In article <4lmu5j$5a9@portal.gmu.edu> wrote (inter alia):
>From the viewpoint of the organization it would
probably be easier
>to adopt a local standards prevail policy, particularly since
the
>local standards on this issue vary substantially. I am
sympathetic to
>the difficulty the BSA would face if it tried to uphold a
more
>inclusive policy. I am not convinced it is trying though. The
Girl
>Scouts, for example, do not to my knowledge place conditions
on
>participation related to the members religious beliefs.
Not only is BSA not trying, it is actively promoting a prejudiced policy by denying local organizations the right to include non-theists.
In 1989, when my son and I accepted an invitation to participate in Tiger Cubs, which invitation had been handed out by Mark's first-grade teacher in class, we were excluded from participation, even though the leader of the Cub Scout Pack involved would have permitted us to join, and even though the Cub Scout leaders involved would have been the parents of Mark's best friend.
Moreover, when the Tiger Cub coordinator herself turned out to be a non-theist, she and her son were both forced out of Scouting by the local council, backed by BSA national.
When we filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit concerning this issue, BSA national provided both the legal defense and the definitive Boy Scout rationale: non-theists cannot, by BSA definition, become the "best kind of citizens" (see BSA's Declaration of Religious Principle, in several and various printed incarnations); moreover, while allowing Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus, not to mention members of other diverse sects to participate in Scouting does not cause any cognitive problems whatever with respect to its views on religious training and belief, allowing a non-theist to participate in Boy Scouting would result in "cognitive dissonance" which would very likely destroy the cohesiveness and morale of the entire organization, according to BSA attorneys (actually speaking with straight faces).
This is true, according to BSA, despite the fact that at least one of its national officials has written privately to a Unitarian minister who inquired about the matter, saying that it considers that its Buddhist members who do not believe in God actually +do+ fulfill &quo;their duty to God," notwithstanding. Evidently no other non-theists are so fortunately situated, morally speaking, as to get a "free pass" on this matter, except those who are willing to rationalize some kind of "duty to God" (what an invitation this is to be less than trustworthy; and isn't it interesting that those who *are* untrustworthy concerning this matter are subsequently held in higher esteem than those who are not, simply by virtue of claiming a duty to something they do not believe in--there must be some sort of moral lesson in all this, no?).
You are correct in noting that GSUSA does not limit its membership to persons who hold particular beliefs with respect to religion, and Mark's sister and mother have participated in GSUSA for some years now, with no discernible diminishment in either its cohesiveness or morale.
Maybe I'm just simple-minded but, once historical (and modern) stereotypical social and religious prejudices concerning non-theists are taken into account, most of the disingenuous blather this issue evokes in defense of religious exclusion and segregation (which purports to explain why an organization which is chartered by Congress as a patriotic society, and whose patently inclusive statement of purpose in said charter makes no mention whatever of the supposedly all-important purpose of inculcating notions about God or religious belief) can be seen for what it is: old-fashioned stereotypical--not to mention unoriginal--religious prejudice and bigotry.
One hardly knows which is more worthy of condemnation: the original religiously prejudiced boilerplate used in the Declaration of Religious Principle, or the ingenious and highly disingenuous hypocrisy now used to defend it so vigorously. For me, even +thinking+ about such a choice produces a most profound case of cognitive dissonance.
In article <4morsf$h5m@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Skip J Van Bloem wrote (inter alia):
>As an aside, I read with interest Elliott's
account of his
>experiences with his local scout council and pack. I'm
not
>surprised that the council dug its feet in when faced with
a
>lawsuit. I wonder if Elliott (are you there) was able to
>express his sense of spirituality and if it would correspond
with
>what has been stated above. (Hey, Elliott, this is an invite
to
>join in here.)
When, as is customary, the federal judge in charge of our lawsuit offered, in chambers, to mediate any possible compromise on the issue, BSA attorneys indicated that their instructions permitted no deviations whatever on "duty to God." They made it clear that some folks simply weren't fit to be Boy Scouts, solely on religious grounds. They also made it clear that we were among those folks.
While I have been given much advice concerning how I might have rationalized this issue, then or earlier, what came through most clearly at the time was the very odd notion that BSA actually considered some people to be *unfit* to participate in Scouting, based solely on their religious views, as demonstrated by their inability to profess a particular formulation of religious doctrine (however broad in scope).
With all due respect, in Scouting there is no burden on a Catholic, or even a Buddhist (who might very well not believe in any commonly recognizable notion of "God") to defend or explain his "sense of spirituality." Why ought a non-believer who accepts the ethical and moral values in the non-theist portions of the Scout Oath and Law be obliged to jump through hoops, simply because there is a pervasive prejudice which holds that non-believers are somehow lacking in moral, ethical, or spiritual sensibility (especially when these are as broadly defined as they are in Scouting)?
It seemed to me, then and now, that given Scouting's ultimate mission, as I understood it, namely, to teach boys moral and ethical behavior and leadership skills and good citizenship, and given Scouting's ecumenical posture, that it was very odd indeed, not to say bizarre, that anyone who accepted the moral and ethical positions articulated in the Scout Oath and Law would be turned away simply on grounds of unbelief in God.
Now, belief in God is important to believers and clearly ought to be encouraged by both the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts, where appropriate. But it is both silly and insulting to assume that holding a belief in God is congruent with the capacity to become the "best kind of citizen," much less the capacity to participate in the Scouting movement in a constructive and harmonious way.
It is instructive to note that the GSUSA has essentially solved the problem of accommodating non-believers by making clear that Girl Scouting welcomes all Girls, regardless of belief with respect to religion, while BSA continues to claim, in effect, that there exists a class of persons, defined solely by their inability to profess a particular religious point of view, who are unfit for, and unwelcome in, Boy Scouting. Whatever else it may be, this is *not* Boy Scouting as I understand the word, and the simple fact that *anyone* is excluded solely on grounds of belief with respect to religion makes it plain that Scouting is no longer meant to serve all boys as its Congressional charter clearly implies, but is apparently being used to further some religious agenda, instead.
Here is an organization which embraces extremely diverse religious points of view, some of whose adherents are, regrettably, actually slaughtering each other daily in foreign lands over religious differences in culture, outlook or belief. And yet BSA claims that its members share a particular commonality of belief which would somehow be destroyed were the BSA tent to be enlarged to include respectful non-believers of unquestionable good-will, fine character, and valuable experience. (Respect ought to flow +both+ ways in Scouting--those who claim that non-believers invariably fail to respect the beliefs of others are simply stereotyping them and, in doing so, inevitably and ironically overlook their +own+ inability to express decent respect for the beliefs of folks with whom they may disagree--even though the moral and ethical beliefs and behavior of those who are now excluded may be as exemplary as anyone could wish).
If a +non-theist+ Buddhist and a Baptist and a Muslim and a Catholic and a Jew and a Hindu and a Methodist can all agree to set aside their religious differences (which are, or have been, substantial enough to produce armed conflict at times) and work and play together in Scouting, how great an impediment can one more set of religious differences be, exactly? Is it really sensible to make Boy Scouting into a frankly religious organization, especially when the price being paid involves compromising the Scouting virtues of friendliness, courtesy, helpfulness, kindness, and fairness (not to mention mocking any real notion of religious tolerance and understanding)?
It is hardly news, and I well understand that prejudice and stereotyping of non-theists is an old and, to some, venerable, tradition. Some folks actually believe the stereotypes, I suppose. But, as with prejudice-based racial segregation, it is long past time for BSA to stop both teaching and practicing segregation and exclusion on religious grounds--especially since this is an organization which claims to pride itself on its religious diversity, mutual understanding and tolerance.
Elliott