something else. It is incorrect to associate a non-belief in God with a disinterest in country. This is simply not the case.
By excluding people who are not interested in learning about God you are assuming that this God exists and has an identity that can be correctly understood. These are religious based factual claims that are distinct from Scoutcraft and kindred values. People who do no share your opinion concerning the reality of your religious based factual claims have not thereby abondened their qualification to learn Scoutcraft and kindred values.
"All things are not equal, and we must fight to defend OUR beliefs and what we think is right."
Surely Scouting with people of different beliefs does not require anyone to sacrifice their own beliefs. Accommodating nonbelievers does not make all things equal, since BSA could still endorse theism as it does now.
We support your defense of your beliefs no less so then we support our defense of our beliefs. Please do not think that your beliefs are being attacked, only the policy of excluding atheists from non-sectarian social and civic organizations is being challenged. We all agree that all things are not equal, otherwise we would have no basis for holding one opinion over another.
Michael Rosenthal, the author of the book, "The Character Factory: Baden- Powell and the Imperatives of the Empire" (1986), recently stated that Robert Baden-Powell, founder of the Boy Scout movement never would have asked any person or his parents if they believed in God. Responding to a New York Times newspaper editorial, Mr. Rosenthal states:
"Contrary to the statement of Scout officials you mention, Baden-Powell did not found the movement 'for boys who believe in God'. He wanted boys - large numbers of them -- and didn't care what they believed. He recognized, indeed, that requiring some form of religious belief would exclude potential members, limiting the movement's mass appeal. On the other hand, he also recognized that he would run the risk of alienating Britain's religious and moral establishment -- whose support he needed for the growth of the Scouts -- if he paid insufficient attention to religion."As Mr. Rosenthal states:
" Baden-Powell, were he alive, would certainly want [these boys] to be a Cub Scout." [New York Times, 7/8/91].
Lord Baden-Powell did make many references to God in his books. Also, he emphasized tolerance for different views. He associated non-belief with slums and poverty, assuming that if someone was not a believer it was because they were from an impoverished background. He was wrong about that. He apparently did not initially intend to start a new outdoor youth organization. He initial wrote down his ideas to assist the existing denominational outdoor youth organizations and he knew that a religious emphasis was necessary to make his ideas attractive to his audience.
The first Chief Scout of BSA in the United States was Ernest Thompson Seton. Chief Scout Ernest Seton wrote large sections of the original BSA manual of 1911. A substantial part of LBP's famous book 'Scouting for Boys' was taken directly from Ernest T. Seton's book 'Birch Bark Roll'. Yet Ernest Thompson Seton did not believe in a personal God and was antagonistic to traditional religion.
We have to qualify 'any organization' and 'certain things'. Little League cannot demand that its members be of European ancestry, for example. As a condition for sponsoring a troop, the BSA asks churches to agree to an open membership policy with respect to families who do not belong to the sponsoring church. It is precisely because of such non-discriminatory policy that the BSA qualifies to be a Congressionally chartered 'Patriotic Association' with exclusive rights to use the term 'Scout' (along with GSUSA), qualifies to enlist government personnel to recruit on their behalf, qualifies for United Way funding, qualifies for rent free use of public facilities (see examples below), etc. The real issue is whether the umbrella of non-discrimination is limited to believers, or whether it also covers nonbelievers. Please keep in mind that a church sponsored troop can adopt some of the religious practices specific to its creed without also denying membership to people of different creeds. Also, BSA provides a closed membership unit option. Participants in closed membership units are limited to members of the sponsoring organization.
An annual Scout Blast - Armed Forces Day celebration at the Jacksonville Florida Naval Air Station was held several times since 1980. It features fly-bys by current generation Navy fighter jets. All proceeds of the Scout Blast went to units belonging to the North Florida Council of the BSA.
Military personnel are permitted to receive paid leave, called Permissive Temporary Duty, for on duty time spent volunteering for BSA events and activities.
There are two Scouting facilities at AP Hill (U.S. Army base). One is the site used for Jamborees, the other is a site set aside for camporees and the like. This second site is used exclusively for Scout camping. Quantico Marine Corps Base has a camping area set aside specifically for the use of Boy Scouts. It's marked with a sign that identifies it as a "Scout Camping Area". Ft Belvoir also has an area designated as a "Scout Camping Area" on the post that appears to be used exclusively by the Boy Scouts. In Japan, the Tama Recreation Area, a recreation facility for US Forces stationed in Japan, has a large camp area set aside solely for the use of Boy Scout units in Japan. Camp Zama, Sagamihara Housing Area and Sagami Army Depot also have buildings specifically set aside for the exclusive use of the Scouting units at the post. The Far East Council and Japan District of the BSA (and the local Girl Scout council) are headquartered in an office area on Yokota AFB, once again, set aside specifically for their use.
Ridicule is a problem. It happens in contexts outside of this one, and the Scout age group may be prone to this behavior more than older or younger folk. There is no basis, however, for assuming that ridicule would more likely be directed at theists by atheists than vice versa. This problem is arguably at least as much a symptom of the lack diversity as a product of it. Separation seems to be an attempt to avoid the problem rather then deal with it. There is a good chance that responsible adult leaders will proscribe ridicule and disruption, and it would be appropriate for BSA to provide adult leaders with guidelines for dealing appropriately with such problems and for impressing upon the Scouts that such behavior is not tolerated in Scouting. If Scouting gives up on this problem what does that say about our society? Where else but in a structured environment can this problem be tackled? If the problem is not dealt with when we are young where does that leave us as adults?
The children who are being excluded or denied membership have no Scoutmaster to intervene and set things right. They are up against not just a small clique of peers but their community and society. Furthermore, in many cases, quite likely most cases, they were not disruptive, indeed some were never even given the opportunity to participate. In one recent case, for example, a 13 year old boy and professed nonbeliever who had been in Scouting for over five years, who had participated in the religious activities of his troop and took pride in his tolerance for other people's beliefs, was told he was no longer welcome because he was still an atheist (it was said that he was allowed to participate until then because he was judged to be too young to understand what atheism was).
The issue is not and never has been the behavior of the nonbeliever (if it were, they would be admitted and kicked out on behavioral grounds). On the contrary, when the Jack H. Gosalind, chairman of the general scouting committee and member of the First Quorum of 70 of the Church of the Latter Day Saints (and also a member of both the National Executive Committee and the Religious Relationship Committee of BSA), testified on April 1995 before the City of Chicago Commission of Human Relations that the LDS would withdraw it's substantial participation in BSA (over 20% of the approximately 130,000 Scout troops are chartered to the LDS) if BSA drops its membership restrictions, they more than likely are acting from self-interested insight that nonbelievers will behave honorably and therefore compromise the LDS's claim to people's loyalty that is held on basis of the argument that ethics must be God-centered. Suppressing exposure to and upholding negative stereotyping of opposing points of view is a tradition much older than Moses but it is not a tradition that should win our complicity under any circumstances.
Under this united by belief in a God justification for membership exclusion where does that leave nonbelievers in our society? Is there any organization that would not benefit from more such unity? Why not Little League and civil service? Do we exclude pantheists, deists, agnostics, polytheists, Buddhists? Is not unity under Christianity more compelling than unity under God? Then whose definition of Christianity? Or is 'unity' a term used here to give a veneer of principle to the unprincipled argument that an unfairly stigmatized minority is to be sacrificed when there is more profit in catering to a more numerous intolerant bloc?
How about: To be sure, not all Scouts share the same belief in a God, but their common Scouting experience unites them? Unit cohesion is not something units start with, but is something that develops - not because people are the same but despite their differences.
Middle ground, the term common ground is preferable, is about finding a place for all within the rules of meeting our obligations to each other. Our mutual obligations to each other cannot be realized from a "whatever turns you on" rule so finding common ground is not about "whatever turns you on".
Notification of changes made to this page are never sent more than once per month.
