I grew up in scouting. Reaching the rank of Eagle Scout was one of the defining events of my adolescence. I am the father of two sons, both currently scouts, have been a scout leader for almost seven years, and am currently the scoutmaster of the troop of which my older son is a member. It is important to me that I try to provide for my sons the kind of scout experience that I enjoyed while growing up. I wholly believe that scouting makes an important contribution to our society.
Eagle Scouts are taught to set high standards and to stand up for what they believe in. It is for this reason that I am providing the following evidence and arguments that the current BSA policy of excluding atheist boys goes against many of scouting's own principles. This policy does a disservice to our society and reflects poorly on scouting.
The first point of the scout law states that a scout is trustworthy. To be worthy of trust, one must be honest in ones dealings with others. One must also be honest with oneself. Sometimes it is necessary to honestly examine the assumptions that underpin ones principles and determine whether they are based on fact. If it is determined that a principle is based on prejudice and stereotypes rather than on fact, it is then necessary to modify the principle if one desires to remain worthy of trust. I will demonstrate that this policy of exclusion is based on beliefs that are not grounded in fact and, instead, contradict the stated goals of scouting, which, according to the Scoutmaster Handbook, are:
One of the fundamental underpinnings upon which the United States of America was founded is freedom of religion. This freedom guarantees that each citizen is free to hold his or her own beliefs concerning religion and God and that the civil rights enjoyed by any citizen will not be impacted by their religious beliefs. Therefore, no one is considered any less a citizen of the USA because of the religious beliefs they hold. This freedom applies not only to Christians, Jews, and Moslems, but also to Hindus, Buddhists, Agnostics, Atheists, and all others, regardless of whether they are in the mainstream of American religious thought.
To teach children that some people are inferior citizens because their religious outlook is different does not foster good citizenship. Instead, it teaches that there are different classes of citizens. It teaches that there are those who are the best kind of citizens because they agree with a particular religious outlook. Conversely, it teaches that there are others who, because they are of a different religious outlook, take their responsibilities as citizens less seriously and so, by implication, do not deserve to enjoy all the rights enjoyed in our society. This can certainly be inferred from the BSA Declaration of Religious Principles (DRP):
"The Boy Scouts of America maintain that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing his obligation to God."It is also explicit in the following quote from the chief spokesman for national office of the BSA:
"...once a person admits to not believing in God, this raises the question of whether or not that person believes in America...."
It is interesting to compare these statements with statements made by several founding fathers of this great nation who were instrumental in framing the guarantee of religious freedom. We begin with two quotes from Thomas Jefferson, whose name is practically synonymous with religious freedom (emphasis are mine).
"Do not be frightened from this enquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its' exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you. If you find reason to believe that there is a god, a consciousness that you are acting under his eye, and that he approves of you, will be a vast additional incitement. {...} Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." [Thomas Jefferson, letter to his nephew Peter Carr, on advising him on a critical examination of the Bible, Aug. 10, 1787]
"...If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that is pleasing to him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God." [Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814]Next, from Thomas Paine:
"I put the following work under your protection. It contains my opinion upon religion. You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.And finally, from Benjamin Franklin .The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall." [Thomas Paine, "Age of Reason"]
"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it." [Benjamin Franklin from "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", Nov. 20, 1728]Obviously, the DRP is not in keeping with the spirit of these great men. Furthermore, the DRP is factually untrue. The rules of logic dictate that only one counterexample need be produced to prove a statement false. I know a fair number of atheists. Not one is less than an exemplary citizen of the US and a solid member of his or her community. They are law abiding people who pay their taxes, participate in elections, and, in some cases, work for our government or in the defense industry. Given the importance of religious freedom in this country, the DRP statement ought be considered unAmerican.
Scouting is a private organization. However, it is an organization granted a charter by the US Congress. The President of the United States is considered the ceremonial head of the BSA. I have the signature of a US President on my Eagle Scout certificate. Scouting organizations also enjoy many other benefits from the government, including tax exempt status, use of various military facilitites at very nominal rates, and the use of school facilities as meeting places. In addition, the public school system is one of the prime sources from which new scouts are recruited and, typically, these public schools offer much valuable assistence in the recruitment process. Is it not inconsistent to enjoy these benefits yet exclude certain citizens from enjoying the benefits of scouting?
Therefore, it must be concluded that excluding boys of any religious outlook, even atheism, does the opposite of fostering good citizenship. Rather, it fosters the prejudice that some are better citizens because of their religious beliefs. This is inimical to the principle of religious freedom upon which this country was founded, and about which the founding fathers were adamant, as evidenced by the previous quotations. This exclusion is a hurtful practice no different than if a Christian claimed that a Jew could not be as good a citizen because he did not believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Furthermore, it is hypocritical to enjoy the many benefits that the BSA obtains from the federal and local governments while denying scouting to certain citizens.
The first goal of scouting is to build character. I have seen it written that an atheist philosophy is not compatible with good character. Those who hold a theistic view consider the atheist somehow disloyal. Typically, atheists are stereotyped as not capable of having the same moral or ethical standards as a theist. We have already shown that the great patriots Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin do not agree with this position. Does this call into question the character of these gentlemen?
To help demonstrate that the stereotype of the atheist is inaccurate, it is useful at this point to consider some personal information. When I achieved the rank of Eagle Scout, I was a practicing member of the Jewish faith. In college, I majored in physics. I then went to graduate school, where I eventually earned a Ph.D. in theoretical elementary particle physics. Naturally, such studies expose one to alternative possibilities for understanding the universe, its origins, and natural processes. Such outlooks are very different than those encountered in everyday life. It was Einstein who stated best what became my own view of the universe:
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." [Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]This way of looking at God is similar to that suggested by the seventeenth century Dutch philosopher, Benedict Spinoza, who believed in a God that is identified with Nature and denied to any deity any attributes of personality. A number of scientists of this century have held similar views. Notable are the Nobel Prize winning American physicist Richard Feynman and the British physicist Stephen Hawking. Feynman and Hawking, together with Einstein, are considered by many to be the three top theoretical physicists of this century. Also among the ranks of nonbelievers is that icon of American science, Edison:
"I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious theories of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God." [Thomas Alva Edison, "Columbian Magazine"]This is not to say that scientists claim that they have proved anything concerning the existence of a divine creator. Such questions are not the concern of science. Many high-caliber scientists hold a theistic view of the universe. Rather, the arrival at an atheistic view is, in many cases, the result of an honest evaluation of the available evidence concerning the laws of nature and the universe. However, arriving at views similar to those held by Einstein and Hawking does not lead one to believe that such views are inferior. As has been shown, Jefferson respected such types of honest enquiry, regardless of the conclusions drawn.
Therefore, an atheistic viewpoint is typically the expression of a scientific or metaphysical opinion. Rarely is it the result of a moral crisis, a disappointment with religion, or unanswered prayers. Atheists are not usually recalcitrant children throwing temper tantrums against a divine parent. They do not take on this viewpoint just to avoid religious responsibilities. They arrive at their opinion as the result of an honest enquiry.
There is the objection that without religion, there is no source of morality. Let us again consider a quote from Einstein:
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." [Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930]Like Einstein, I believe morality is based on empathy, education, and social ties. I believe values are learned from the behavior of the role models available to the child, not from inculcating the child with abstract dogma.
Most likely, I hold values that have more in common with my theistic fellow scouts than differences. I have been married for over fifteen years and believe in the importance of taking the marriage promise seriously. I have two sons and believe in the importance of maintaining a secure and stable family environment for them. I demonstrate the value of work by maintaining a successful career and using the rewards to support my family. I take great pride in my family, take an active role in raising my children, and try to provide them with activities that will help them become independent, self-sufficient, and self-respecting adults and members of their communities.
One might object that I am the exception rather than the rule. However, such an objection is patently false. I have known a fair number of atheists. In general, each is of as high a moral caliber as the theists I know and has as good a character. Furthermore, there have been a number of well known Americans of truly unquestionable character, in addition to the scientists listed previously, admitting of an atheistic philosophy. Mark Twain, Clarence Darrow, Isaac Asimov, Stephen Jay Gould, Andy Rooney, and H.L Mencken are just a sample.
Obviously, this provides only anecdotal evidence that the character of the atheist cannot be considered inferior to that of the theist. However, there is less than anecdotal evidence to support the inaccurate stereotype that atheists are less capable of moral behavior than theists, are incapable of attaining the goals of scouting, or are unworthy to participate in scouting. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the atheist is more likely to be "unAmerican", unpatriotic, or of an inferior character than his theistic counterpart. It is unworthy of an organization such as scouting, which claims to set high standards of character, to perpetuate such a prejudice.
The Scoutmaster Handbook provides a number of methods for achieving the goals of scouting. First and foremost is the teaching of the scouting ideals embodied in the Scout Oath, Law, Motto, and Slogan. As is well known, the Scout Oath begins with: "On my honor, I will do my best, to do my duty to God and my Country." This raises the point that, if I don't believe in a divine creator of the universe, I have not been doing my duty to God. Therefore I have not been living up to the Scout Oath, and, hence, am not worthy of trust. Before concluding so, one must consider the following.
In the course of pursuing various interests, I have learned a great deal that has helped me to clarify my own outlook on life. I have learned about several systems of spiritual growth that do not require belief in a divine creator. These include Confucianism, certain schools of Buddhism, particularly Zen, and Jainism.
Of most interest to myself is the Chinese concept of Tao, which loosely translates as "the way". The Taoist idea is that there is a way to the universe and nature that is perhaps beyond man's ability to truly understand, but that can be glimpsed when in a certain meditative frame of mind. Central to Taoism is the Tao Te Ching, an ancient book of Chinese wisdom written approximately 2500 years ago and attributed to the sage Lao Tsu. This is a collection of 81 short verses, the first of which begins
"The way that can be told is not the eternal way The name that can be named is not the eternal name"I take this to mean that, even with our scientific understanding, the universe is still a mysterious place; that more than likely, we will never be able to identify the ultimate source of existence; and that, when one tries to name such a source, such names are inadequate.
Carl Jung, the pioneer psychologist, and Joseph Campbell, the mythologist, among others, have shown that there are certain common themes in all spiritual traditions found across the world. Jung was convinced that such themes are symbolic of the inner development of the human psyche that occurs throughout a persons life. According to these two men, it is important to understand these symbols as metaphors for our inner life, to separate the universal message from the culturally specific content. According to Campbell, "When the symbols are interpreted spiritually rather than concretely, then they yield the revelation."
What the discovery of these ways of thinking taught me is that there are many ways of spiritual development and that each of us must discover our own spiritual path. Sometimes this path leads to a belief in a divine creator, sometimes to meditations on the mysteries of a universe that evolves according to physical laws which we can only hope to catch a glimpse of, and sometimes to reflections on the inner reaches of the human psyche. As Carlos Casteneda's Shaman Don Juan taught, it is not important which path you choose except that it be a path with a heart.
As a result of these studies, I have been able to understand the Duty to God portion of the Scout Oath in a manner compatible with my own metaphysical viewpoint. What most people consider God, I see as something within all of us, that which Jung labeled the archetype Self. It is that part of the human psyche that is gradually realized as one matures and learns more about their true inner personality. My duty is to find my own spiritual path through life by seeking the psychic wholeness which results from integrating the various manifest and hidden aspects of my personality into a whole person.
I do not suggest that we change the Scout Oath. Rather, the oath requires that a boy do his best to do his duty to God. Perhaps we should consider that that boy did his best by making an honest enquiry as to what this duty is and arriving at the conclusion that he felt true in his heart, even if that conclusion be atheism. If such a result is satisfactory to a boy's parents, then it should satisfy the BSA.
The twelfth point of the Scout Law specifies that a scout is reverent. Reverence is a feeling of profound respect. To me, reverence means respecting the paths that others take. In addition, it means having a deep and abiding respect for the earth, the environment, and its inhabitants. I find I experience feelings of reverence most particularly when out in the woods, reflecting on the beauty and grandeur of nature.
There may be some who feel this is not in keeping with the intention of scouting and that I am "just rationalizing." However, I have been told that any scout who can repeat the scout oath and law in good conscience is welcome to participate. The above interpretations enable me to repeat them in good conscience.
There are some further considerations concerning the scout law. I have heard it said that, as a private organization, scouting has a right to impose whatever rules it wants. If someone disagrees, they have a right to not involve themselves. Why should someone want to belong to an organization with which they disagree? However, I have been involved with scouting a major portion of my life. I have always considered myself a scout, even during that period when I was not actively involved. Although my metaphysical viewpoint changed in the intervening years, I do not believe that this shift changed my basic personality or my values. I have always tried to live up to the second point of the scout law and be a loyal scout. Am I not entitled to expect loyalty from scouting? Does one abandon a friend over a difference of metaphysical opinion?
Within the scout law are several other points that I believe favor inclusion. A scout is helpful. Obviously, scouting would be helping those boys along the path to adulthood who are now excluded. Also, it would be helping society by providing these boys with opportunities for developing skills that are critically needed, skills in such areas as citizenship and leadership. A scout is friendly and kind. Is it friendly or kind to exclude a boy from an organization as interesting and beneficial as scouting, one to which, perhaps, his friends belong? Are we living up to our own ideals with this exclusion policy?
First, it has been shown that, contrary to the second goal of scouting, excluding boys because of a religious opinion does not foster citizenship, as citizenship is understood in the US. Rather, in contrast to the principles of religious freedom that are the foundation this country, the exclusion fosters the notion that the type of citizen you are depends on your religious beliefs. Furthermore, it is hypocritical to deny certain citizens access to the scouting program when the BSA enjoys various benefits from the federal and local governments, such as a congressional charter.
Next, it has been shown that an atheistic philosophy is not inherently inimical to the development of good character, but is rather the expression of an opinion resulting from an honest evaluation of natural law. Such enquiries were respected by Thomas Jefferson. To teach that those who make such an honest evaluation are somehow unworthy of scouting perpetuates a vicious stereotype which itself is unworthy of the high standards set by scouting. Perhaps that boy did his best to "do his duty to God" by making such an honest enquiry and arriving at the conclusion that he felt true in his heart.
In addition, descriptions were provided of spiritual traditions, particularly from Asia, in which belief in a divine creator is not required. Exclusion based on the belief in God leads to ambiguity for those traditions. Is the adherent to Taoist beliefs allowed to join scouting if his path does not include a belief in a divine consciousness that created the universe? Is it being reverent if these alternate ways are not respected? America is currently undergoing a remarkable expansion in its population of Asian descent. Can we afford to alienate this segment of our population?
Lastly, it has been shown that several points of the scout law favor the inclusion of all boys. It is not friendly or kind to exclude young boys from the fun of scouting. It is not courteous to shun people with different viewpoints. It is not reverent to show such disrespect to another's religious viewpoint. It is not loyal to shun a loyal scout who might have undertaken a metaphysical enquiry and arrived at an opinion different than others. Furthermore, an organization is not worthy of trust if policy is based, not on careful consideration of facts, but on prejudice and stereotypes.
I never involve my religious views when I interact with my scouts. My goal is to teach basic scouting skills such as first aid and knot tying, to help scouts become competent in the outdoors, and to help them develop into good citizens and contributing members of the community through service projects. I have absolutely no interest in sharing my religious outlook with my scouts. I feel that it is the parents responsibility to handle religious training, not that of the scout leader.
Furthermore, I have no desire to change even the scout oath. All I suggest is that anyone who makes an honest enquiry into the matter of religion and reaches a heartfelt conclusion, even if that conclusion be atheism, be considered as having done their best to do their duty to God. If such a result is satisfactory to a boy's parents, then that should be good enough. Contrary to the opinions of the BSA leadership, scouting ought not to be a religious organization, but an organization dedicated to achieving the goals it has set before itself. The policy of exclusion contradicts many of the worthy goals and ideals it has taken as its standards.
Finally, I believe it is morally wrong to deny any boy the scouting experience on the basis of what he professes his beliefs to be at the young ages at which he participates in scouting. Scouting should be there to help boys develop to manhood in a positive way, that they may become active and contributing members of society. The positive influence that scouting can have on boys translates into the all important necessity for inclusion of all boys. Scouting provides a positive influence and various skills and principles. If some boys are not included, they may not have an opportunity to acquire such skills elsewhere. Given the problems faced in today's society, can we afford, as a matter of policy, not to include certain boys in our program, knowing that scouting can only improve their prospects of becoming good citizens and positive members of our communities? Scouting should not pass judgement on boys. No one knows where his or her spiritual journey will take them in the future.