Boy Scouts to open up to girls

[MercyA]

I don't think children should be making oaths of any kind. I don't understand why that in itself isn't questioned more or why people seem to think it necessary.

[Laura Corin]

The UK has alternative promises. No god required

 

https://members.scouts.org.uk/supportresources/2454/the-promise?moduleID=10&cat=25,283

 

My boys were in mixed troops and dens in the UK. It seemed okay.

Edited October 13, 2017 by Laura Corin

[Supertechmom]

 I'm having no trouble following the tangents in this thread. It's all interesting and falls under the topic of who various scout groups do and do not include. "Go start your own thread" is better advice when an unrelated topic springs up and takes a life of it's own; not when you disagree with an opinion.

 

Sorry but I do feel this current tangent is an unrelated topic that has taken it's own life.   Since I haven't expressed an opinion, it has nothing to do with whether I disagree/agree with it.   But given the nature of this board, you and I both know this is going to become a thread between a handful of people about a hot button topic and the discussion about girls and BSA will go by the way side.  Everyone will stop posting expect for a few who will continue arguing and derail to its usual name calling/personal attacks/nobody's going to change their mind discussion/ SWB shuts it down. Nothing will get discussed.

 

   And then none of us will be able to go back and forth and share info on how this is being implemented and share ideas. So yea, I feel justified in asking take it to another thread so the original intent of this thread can stay open and in the upcoming months be used to further this discussion as councils implement the changes. 

[Spy Car]

So you believe all groups that have a spiritual angle are evil. Every one?

 

Huh? That's absurd and at variance with what I've said up thread.

 

A policy that discriminates against non-religious people, when every other belief system under the sun (including ones that are at fundamental odds with one another) are included is just plain bigotry.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

so on the one hand they discriminate too much by discriminating against atheists, on the other hand they don't discriminate enough because they allow other religions than Christianity? It can't just be that they want to deal with spiritual matters however those are expressed? You actually have a problem with them being to excepting of other religions?

 

Absurd. If the particulars of dogma matter, have an exclusionary group. Many on the outside may find it repellant, but at least there is some justification for the stand.

 

But taking all comers, except those who won't lie about holding spiritual beliefs is obnoxious.

 

Bill

[Julie Smith]

I don't think children should be making oaths of any kind. I don't understand why that in itself isn't questioned more or why people seem to think it necessary.

A few years ago when I was looking into various things to join, I ended up thinking this way also. Many kid activités have oaths, many of them stating things that aren’t really directly related to the activity.

 

For various reasons we never joined anything that required an oath.

[MercyA]

I am curious why you feel that way?  The GS promise is very similar to the BS promise. 

 

On my honor, I will try,

To serve God, and my country,

To help people, at all times,

And to live by the Girl Scout Law.

 

I don't have any issues with a girl promising to try to help people and live by a set of statements that include things like being honest, caring, respectful, use resources wisely, etc.  Now, yes, the promise does say "serve God" but if you don't say that part, you do say that part, no one cares.  Which means that basically, all the kids are saying is that they are promising to TRY to be the best person that they can be.  They will try their best to be honest.  They will try their best to help people when they can.  They will try to use resources wisely.  And so on.  I am not sure that asking a kid to promise those things is all that bad. 

 

Thanks for the question!  

 

My first objection is a religious one. We're Christians, and Jesus said, "I say to you, do not swear at all...let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’" (Matthew 5). This is repeated in James 5: "But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath. But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No,' lest you fall into judgment."

 

I believe oaths are very serious things and shouldn't undertaken lightly by anyone, especially by children who may not fully understand them. Many children have not even yet made their own decisions about faith and similar matters.

 

No one should pressure anyone into taking an oath, either, and it seems in these organizations the making of oaths is expected and possibly even required.

 

Most of these types of oaths are ones children can't possibly keep. They are simply not going to try to "help people at all times." Even adults have difficulty doing that!  

 

Finally, I personally take issue with pledging allegiance to our country. Our government is fallible and has been responsible for many evils. My first allegiance is to Christ. I can't pledge my loyalty to an entity that may ask me to act contrary to my faith.

 

I think it's wonderful to encourage children to serve others, to be kind, to be honest, and so on. I support that. It's specifically the oath-taking--and the often overtly patriotic nature of the oaths--that are a problem for me.

[MercyA]

Your first sentence talks about yes being yes and no being no and not swearing anything....

 

When you married your DH did you not swear an oath?

 

I'd have to go back and reread the vows. Possibly. I did lots of things 20 years ago that I wouldn't do now.  :)

 

The only times this really affects my daily life is when the Pledge of Allegiance is said (I don't participate) and when I am called for jury duty. I won't swear an oath in court. I will, however, agree to tell the truth, letting my yes be yes. 

[Spy Car]

Thanks for the question!  

 

My first objection is a religious one. We're Christians, and Jesus said, "I say to you, do not swear at all...let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’" (Matthew 5). This is repeated in James 5: "But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath. But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No,' lest you fall into judgment."

 

I believe oaths are very serious things and shouldn't undertaken lightly by anyone, especially by children who may not fully understand them. Many children have not even yet made their own decisions about faith and similar matters.

 

No one should pressure anyone into taking an oath, either, and it seems in these organizations the making of oaths is expected and possibly even required.

 

Most of these types of oaths are ones children can't possibly keep. They are simply not going to try to "help people at all times." Even adults have difficulty doing that!  

 

Finally, I personally take issue with pledging allegiance to our country. Our government is fallible and has been responsible for many evils. My first allegiance is to Christ. I can't pledge my loyalty to an entity that may ask me to act contrary to my faith.

 

I think it's wonderful to encourage children to serve others, to be kind, to be honest, and so on. I support that. It's specifically the oath-taking--and the often overtly patriotic nature of the oaths--that are a problem for me.

 

And what strikes me especially badly, it to suggest to children (and adults) that they make knowingly false oaths as a means of evading rules that most people of intelligence and good-will realize are stupid and immoral.

 

What kind of solution is that?

 

Bill

[ktgrok]

In the cases I know of, the kids that are atheists don't say the word God when they say the boy scout oath. They skip that part, so no, they are not lying or what not. 

[ktgrok]

And for crying out loud, the oath itself is not immoral. It's one that some people can't agree with, as they don't believe in God, but it's not in itself immoral. 

[8circles]

I'm not sure how I feel about this change. I'm not opposed to it in theory - I think it could be good or could be a flop. Time will tell. I would love to know the actual reasons why although I'm sure I never will.

 

I am not crazy about oaths. I'm not in love with the BSA. I like the trajectory they seem to be on lately with the rule changes, but am concerned about some of it's history and am downright disgusted by some of the things I see - think particular speaker at the Jamboree. I detest that atheists aren't allowed - I wholeheartedly disagree with their view on what is required to be a moral person. And I teach my boyscouts this. We aren't the only ones who want to see this changed so I don't feel like we're swimming upstream.

 

Nothing in life is perfect. I see the BSA as an organization that is capable of changing for the better. So I'm going to continue to encourage them to change instead of making them an "other". I understand that other reasonable people feel differently and that's OK.

 

Calling them a "hate group" is going too far.

[Spy Car]

I'm not sure how I feel about this change. I'm not opposed to it in theory - I think it could be good or could be a flop. Time will tell. I would love to know the actual reasons why although I'm sure I never will.

 

I am not crazy about oaths. I'm not in love with the BSA. I like the trajectory they seem to be on lately with the rule changes, but am concerned about some of it's history and am downright disgusted by some of the things I see - think particular speaker at the Jamboree. I detest that atheists aren't allowed - I wholeheartedly disagree with their view on what is required to be a moral person. And I teach my boyscouts this. We aren't the only ones who want to see this changed so I don't feel like we're swimming upstream.

 

Nothing in life is perfect. I see the BSA as an organization that is capable of changing for the better. So I'm going to continue to encourage them to change instead of making them an "other". I understand that other reasonable people feel differently and that's OK.

 

Calling them a "hate group" is going too far.

 

In my case, they made me "the other."

 

I was willing to give them a chance.

 

I find it deeply hateful. 

 

The same the second go-round when I was a parent.

 

I consider the BSA a hate group as long as they embrace bigotry. Because that's the definition of hate groups.

 

Bill

 

Edited October 14, 2017 by Spy Car

The scouts Canada FAQ: 

"Do You Have to Believe in God to Join Scouts Canada?  Is Scouting a Christian Organization? 

No, but you must have a basic spiritual belief."

 

 

In good faith, and not trying to stir any pots, could someone help me understand what the bolded means?  What would be an example of someone who is a strict atheist, believes there are no supernatural powers, but still has "a basic spiritual belief"?  What would be an example of someone who doesn't have a "basic spiritual belief"?

[MercyA]

Genuine question....

 

What are your definitions of Oath vs Promise vs Vows?  Vs Pledge even?

 

I'd say they're all pretty much the same thing. I looked up the Greek words used in the passages I quoted from Matthew and James. The words oath, promise, pledge, and vow are all mentioned in at least one of the definitions. 

 

Scripture specifically prohibits me from swearing by something--so, for example, I wouldn't make an oath/promise/vow/pledge which required me to say something like, "On my honor," or had me place my hand on a Bible. I could not say, as Inigo Montoya did, "I swear on the soul of my father...you will reach the top alive."  ;)

 

Jesus says, don't swear at all. Don't make any kind of oath. It seems pretty simple, as commands go. It's a lot more difficult not to lose my temper, or not to overeat, or not to gossip...  :)

Edited October 14, 2017 by MercyA

[Spy Car]

In the cases I know of, the kids that are atheists don't say the word God when they say the boy scout oath. They skip that part, so no, they are not lying or what not. 

 

Of course they are lying.

 

It is a lie of omission when group membership requires members positively affirm an oath and dissenters simply leave out words that are intrinsic to the oath.

 

It is dishonest. What kind of values education is that?

 

Faux-morality.

 

Bill

[Mergath]

In good faith, and not trying to stir any pots, could someone help me understand what the bolded means?  What would be an example of someone who is a strict atheist, believes there are no supernatural powers, but still has "a basic spiritual belief"?  What would be an example of someone who doesn't have a "basic spiritual belief"?

 

Secular Buddhism probably qualifies depending on how flexible you are with your definition of "spiritual."

 

I wouldn't be comfortable reciting the BSA oath, though. Requiring an oath that includes a reference to God in order for kids to learn outdoor skills and sell popcorn is idiotic. 

 

[ktgrok]

Of course they are lying.

 

It is a lie of omission when group membership requires members positively affirm an oath and dissenters simply leave out words that are intrinsic to the oath.

 

It is dishonest. What kind of values education is that?

 

Faux-morality.

 

Bill

 

Huh? That makes no sense. They are not agreeing or swearing to anything they don't agree with. it is not lying. It is changing the oath. With the support of their parent and leader. 

[ktgrok]

Secular Buddhism probably qualifies depending on how flexible you are with your definition of "spiritual."

 

I wouldn't be comfortable reciting the BSA oath, though. Requiring an oath that includes a reference to God in order for kids to learn outdoor skills and sell popcorn is idiotic. 

 

 

I think the original idea is that it was about more than those two things, including learning to do one's duty to God :)

 

Now, yeah, I think the greater good would be to include options for atheists, with an alternate oath. A traditional one is this:

 

Outlander Scout Promise:

=============================

On my honor, I promise to do my best, 

to render service to my country,

to help other people at all times,

and to obey the Scout Law

 

Supposedly Baden Powell included this from the beginning, for those that can't swear allegiance to a country or God. 

 

Also, for those interested, there is a group called BPSA that is inclusive and co-ed: https://www.bpsa-us.org

 

Just learned about it as some friends are forming a group. 

[Bluegoat]

No, it doesn't sidestep your point.

 

You point to the authority of Baden-Powell as a reason to endorse ongoing bigotry in the 21st Century. When Baden-Powell was a racist, who wrote admiringly of Hitler and Mussolini, who was allegedly guilty of atrocities against Africans including personally executing a prisoner without authorization and directing the massacre of women and children by others. To say nothing of his own issues with sexual identity.

 

So resting modern-day bigotry on the philosophical positions of a guy like Baden-Powell isn't valid from a position of morality. The guy had a lot of weird ideas. Punishing children due to his moral failing isn't a defensible position.

 

Bill 

 

Bill,

 

You said that spirituality wasn't a core value in scouting since it's founding.

 

I said that the founder of scouting said it was a core value.  And there are many many other examples of writing from the early and middle scouting movement that show this is the case, from many different people involved in the scouting movement.  It isn't something added by some crazy religious people later - it was part of the way the organization was conceived.

 

It makes no difference what kind of person Baden-Powell was - your claim was simply false.  It was there, conceptually, since the beginning.

 

 By your logic, woodcraft isn't a core value either since it was advocated by a person who had  some bad ideas.  Really, if you have that kind of attitude, I wonder that you wold have any interest in the organization even if it had no position on spirituality.

 

There are scouting organizations that have chosen to drop that aspect to some extent.  But that in no way means that it was never there or wasn't considered foundational.

 

This is a historic question.  As close to a factual point as you could get.  And the evidence is't with you.

 

 

Don't you see this argument completely undercuts the logic upon which the exclusionary policies of the BSA is built?

 

Bill 

 

 

No, I'm not sure why you think that.  Possibly because you weren't really following the post I was responding to which was talking about Scouts Canada, and whether allowing people to interpret the promise etc broadly was contradictory.  The problem faced by the organization is that they want to maintain a certain sense of spiritual reality and values, but different people and groups may use different kinds of language for that, or conceptualize it differently.  Scouts Canada has responded by being rather vague and leaving it mainly up to individuals to decide if their own views fall within that, which is hardly asking people to lie or be false.  BSA has taken a somewhat tighter approach. I personally prefer the Canadian one, but people here are also much less likely to get their knickers in a twist about spirituality, either for or against, and I am sure that makes a difference.

[Bluegoat]

In good faith, and not trying to stir any pots, could someone help me understand what the bolded means?  What would be an example of someone who is a strict atheist, believes there are no supernatural powers, but still has "a basic spiritual belief"?  What would be an example of someone who doesn't have a "basic spiritual belief"?

 

It could mean a lot of things, but most specifically it's probably saying that there is something more than a simply materialistic (philosophical materialism, not consumerism) view of reality.  

 

So - once we get into the modern period, there are some philosophical positions that kind of say - everything is physical, there is no formal reality that makes more abstract realities "real" in any objective sense.  It's just the physical, empirical reality.  This has become a fairly popular way of thinking, in some places almost a basic belief, although most people don't actually follow it to it's logical conclusions - as it tends to do things like deny the possibility of free will, or most moral ideas (morality without free will to some degree tends to fall a little flat.)  Anyway - most people don't abandon those ideas, but arguably they also don't have a robust way to account for them either - though the materialist philosophers themselves were typically pretty clear about this.  Mostly I think they just aren't that interested in doing so.

 

Anyway - there are lots of views that might be examples of what you mean.  Marxism, despite being clearly a materialist viewpoint, probably would qualify.  Secular humanism would certainly.  Both think there is "more" than just the physical empirical testable - Marxists think there is a kind of truth inherent in the material which drives history and has a very specific moral content. (Now, Marxism is a kind of Hegelianism, which thinks very similarly but does talk about the "World Spirit" as separate, in some sense, from the physical.)  Secular humanists put these formal values - right and wrong, beauty, progress - and find them in some way in the human, though the way they do this isn't always very clear mechanically, that's certainly what they believe.

 

There are also pantheists, who see nature or the material reality itself as having a formal aspect beyond or united to the material.  Some, like Spinoza, wouldn't normally be considered atheists - he talked of God as being a singular self-subsistent entity that united matter and thought - that is, everything is God - but there are also people who define themselves as atheists who say pretty much the same thing, but they don't use the word God.  For them though there is clearly this level of reality - they call it thought, or maybe form, they might think of it as mathematical - that is other than pure matter, even though it is united to matter.

 

It's also worthwhile to say that a lot of modern westerners have an idea of God that is based on pop Judeo-CHristian ideas, but isn't really the only way to think about it.

 

For most people, they don't get that deep into how it all fits together.  They have a strong feeling that while there isn't anything they think of as God, there is something more than just a world where we are all animals who are determined by what the atoms are doing, and there are values beyond the purely natural that are real and important.

[eternalsummer]

I like listening to you talk about religion, bluegoat.

[ScoutTN]

Hey...how about start a spin off thread regarding BSA and their exclusionary policies so the rest of us could debate/discuss BSA accepting girls?  I would like to know how other councils are implementing the changes and when and not derail this thread with a side topic that deserves it's own thread.  Thanks.

 

 

:iagree:

 

While it is interesting, the spirituality of scouting discussion is a hijack. Please start a spin off and let us discuss Soror's original post and the issue of girls in BSA. 

[BlsdMama]

I think it's crap.

 

Does no one else here have little mama hens for daughters?  Not all of them, but some of them mind you.

 

And the DEAD last thing my DS needs is to be mothered on a camping trip.  It's a guy thing.  It's a fun thing.

 

Should the reformat GSA?  Heck yeah they should.  It's been nothing but a platform for years.  Time to look really close at whether that's something the girls want. (They don't.)  And leave BOY scouts as Boy Scouts.

 

That said, as a family who switched to Trail Life? Hooray 'cuz TL is flourishing.  

[Spy Car]

Huh? That makes no sense. They are not agreeing or swearing to anything they don't agree with. it is not lying. It is changing the oath. With the support of their parent and leader.

There is no "huh?" here. What you have is parents and leaders conspiring to have children evade requirements of the organization that are required by national rules. They and the children are all lying.

 

It is understandable, given the stupidly of BSA's bigotry, why they are encouraging and abetting the lies, but it is still lying.

 

One would hope that local leaders being driven to lie and encouraging children to lie out of what they see as a greater good, would prompt national leaders to reappraise their hateful policies.

 

Bill

[ktgrok]

There is no "huh?" here. What you have is parents and leaders conspiring to have children evade requirements of the organization that are required by national rules. They and the children are all lying.

 

It is understandable, given the stupidly of BSA's bigotry, why they are encouraging and abetting the lies, but it is still lying.

 

One would hope that local leaders being driven to lie and encouraging children to lie out of what they see as a greater good, would prompt national leaders to reappraise their hateful policies.

 

Bill

 

Ah! I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that they oath they WERE saying was a lie. yes, I suppose they are lying by not telling national that they are omitting part of the oath. But some would say that it is for the greater good. Good people can disagree on that, and the people I know doing it ARE putting pressure on nationals about it. 

[chiguirre]

Report from the trenches:

 

Trinqueta went to a Sea Scout Regatta today for Sea Scouts and Venturers (the coed BSA programs for older kids). It was about 60/40 boys/girls and it went very smoothly. Everyone got a chance to rig a sunfish and sail and there were even races although the wind wasn't great. There wasn't any problem with the young adults working together. I don't think admitting girls will destroy BSA. Sea Scouting and Venturing are doing just fine.

[Spy Car]

Ah! I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that they oath they WERE saying was a lie. yes, I suppose they are lying by not telling national that they are omitting part of the oath. But some would say that it is for the greater good. Good people can disagree on that, and the people I know doing it ARE putting pressure on nationals about it.

Right. It becomes very treacherous grounds when you say to children that it is OK to lie on this occasion to avoid conflict with requirements for membership in a group that claims to put honesty, duty, and morality a paramount virtues.

 

Bill

[Sandwalker]

Absurd. If the particulars of dogma matter, have an exclusionary group. Many on the outside may find it repellant, but at least there is some justification for the stand.

 

But taking all comers, except those who won't lie about holding spiritual beliefs is obnoxious.

 

Bill

Well, it is an exclusionary group then, taking only those with spiritual beliefs.

[Daria]

Ah! I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that they oath they WERE saying was a lie. yes, I suppose they are lying by not telling national that they are omitting part of the oath. But some would say that it is for the greater good. Good people can disagree on that, and the people I know doing it ARE putting pressure on nationals about it. 

 

I think maybe I would be more understanding if I understood what that greater good was supposed to be.  What is it that people are protecting their children from by excluding my son.

 

The possibility that their own children will become atheists?  Are there really that many people out there who feel strongly that their kids must have a spiritual belief, but don't care which one?  Who would see my kid, who doesn't believe as a threat, because he might "convert" them, but wouldn't have any concern if their kid converted to any other represented religion?  Druid, Shi'a, Hindu, Evangelical Christian, UU are all equally fine as long as they aren't atheist?

 

Or are they afraid of something else?  Deep down, do they believe that my kid, who happens to be one of the kindest most gentlest people I know, is more likely to hurt them in some way that a Baha'i, Catholic, Sunni, or Jewish kid never would? 

 

I think that, maybe, if I understood the threat posed by my son and kids like him, I could put together an argument that was more convincing, because from where I stand, I can't even argue against something that doesn't make sense.  

[Spy Car]

Well, it is an exclusionary group then, taking only those with spiritual beliefs.

 

You obviously didn't read my post.

 

Yes, they are exclusionary.

 

No, there are no commonly shared values among those who are included and, in fact. many believe the values of those who are included will damn them to hell.

 

So the exclusionary practices toward the non-religious are capricious and an example of bigotry.

 

Bill

[poppy]

Right. It becomes very treacherous grounds when you say to children that it is OK to lie on this occasion to avoid conflict with requirements for membership in a group that claims to put honesty, duty, and morality a paramount virtues.

 

Bill

 

Are you one of those people who tells kids that Santa isn't real before they are out of diapers?

[Spy Car]

Are you one of those people who tells kids that Santa isn't real before they are out of diapers?

 

No, but I don't make them take oaths to Santa either.

 

Bill

[Lucy the Valiant]

My young Scout is bummed about the inclusion of girls, and pointed out that it is supposed to be "boy-led," but nobody asked the boys. 

[scoutingmom]

I think it's crap.

 

Does no one else here have little mama hens for daughters? Not all of them, but some of them mind you.

 

And the DEAD last thing my DS needs is to be mothered on a camping trip. It's a guy thing. It's a fun thing.

 

Should the reformat GSA? Heck yeah they should. It's been nothing but a platform for years. Time to look really close at whether that's something the girls want. (They don't.) And leave BOY scouts as Boy Scouts.

 

That said, as a family who switched to Trail Life? Hooray 'cuz TL is flourishing.

Who says you have to start mothering the boys at camp just because girls are there too? No one is mothered at our scout camps. Not my boy. Not my girls.

 

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

[Sandwalker]

Who says you have to start mothering the boys at camp just because girls are there too? No one is mothered at our scout camps. Not my boy. Not my girls.

 

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

I think she means that some of the female boy scouts may be mothering the boys. Telling them not to do 'dangerous' things, etc.

[Soror]

Well, as of now what they've put out for the older girls program looks like it will be single gender only and it appears to be the same for Cub Scouts, single-gender dens under one pack. I think concerns about boy/girl interaction are a bit premature. Fwiw my ds could care less about this whole thing. 

[Bluegoat]

I think maybe I would be more understanding if I understood what that greater good was supposed to be.  What is it that people are protecting their children from by excluding my son.

 

The possibility that their own children will become atheists?  Are there really that many people out there who feel strongly that their kids must have a spiritual belief, but don't care which one?  Who would see my kid, who doesn't believe as a threat, because he might "convert" them, but wouldn't have any concern if their kid converted to any other represented religion?  Druid, Shi'a, Hindu, Evangelical Christian, UU are all equally fine as long as they aren't atheist?

 

Or are they afraid of something else?  Deep down, do they believe that my kid, who happens to be one of the kindest most gentlest people I know, is more likely to hurt them in some way that a Baha'i, Catholic, Sunni, or Jewish kid never would? 

 

I think that, maybe, if I understood the threat posed by my son and kids like him, I could put together an argument that was more convincing, because from where I stand, I can't even argue against something that doesn't make sense.  

 

I don't think is the issue at all.  It's not really personal issue about nefarious proselytizing children.

 

It's more a matter of - how do we actively talk, and act, to teach spirituality as a core value, if there are people in the group who don't believe in that in any way?   Or even, will people who take that view apply pressure to drop that kind of element - people like Bill who think it's wrong and asking the kids to lie and haven't even a more personal take on the subject that they can reconcile.

 

This is a common problem in religious schools that take any child and are popular enough that many kids not of the target group join.  Elements that don't resonate or are distasteful to those kids can begin to be de-emphasised or glossed over - even dropped altogether if the mandate isn't clear and strong enough to make that difficult.

[Spy Car]

I don't think is the issue at all. It's not really personal issue about nefarious proselytizing children.

 

It's more a matter of - how do we actively talk, and act, to teach spirituality as a core value, if there are people in the group who don't believe in that in any way? Or even, will people who take that view apply pressure to drop that kind of element - people like Bill who think it's wrong and asking the kids to lie and haven't even a more personal take on the subject that they can reconcile.

 

This is a common problem in religious schools that take any child and are popular enough that many kids not of the target group join. Elements that don't resonate or are distasteful to those kids can begin to be de-emphasised or glossed over - even dropped altogether if the mandate isn't clear and strong enough to make that difficult.

The premise that there is a belief in teaching "spirituality" as a core value in the BSA is patently false. Most of the groups in BSA have no affinity to "spirituality" in the abstract.

 

Instead most have parochial beliefs that their particular religion is "the one true faith" and that the "spirituality" of others will head them straight to hell.

 

So outside a few outliers the suggestion that there is shared belief that a generalized "spirituality" is pure fiction. It is--in fact--the complete opposite of the truth.

 

The exclusion of non-religious children is build on a false premise and amounts to sheer bigoty.

 

Bill

[eternalsummer]

I think telling other kids not to 'do dangerous things' is a personality thing, not a girl thing. Plenty of girls will be doing the dangerous thing...

 

You don't think males are more inclined to risk-taking?  That's just biologically untrue.

[Rosika]

Who says you have to start mothering the boys at camp just because girls are there too? No one is mothered at our scout camps. Not my boy. Not my girls.

 

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

 

We had to leave one troop because of the number of mother scoutmasters. They came as a group when one pack moved up to scouts, there were four of them who had been very involved at the cub scout level (which isn't my preference, but doesn't bother me; in fact, when no dads stepped up, I led my sons den for three years until my dad retired and took over for me.)

 

It really did change the flavor of the campouts, and the troop in general. I mean, it was way more efficient and communication was great for the first time in forever! But it came at the expense of being the boys' troop, run by the boys, for the boys, and how the boys wanted it. My oldest son said it felt like co-op - "Yay. More moms with strong personalities who won't let us do anything." :thumbdown: We left that troop, as did a number of other boys after us. 

 

Our current troop has two mother scoutmasters. They run true to the scout model, though, and fully believe it should be boy led. I don't know if it is a matter of personalities, or what, but true to your experience they do no mothering on the campouts. The boys love these two moms. From my perspective, they seem to want the same thing the boys do - a boy led troop with a mostly male presence, and a few "cool" moms as needed. "Cool" meaning 'doesn't step in to mother us' LOL.

[ktgrok]

The premise that there is a belief in teaching "spirituality" as a core value in the BSA is patently false. Most of the groups in BSA have no affinity to "spirituality" in the abstract.

 

Instead most have parochial beliefs that their particular religion is "the one true faith" and that the "spirituality" of others will head them straight to hell.

 

So outside a few outliers the suggestion that there is shared belief that a generalized "spirituality" is pure fiction. It is--in fact--the complete opposite of the truth.

 

The exclusion of non-religious children is build on a false premise and amounts to sheer bigoty.

 

Bill

So you would call Catholics, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Jews etc. outliers? None of these groups believe that other spiritual paths are dooming people to hell. and interfaith events are not uncommon in the religious world. There are interfaith prayer services, interfaith Thanksgiving services etc. in my area there are often events coordinated by various churches that also include mosques and Jewish synagogues. My sons cub scout den had boys who were Muslim and Hindu as well as varieties of Christian. Edited October 15, 2017 by ktgrok

[Homebody2]

I don't think is the issue at all. It's not really personal issue about nefarious proselytizing children.

 

It's more a matter of - how do we actively talk, and act, to teach spirituality as a core value, if there are people in the group who don't believe in that in any way? Or even, will people who take that view apply pressure to drop that kind of element - people like Bill who think it's wrong and asking the kids to lie and haven't even a more personal take on the subject that they can reconcile.

 

Do Scouts really teach, discuss, or talk about spirituality at scout meetings? What does that look like? How do you do that in a group with so many different ideas about spirituality? I really don't understand this and why it's part of scouting.

[Rosika]

My boy scouts are waiting to see how this pans out before they form an official opinion. They think it can be a great thing, or an awful thing, depending on how it all rolls out at the local level. 

 

My youngest is 12. She grew up attending most of her brothers' cub scout meetings because I led them. She was so disappointed when she learned her only local option was Girl Scouts (she wasn't disappointed until she attended a meeting and found it was all crafts.) A friend started an AHG troop so that is where we ended up. My daughter will stay there until she's old enough for a venture crew. She's not thrilled with AHG. Neither am I, especially at the PI/PA levels. 

 

Our boys are glad that their sister may end up with this option, especially to follow in their steps to earn Eagle. Right now they are the ones who take her camping, teach her canoeing, helped her earn the shooting badge, showed her how to whittle, take her hiking, etc. Our local AHG troop is very anti-BSA so they won't allow my sons to contribute to the troop with these things but nobody at the charter's Trail Life group is stepping up to do so. The girls like my daughter who want more of those offerings in their troop, suffer. 

 

My boys are also worried that this may turn away some boys from joining or staying in scouts (at the local level.) They've seen it happen in other areas where once girls are invited in, it becomes girl-focused and eventually girl-dominated. It's too early for us to know where we come down on this decision. We feel like there are pros and cons, and the way it plays out in our local troop will most color our opinion on the change. 

[Homebody2]

I think maybe I would be more understanding if I understood what that greater good was supposed to be. What is it that people are protecting their children from by excluding my son.

 

The possibility that their own children will become atheists? Are there really that many people out there who feel strongly that their kids must have a spiritual belief, but don't care which one? Who would see my kid, who doesn't believe as a threat, because he might "convert" them, but wouldn't have any concern if their kid converted to any other represented religion? Druid, Shi'a, Hindu, Evangelical Christian, UU are all equally fine as long as they aren't atheist?

 

Or are they afraid of something else? Deep down, do they believe that my kid, who happens to be one of the kindest most gentlest people I know, is more likely to hurt them in some way that a Baha'i, Catholic, Sunni, or Jewish kid never would?

 

I think that, maybe, if I understood the threat posed by my son and kids like him, I could put together an argument that was more convincing, because from where I stand, I can't even argue against something that doesn't make sense.

This truly confuses me, too. I'm fine with religious schools and groups excluding others who don't share their beliefs. That makes sense, as sometimes you want to be around like minded believers.

 

But this spiritual mandate of the scouts just doesn't make sense to me. What is the core that is binding you together? A belief in something spiritual? I just don't get it, and I do think it's exclusionary.

[Daria]

So you would call Catholics, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Jews etc. outliers? None of these groups believe that other spiritual paths are dooming people to hell. and interfaith events are not uncommon in the religious world. There are interfaith prayer services, interfaith Thanksgiving services etc. in my area there are often events coordinated by various churches that also include mosques and Jewish synagogues. My sons cub scout den had boys who were Muslim and Hindu as well as varieties of Christian.

I was raised Episcopalian, work for a Catholic school, and have sent my kid to Jewish and Quaker schools. My kif has attended baptisms, weddings, b'nei mitzvahs etc . . . in many houses of worship. None of them have ever madey kid's beliefs a factor in whether or not he is welcome. There might be limits on his participation in certain sacraments, but he's not completely excluded the way he would be from a troop.

[Homebody2]

So you would call Catholics, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Jews etc. outliers? None of these groups believe that other spiritual paths are dooming people to hell. and interfaith events are not uncommon in the religious world. There are interfaith prayer services, interfaith Thanksgiving services etc. in my area there are often events coordinated by various churches that also include mosques and Jewish synagogues. My sons cub scout den had boys who were Muslim and Hindu as well as varieties of Christian.

But this is exactly why I'm so confused. Your son's den accepts all of these groups but not atheists or agnostics. Why? I know it's in the rules of the scouts that you have to have a spiritual belief, but why? I'm not trying to be snarky. I just don't understand the reasoning.

[Bluegoat]

Do Scouts really teach, discuss, or talk about spirituality at scout meetings? What does that look like? How do you do that in a group with so many different ideas about spirituality? I really don't understand this and why it's part of scouting.

 

The best way to find out about this aspect is just to look at the early scouting materials.  They're very explicit in seeing the activities the scouts are involved in as outgrowths of their religious life and spirituality, and they talk about what that means in a non-sectarian context.

 

Generally what those resources say is that they leave specific teaching about spirituality to parents, but the kids are encouraged to think about it themselves, if they are old enough, sometimes in a more general kind of way, and the program is meant to afford an opportunity for kids to experience it as well, in a direct way, through service, being in nature, and so on.

 

Given that this is a homeschooling board - I'd compare it to Charlotte Mason's approach to education - in fact she was a major proponent of scouting and did a lot to spread it in the UK as she saw it as a great way to move towards many of her educational objectives.  Her ideas about our relation to God, nature, technology, and community as being based in our spiritual nature is very close to what you see in the old scouting resources.  So the pursuit of those things is seen as one way for the students - or scouts - to develop their relationship with the natural world and in the community and through that become more fully human.  

 

Sometimes that might be made explicit to the kids, but not always - but it would need to be understood by those running the program in order to orient it in that direction. 

[Spy Car]

So you would call Catholics, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Jews etc. outliers? None of these groups believe that other spiritual paths are dooming people to hell. and interfaith events are not uncommon in the religious world. There are interfaith prayer services, interfaith Thanksgiving services etc. in my area there are often events coordinated by various churches that also include mosques and Jewish synagogues. My sons cub scout den had boys who were Muslim and Hindu as well as varieties of Christian.

 

I don't think they make up the majority of BSA leadership or (if they did) the stupid and cruel bigotry would have ended a long time ago.

 

I don't wish to fan flames, but how many threads have I read on this forum over the years that claim Roman Catholics are not Christians or that Muslims don't worship the same god (to limit the example)?

 

You said upthread that your kids are excluded from some homeschool groups due to your faith, right? So who are we kidding with this stuff?

 

Bill

[Rosika]

Do Scouts really teach, discuss, or talk about spirituality at scout meetings? What does that look like? How do you do that in a group with so many different ideas about spirituality? I really don't understand this and why it's part of scouting.

 

I know nothing about the history of scouting, or the origins of the movement. I'm not interested in knowing, and I recognize that this is a luxury afforded me because it's never been an issue for me. I don't know why spirituality is part of scouting, either, but to answer your question about it looks like at meetings ... 

 

We've been a part of three scouting troops. Each had a leadership position of Chaplain, which was a six-month commitment at the boy level for which he was nominated and voted in. This role looked different at each troop, as most things will. 

 

Troop A is chartered by the public school. The Chaplain's role was to act as a clearing house for religious emblems (along with the Committee's help.) Interested scouts would contact the chaplain for information on how to earn the religious emblems. The chaplain was also responsible for ensuring religious needs were met on camp outs. This was most notable for dietary needs such as keeping kosher, vegetarian options, meatless Fridays for Catholics, etc.; and for prayer needs such as for practicing Muslims. 

 

Troop B is chartered by the Catholic Church. The Chaplain's role was to lead prayer before and after the meetings and meals (these were always optional), to assist with Mass on camp outs (also optional), and to be "shepherd" his fellow scouts. That meant praying with them upon their request, sending out prayer requests and keeping other families in the loop when serious situations arose (deaths, births, surgeries) so that meal trains, cards, etc. could be set up. He also ran the service event attached to All Souls' Day, which was cleaning up abandoned grave sites at our local cemetery. 

 

Troop C is chartered by a Protestant Church. I think it's Episcapalian? Maybe Methodist? We're in the Bible Belt. The Chaplain's role is to be a liason with the charter organization. He ensures we're good stewards of the space we're allowed to use, and that we do at least one service event per year to give back to the church. This is our current troop, and when my son was in this position he added the task of being the clearinghouse for religious emblems - no one in the troop was aware that these were even options. He promoted the program and helped interested scouts get in touch with area groups. This troop ends all of its meetings with a short prayer. It's probably optional, because our troop is low key, but nobody has ever opted out or to consider making it known that it's optional.