- cross-posted to:
- usnews@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- usnews@beehaw.org
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/20749204
Another positive step in the right direction for an organization rife with brokenness. There’s a lot I don’t like about the organization, but this is something a love–a scouting organization open to young women and the lgbtq community. The next step is being inclusive of nonreligious agnostic and atheist youth and leaders. As well as ending the cultural appropriation of Native American peoples.
May this organization continue to build up youth, never allow further violence against youth, and make amends for all the wrongs. There’s a lot of good that comes out of organizations like this and I won’t discount it even though it’s riddled with a dark history.
You must log in or register to comment.
It’s a pity that I’m still ineligible to work with the Scouts. I have a lot of happy memories from my decade in Scouting, and still have a significant interest in many of the things that I did while I was in the organization. Unfortunately, my religion is, shall we say, disfavored within Scouting, and is not permitted for either youth or leaders.
Religion, while required, plays a very minor role practically speaking. Even your “disfavored” beliefs should be permitted.
My “belief” in my own imaginary mythos is enough to satiate the non-sectarian requirements thus far. I simply don’t speak about it any detail.
This thread has reminded me that talking to my kids about this is important because my eldest, practically speaking, is agnostic. I don’t want him to feel uncomfortable lying for Eagle, so I want to share some options. There’s a lot of ways for a scout to be reverent without actually believing in a deity.
Here’s a little more on the requirement: https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2014/10/03/belief-in-god-scouting/
I can’t wait until this “integral” part of the program is made a thing of the past.
I am a Satanist; although it’s religious, it’s also explicitly atheistic. Per your blog, “By signing the membership application, each leader has already acknowledged the Declaration of Religious Principle which affirms a belief in God […]”. While I could quite truthfully say that I acknowledge myself as my own god, I do not believe in God, and I can not honestly affirm that I believe a belief in any external god to be necessary in order to be a good person and citizen.
“A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent”; I can’t be trustworthy without also being wholly honest, including that I don’t believe in an external god. “On my honor, I will do my best, to god and my country, to uphold the Scout law, and to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight”; how could I say this without being deceptive? I know that the ‘god’ they’re referring to is a deity outside of myself, and it wouldn’t be moral for me to swear to this without also believing in some form of external deity.
I know that the ‘god’ they’re referring to is a deity outside of myself
That is false. They are very explicit in their policies that they do not define “god”. Their policies leave the definition of “god” to be determined by the scout, not the scouting organization.
The “duty to god” requirement charges you with defining your own god. You are not beholden to anyone else’s definition.
They do not define god, but they do constantly refer to God (capital G), and a requirement for faith. Faith ends up being extremely hard to define, but from the context in which it is used here, it strongly implies that faith requires a belief in an external deity.
The simple way to answer this question would be to simply ask; I can write to the Scout board, say that I’m an Eagle Scout–which is true–that I’ve had a change of faith since I was in Scouting, and that I now identify as an atheistic Satanist, and ask if I am eligible to work in adult leadership roles. Which I am doing right now.
When your religion is defined by denial and opposition to all other religions, then it probably isn’t welcome where religious tolerance is a requirement.
Sorry, are you talking about Christianity?
Or were you talking about Islam?
Oh, wait, no, probably Hinduism.
Nah, surely Mormonism.
No I mean the literal purpose of Satanism is to oppose religion and particularly Christianity. That’s why it’s named after the embodiment of evil according to Christianity. It’s deliberately antagonistic. That’s not at all the same as believing that yours is the only true religion.
Goodness. You don’t really know a lot about Satanism, do you?
I don’t oppose religion, as long as religion stays in it’s own lane. As long as religion is personal, and not forced on other people, I simply don’t care; it’s literally not my problem, nor is it my job to ‘convert’ other people. If you’re happy being e.g. Catholic, that’s fine.
…Until you try to force me to obey the dictates of your religion because you can’t tell the difference between civil society and your religion.
Look, it doesn’t matter what you claim to be about if the name you choose is screaming something different. It’s like if you opened a restaurant called Hitler was right, and then acted surprised when people called you a Nazi. You can tell everyone that Jews are welcome, but nobody will believe you.
I hear you and applaud the conviction.
I feel very okay acknowledging myself as my own god and yourself as yours. It’s certainly a reinterpretation, but I’m okay with that for the sake of offering this to my own children. Children hardly know what it means to believe in a god as it is, so I figure why complicate it. I love to teach them what it means to be reverent in a way that is different from the status quo.
In the end though, my preference is that atheists are permitted as they are. Period. Full stop.
We can teach reverence without an external deity.
I had no idea this was a thing. Thanks for sharing…
Does anyone else think “scouts of America” would have rolled off the tongue a lot better than “scouting America”
Uhm… Why not just Souts of America?
Not all of us live in the Sout. Many youts live in duh Nort, too.
Did you say Nort?
Because they couldn’t help it.
They had to Freudian slip.
Now they aren’t just scouting for little boys to sexually abuse, now they are scouting all of America.
With the abbreviation of SA. Idk how they overlooked this.
I have the Scouts to thank for turning me into first an atheist, then through their example of militant protheism, I became a militant antitheist and a secular prohumanist.
I didn’t find my spirituality because of them, I found it in spite of them.
Is it still spirituality if you don’t believe in spirits?
Who doesn’t believe in liquor (spirits)? Liquor provably exists.
Can an atheist be “spiritual” ?
I think probably yes.
Yes. I do not see any contradiction. My view of spirituality is a broad and subjective concept that relates to my search for meaning, purpose, and connection to something greater than myself—my role in the universe, and the universe’s role in my existence. Religion has nothing to do with that.
I practice meditation, mindfulness, and self-reflection in a way that does not require attachment to belief of supernatural phenomena.
This is great, as I understand it from my GS friends girl scouts was basically a glorified cookie sales rep position
They had a shitty scout leader. My mother was a scout leader for years for the Girl Scouts and Cub Scouts, and she took the positions because she wasn’t going to have her kids miss out on camping, archery, fishing, etc. that the scouts are famous for teaching young kids.
I realize that the good scout leaders are few and far between. They have to care about the kids, or it ends up turning into arts and crafts, with a seasonal sales period for cookies or overpriced popcorn.
They have to care about the kids and also have the time, capacity, and energy to put into making scouting enjoyable. If they don’t have the support of other volunteers it makes it exponentially harder too.
Then fix the Girl Scouts…
But there’s this perfectly good organization already built that the girl scouts was meant to emulate in the first place. Why not just… Allow girls?
Also, this is the boy scouts of America’s decision to make. This is a positive change they can make in their organization. They can’t do anything to fix the girl scouts because that’s someone else
Ah the blackwater method
Why “Scouting America” and not “Scouts of America” without the gender prefix? 🤨
The Scouts formerly know as Boy Scouts of America
Why “Scouting America” and not “Scouts of America” without the gender prefix?
I’d guess it’s because “Girl Scouts” still exists so if the BSA renamed to “Scouts of America” it would look like they were in charge of everything. That would surely confuse the hell out of people, piss off the Girl Scouts and up creating a serious fuss.
I’d say this explanation is as good. The posted article mentions girl scouts at one time suing the boy scouts.
Imagine if they merged
We’d be getting the cookies and the popcorn buckets from the same smarmy little shit who set their table up in front of a dispensary like we don’t know they know exactly what they’re doing.
Who eats the popcorn?
Just give me the cookies.
Bought the popcorn and it was poor quality. At least the cookies taste good
If it was supposed to be gender neutral then why have separate girl scouts anymore
They’re separate organisations. From what I remember, Boy Scouts/Scouting America has been under fire for some time for their lack of inclusion, which they’ve been changing. Meanwhile Girl Scouts is and has always been vocally against anyone but girls joining the org. Could be different now though.
They’re separate organisations.
No I know, I was more thinking of why have two of them anymore, they could just merge. I know in Finland we used to have separate boy scouts and girl scouts organizations but ages ago they merged into one top level scouting organization.
Meanwhile Girl Scouts is and has always been vocally against anyone but girls joining the org.
Uh oh. I guess there’s some work to be done there.
Sorry for my misunderstanding. The second part as you point out is the main reason I think they won’t though. I don’t like the Girl Scout’s stance but I can empathise with it, as I believe it comes from the effort they had to go to to get girls access to a scouts organisation in the first place. To allow boys in now feels like a loss to them after so many years of being denied access to Boy Scouts. Mixed into that is all the politics around single-sex spaces etc etc
But if the objective was gender inclusion then excluding boys now would just feel like they’re doing it out of spite. Unless they specifically want gender exclusion, just into another direction, which would be oof.
Should just have one organization where everyone is welcome imo
I completely agree, and yeah it does kind of seem like there is some spite in it. Very political, sadly.
Well there are several forms of scouting housed within the former “BSA”, now Scouting America?
Varsity scouts, Venture scouts, (formerly) Explorer scouts, and even Sea scouts.
they might not have been able to work that out with the Girl Scouts of America, which is a separate organization
The next step is being inclusive of nonreligious agnostic and atheist youth and leaders.
Technically, they already are, with the possible exception of nihilists.
The scout oath does include a “duty to god”, but they do not define what they mean by “god” or “religion”. Instead, they explicitly leave those definitions to the scout.
The only requirements they actually have on the subject of religion is 1. tolerance for the beliefs of others, and 2. “reverence” for your own creed.
Under their policy, “the laws of thermodynamics” is a perfectly acceptable “god”, and “In this house, we respect the laws of thermodynamics” is a perfectly acceptable “religious” creed.
“The environment” is a perfectly acceptable god, and “we must preserve and protect our environment” is another perfectly acceptable “religious” creed.
I readily concede that their policy is needlessly complex. It would be easier to just drop the “duty to god” and “reverent” requirements entirely.
Treating the oath as something that can be worked around using wordplay does nothing but make a complete mockery of the oath. We had this debate a over century ago when trial witnesses were required to swear an oath to god and atheists were prevented from being witnesses. The solution wasn’t to allow atheists to use god as a metaphor for reality, but to remove the requirement for a belief in a god.
The members of the organization decide how changes will be implemented. The members (citizens) of the US decided to remove the references. The members of scouting decided to keep the vague concept of religion, and leave it to the individual to determine specifics.
It is not “mockery” to understand that the religious aspects of scouting are defined by the scout and the scout’s family, rather than BSA or a church.
You are suggesting that it is acceptable to for scouts that do not believe in any god to lie and say that they do. Dishonesty goes against the scout principles.
Dishonesty does, indeed, go against scouting principles, but I am in no way being dishonest.
What I am doing is explicitly following BSA policy, both the letter of the policy, and the intent of the policy. That policy was specifically established to be inclusive on the basis of religion. Scouting follows it’s own law: it is “Reverent”, which includes a requirement to respect the beliefs of others.
Buddhism does not include a concept of a deity, yet Buddhist youths are welcomed within the BSA. The “God” that BSA refers to can be found within a religion that does not include the concepts of a god.
Unitarian Universalism does not require congregants to have a belief in a supernatural entity. While some UU members are theistic, there are many atheists and agnostics among them.
I mention UU specifically, because the BSA entered into an MOU with the UUA on the subject. UU organizations are welcomed to charter Scouting programs, without requiring their atheist members to abstain. The “God” that BSA refers to can be found within an atheistic Unitarian.
If I were asked how I, personally, perform my “duty to god” I would say that within my worldview, the concept that BSA refers to as “god” is usually thought of as “consciousness”. My duty is to utilize that consciousness in my daily life, to experience, to learn, to discover, to teach. I would recount one of my memorable experiences to my inquisitor, and thank them not just for asking, but for giving me an opportunity to perform that duty.
BSA policy charges me with defining “god” for myself, and nothing in BSA policy prohibits me from appointing “consciousness” to that role. I am, indeed, an atheist as the term is normally used, but my belief system is compatible with Scouting.
The UU memorandum of understanding is irrelevant. I am not a member, and I think most atheists are not either. People should not be required to join a church or a religion to join the scouts.
I don’t believe in any gods, and would never say that something was a god if I did not think it was a god. Consciousness is not a god, nature is not a god, the laws of thermodynamics are not gods. Labeling these things gods only serves to imply some sort of mystery thing about it when there is none, I would consider it lying to do so. Do you think they would accept me? I don’t.
If the religious aspects were truly left to the scouts and their families, outright atheists would simply be accepted, and there would not need to be a memorandum of understanding so that a specific organization could participate, because they would have simply been accept beforehand.
The UU MOU demonstrates that “atheism” is not inherently incompatible with scouting. The memorandum does not mean that if you want to be an atheist and a scout, you must also be a Unitarian. It means that the duty required of the oath can be fulfilled by an atheist. How is it possible to fulfill a duty to “god” without believing in “god”? That MOU serves to clarify the distinction between what the BSA refers to as “god” and what other entities refer to as “god”. It demonstrates that the BSA uses a non-standard definition of “god”, and that we need to understand what they mean by that term before we can make a meaningful judgment of their policies.
I don’t believe in any gods, and would never say that something was a god if I did not think it was a god. Consciousness is not a god, nature is not a god, the laws of thermodynamics are not gods. Labeling these things gods only serves to imply some sort of mystery thing about it when there is none, I would consider it lying to do so.
I consider it lying for me to deliberately substitute my meaning of a word for the meaning intended by another. What you (and I) would and would not call “god” is completely irrelevant to how BSA uses the word. BSA does not hold to the idea that “thermodynamics cannot be god”. Quite the contrary. If a scout wishes to define god as thermodynamics, BSA accepts it.
BSA does not hold to the idea that “consciousness cannot be god.” If a scout wishes to claim consciousness as god, BSA accepts it.
BSA does not hold to the idea that “God can only be a supernatural entity” or that “God refers to a sense of mystery”. If a scout does not wish to declare God to be a supernatural entity, BSA does not force them. If a scout determines that a sense of mystery is not necessary, BSA does not require it.
BSA developed their policies using one definition. You are using a completely different, contradictory definition. Your conclusions do not at all reflect their actual intent. It is intellectually dishonest for you to impose your meaning in place of their intended meaning.
The UU MOU demonstrates that they still discriminate. Any Christian denomination is automatically acceptable, for atheists they have to pick and choose saying “you’re one of the good ones”.
If a scout wishes to define god as thermodynamics, BSA accepts it.
OK, that’s irrelevant. Those were clearly MY opinions, a demonstration of how I refuse to label things with the term ‘god’, followed by the rationale for me doing so.
You are using a completely different, contradictory definition.
I am not using any definition of ‘god’, I am just saying that it has a definition, not any specific one just some definition, otherwise the term would be meaningless. And if I were to label anything ‘god’ it would be because that thing fulfilled the requirements for this unspecified definition. If I were to label something as ‘red’ it would be because it fulfills the requirements to be called ‘red’. If it did not fit the definition of ‘red’ I would not apply the label ‘red’. In the same way, I would not label something as ‘god’ unless I thought the label fit. If I were to label something as ‘god’ it would imply that there was something different about it when compared to something that I would refuse to apply the term ‘god’ to. And there is nothing that I would be willing to label ‘god’.
I agree with most of your points, but I don’t know, I think I would keep the reverent in the scout law, even if the oath changed.
As a (nonreligious) scout, I always interpreted the reverent more as being respectful than actually religious. More like respecting the beliefs of others, or being respectful and solemn in a cemetery or a war memorial.
There’s nothing else in the scout law that conveys that feeling, and I feel like the law would be missing it if it were dropped.
Devils advocate speaking…do you want a culture war? Because this is how you get a culture war: cis white males, once again, get the short end of the stick when it comes to divvying up inclusivity.
Hahahahah, you lot are fucking afraid of everything!
Your “devil’s advocate” is a moron that can safely be told to fuck off. “Cis white males” aren’t losing shit – it’s the same damn program it’s always been except it’s open to all kids now … and hopefully has far fewer kids getting molested by the adult leaders
cis white male
I would love to hear your “devil’s advocate” explain how are the white kids are being hurt by this change.
Too bad.
Yes, will the injustices ever stop? Here’s a great article about it.
When you’re accustomed to privilege equality feels like oppression.
ben shaprios infamous quip is fucking dead.
This post is a cesspool of hateful comments from anti-establishment people with zero actual experience with scouting. Scouts is a wonderful organization, full of volunteers, who give children - especially disadvantaged children - knowledge, life experience, and a general sense of accomplishment and competence. My involvement with scouting was the best thing about my entire childhood.
You can’t possibly know if people who don’t support the BSA have experience with it or not if they don’t mention it, what a wild assumption. I was in scouts and enjoyed the outdoor activities and merit badge system, but it was definitely not an inclusive troop by any means. I didn’t notice until my teens, but anyone who was even a little bit different was bullied not just by the other scouts but also the adult leaders. It made me not want to continue past Star. And it’s so weird that they taught the concept of exclusive secret societies for the elite (Order of the Arrow).
There is a lot great about this article, but it’s hard to keep completely positive in light of the many horrific abuses that have taken place within the Scouts. Youth organizations and religious organizations are highly susceptible to this. Scouting America has gone to great lengths to reform and protect youth today, but the stain will be there for a long time especially since abuse still happens (this just reported on days ago).
To be frank, it’s a tense thing for me. Scouts was great for me in my youth and today as I’m involved with my children. However, I’m always on guard and paying attention. Whether it’s scouts or some other youth organization, they are vulnerable. I teach my kids to pay attention and remain ever vigilant. As great as such organisations can be, they are very very susceptible to predators.
New policies do as much as they can to protect the kids at least. Not an excuse for the past, but something.
Scouting has a dark history, but I also made lifelong friendships and learned a lot of cool stuff through Scouting. I only learned of the history more recently… No abuse locally or in any of the troops we associated with when I was younger.
There is a risk of abuse in life. Most children are abused by family or family friends. Unfortunately we can’t stop all of the monsters, but at least Scouts tries, and has some of the most proactive child protection policies in the country. I had abusive teachers when I was a kid that physically assaulted me, that doesn’t mean we condemn all elementary schools. School was still a vibrant part of my childhood. I’m not trying to diminish the suffering of children who suffered abuse in a place that was supposed to provide them safety, but we don’t need to bring it up literally every single time scouting is mentioned. Most of the people on this comment chain are doing it because they get some sort of sadistic pleasure from diminishing the merits of helpful institutions like this, not because they have any sort of real concern for the children.
Just to be clear, the Boy Scouts actively protected abusers to protect their reputation, and went out of their way to NOT PREVENT ABUSERS FROM JUST BECOMING SCOUT MASTERS AGAIN SOMEWHERE ELSE.
This wasn’t just a ‘bad luck’ sort of thing, the Boy Scouts were actively HELPING abusers because they didn’t want the bad publicity.
This is not uplifting. Boys benefit from single-sex spaces just like girls do.
Do they really tho?
There’s separate boy and girl troops, it’s been that way for a few years.
Summer camp got slightly cooler.
Boys have tons and tons and tons of other male-only and male-dominated groups to choose from, they’ll live
Like what?
I’ll bite - give me some examples of real-life male-only spaces that aren’t sports related.
This is good. Scouting (in developed countries) in Europe is one and same for boys, nonbinaries and girls, mainly non-theistic (apart from the obvious theistic groups) and focused on making sure health, hygiene, happiness and life skills are taught and practiced. Girls, nonbinaries and boys coexist, do the same tasks, chores and sleep in the same tents.
Will the Girl Scouts do the same thing?
Probably not. they are to busy getting little girls to sell cookies for their own corporate profit.
They are different organizations with different purposes and missions. Throughout all the changes within the boy scouts, I have yet to hear of any changes within the girl scouts.
and yet my trans brother still isn’t allowed to join
Afaik, BSA has accepted trans boys since 2017.
The organization as a whole, yes. But some individual troops are still run by bigots that haven’t gotten the message yet.
I’d say fight it, because it can be won. Then again, I’d rather my child be a part of a troop that’s welcoming and safe. It’s hard to be a trailblazer.
There’s a lot of reasons to shop around with different troops. This reason is particularly important.
As we know though, trans youth have it particularly bad from every direction right now. 😖
Yeah, if you are looking for a troop for your kid, avoid the Mormon ones. And the boring ones who don’t go anywhere fun. And the “tough” ones with strict parents.
Remember that you can always just go to another one. And when you first get there, they will be on their best behavior. So if you don’t like what you see at the first meeting it will probably get worse.
The most effective (though slightly petty) move would be to fight it until they are forced to accept you and then leave immediately.
K
I would absolutely report it. They can more than likely lose their affiliation entirely for not following rules
It’s a risk with the autonomous Troop structure. You agree to follow BSA guidelines, but there’s a huge gap for individual Troop choice. Technically, atheists aren’t allowed in Scouts, but most Troops ignore that requirement.
