From CNN.com –
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (AP) — The nation’s third largest Boy Scout council expanded its nondiscrimination policy to include sexual orientation, defying the national group’s anti-gay stance.
The board of the Cradle of Liberty Council, which has 87,000 members in Philadelphia and two neighboring counties, voted unanimously this month to make the change after discussions with gay activists and other community leaders that began two years ago.
“We disagree with the national stance, and we’re not comfortable with the stated national policy,” council Chairman David H. Lipson Jr. said.
Yay scouts!
UPDATE: Oh, well, it didn’t last. See comment #5 below, and also this more recent post..
Finally, one of the largest “child influencers” has realized that excluding people is wrong, for any reason. Now all we need to do is change anti-gay people’s views about discrimination based on sexual orientation…ha ha ha :) This is a good day for boy scouts!!
There’s something kind of appropriate about the council’s name being “Cradle of Liberty.”
Pingback: Creative Destruction
Couldn’t the BSA claim squatter’s rights to the property in question. Seriously, I think someone from the BSA legal department should look into this!
I’ve been involved in Scouting for 25 years now as both youth and adult. I have to say that I disagree with National Council’s policy on excluding “avowed homosexuals” as leaders. I think that homosexuals should be permittable or deniable in a unit on the same basis as female leaders are. It’s up to the sponsoring organization for a particular unit as to whether or not they wish to have female leaders, and there are a number of units that exclude them (Mormon-sponsored units will not have female leaders in Troops, but will have them in Packs, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Moslem-sponsored units were similar). As long as a sponsoring unit was not forced by outside groups (either from within or outside of Scouting) to admit or deny “avowed homosexuals” as leaders, then I would have no problem with it.
I use the phrase “avowed homosexuals” because that’s the phrase used in National’s policy. I think they use the phrase because they know full well that there are gay and lesbian leaders in Troops, Packs, Crews and Ships out there, but as long as they do not make a point of their orientation at Scouting functions, or a point of their Scouting affiliation at functions where their sexual orientation is publicized, Councils won’t make an issue of it.
An explanation, if you’ll permit me, on how Scouting is structured, and why that’s significant in the light of this. It’s lengthy, I confess, but it helps to understand the forces involved in creating BSA policies and what it would take to change them, and what’s likely to happen next in the Cradle of Liberty Council.
National Council is incorporated as a not for profit corporation (NFP). They are tax-exempt as a 501(c)(3) NFP at both the Federal and State level. They hold a Federal Charter that gives them the exclusive right to run a Boy Scouting program in the U.S. and exclusive rights to all their various badges, etc. It’s much like an incorporation charter and a copyright and trademark grant all rolled into one. They are obligated to give an annual report to Congress on what they’ve been up to each year.
National (as it’s called) owns and operates some properties, notably it’s headquarters in Irving, Texas and a 176,000 (or so) acre ranch in Cimmaron, New Mexico called Philmont. National sets guidelines and requirements for the operation of the Boy Scout program. It also creates reams of materials for training people how to conduct the program, the actual conduct of it, etc. There’s an IT staff that does the usual functions, plus handles the databases used to track who the members are, what training they’ve had, what rank advancements have been earned, etc. National has an Executive Board (the E-Board) that votes on policies, determines the dispostion or acquisition of properties, etc. There’s also a subset of that called the Executive Committee that handles the day-to-day stuff. And, to no one’s surprise, there are a number of committees. National is made up of volunteers; at this level, many of them are long-term unit and Local Council volunteers. There is also a professional staff hired by the Executive Committee, headed by the Chief Scout Executive, who is under contract to the E-Board. There are about 5 million people in Scouting. There are about 4000 professionals around the country. My dad was once one.
Notable among those committees for this purpose is the Relationships Committee. Remember that name, I’ll get back to it in a minute.
National grants charters to local community NFPs organized for the purpose of overseeing the conduct of the BSA’s programs. These are the Local Councils. They usually take on the name of a noted geographic feature or a historical person or site in the area, often the latter having a patriotic theme. Their structure also consists of an E-Board, an Executive Committee, and a Scout Executive and professional staff. Councils are usually broken down into geographically delimited Districts. Each district has a District Executive whose job it is to see that new units are being formed, that existing units are healthy, and that money is being raised to support the Council. The money goes towards paying the professional and clerical salaries, keeping the heat and lights on at the Council Service Center, running the store (where uniforms, books, camping equipment, etc. are sold), keeping the camps open and maintained, buying new property and capital equipment for them, etc. The money does NOT go towards either the units OR National.
The Council has a key 3 – that’s the Scout Executive (responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Council, overseeing the District Executives and other professionals, etc.), the Council President (the head volunteer and head of the E-Board), and the Council Commissioner (head of the Commissioner staff, who are experienced Scouters who work with the units to keep communications flowing back and forth and who help units work out problems). Each District also has a Key 3; the District Executive, the District Chair, and the District Commissioner. The Council and the Districts have committees; Finance, Membership, Training, Program, etc. Their members are members of the overall Council or District Committees, which is headed by the Council President or the District Chair.
The Local Council in turn grants charters to local organizations giving them the right to conduct the Scouting program for the youth of their community. These can be churches, PTAs/PTOs, VFW or American Legion Posts, fraternal organizations (Lions Clubs, Odd Fellows Halls, Rotary Clubs, and so forth), even commercial entities. Despite what you might think, the last time I checked only about 55% of Scouts are in a unit that is sponsored by a religious group. These local organizations are the sponsoring organizations, or just the sponsors. It is up to them to recruit Scouts, recruit adult leaders (a.k.a Scouters) and ensure that the Scouters are of good character and suitable to work with children, and to make sure that the unit is being run in accordance with the policies of National, the Local Council, and the sponsor.
The sponsor sponsors units; Cub Scout Packs, Boy Scout Troops, Venture Crews and Sea Scout Ships. These are where the kids get the BSA programs. It’s up to the sponsor to pick out the unit leaders and their assistants, and to make sure that the units have an active Unit Commitee that keeps a direct eye on the unit leaders and how the program is being run. It SHOULD have a few people from the sponsor on it, but in practice it’s mostly the parents of the kids in the units.
The sponsor gets to register one person as the Sponsoring Organization Representative. He or she has voting rights in the Local Council, so the sponsors can control what the Council does or does not do in adopting policies, hiring or firing professional personnel, selling properties, etc. In practice, the sponsors usually don’t take that high an interest in how the
Council is run and the members of the E-Board that are selected by the Council runs things.
So, now, the punch line. What’s that all got to do with this? Well, the units and the Local Councils all have to renew their charters annually. If they get out of line, the issuer of that charter can refuse to renew it. If the Local Council refuses to renew a unit charter, that sponsor can no longer be a sponsor of that unit and the unit ceases to exist. If National refuses to renew the Cradle of Liberty Council’s charter, that NFP can no longer run Scouting in Philadelphia. What would happen then would most likely be either:
a) the area formerly under the franchise of the Cradle of Liberty Council is granted to one or more of the Local Councils contiguous to it that are more amenable to running things National’s way, or
b) some other group forms an NFP in Philadelphia and National grants it a charter to run Scouting in the territory formerly supervised by the Cradle of Liberty Council.
Understand that if the Cradle of Liberty Council persists in this course of action, either a) or b) will happen. Charters usually are renewed on a calendar year basis.
Oh, the Relationships Committee? Well, it’s membership is made up of representatives of the national organizations whose various chapters, posts, parishes, etc. sponsor Scouting units. The Mormons and Lutherans each sponsor about 1/8 of all Scouts. The Roman Catholic Church sponsors about 1/10 of all Scouts, so that’s about 35% of all Scouts right there. Fold in the American Legion and the VFW, both of whom are against inclusion of “avowed homosexuals” as well. The Mormons have reputedly threatened to pull all their kids out of the BSA if the BSA permits this; it’s suspected that the Catholics would too. Then there’s the unit sponsors, many of whom would on their own pull out, and a lot of families who would not want to see their son or daughter (Venturing/Sea Scouts is co-ed) with an openly gay or lesbian leader. National has been flat-out and publicly told by the Relationships Committee, “No ‘avowedly homosexual’ leaders”. If it doesn’t listen, the BSA is likely to see it’s membership drop immediately by 1/3, and then see attrition to a much greater number than that over the next year. There’s a damn good chance that it might cease to exist.
This post is from May of 2003. Since it’s come up again, I was wondering what had become of the Philly Boy Scouts’ attempt to demonstrate inclusiveness; the answer appears to be that the National Boy Scout organization slapped them down. (Metaphorically, of course.)
From the website of “Scouting For All”:
Oh, well.
Ron, thanks for the info, and for sharing your experience. I’m glad you don’t agree with the BSA policy, although I wonder if you’d be as comfortable with allowing local councils to exclude based on religion or race.
Just one nit-pick:
There’s been at least one very well-known example: Dale, whose lawsuit eventually got to the Supreme Court, neither made a point of his orientation at a Scouting function, nor a point of his Scouting affiliation at a gay rights function. IIRC, one of the Scout leaders just saw him in the news at a gay-rights function, and recognized him from Scouting, and that’s why he was fired.
I think Ron is overglossing what the Scouts look at. Basically, you cannot be both a Scout and a gay activist. Dale was an activist.
National has been flat-out and publicly told by the Relationships Committee, “No ‘avowedly homosexual’ leaders”. If it doesn’t listen, the BSA is likely to see it’s membership drop immediately by 1/3, and then see attrition to a much greater number than that over the next year. There’s a damn good chance that it might cease to exist.
A large organization that openly practices discrimination might cease to exist. Yeah, that would really suck.
It would be better by you that they were sneaky about it?
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Philly Boy Scouts Threatened With Eviction Over Anti-Gay Policy
I’d prefer sneakiness, actually. Sneakiness implicitly acknowledges that bigotry is unacceptable. Plus, sneakiness would be a less effective form of discrimination, especially in a group like the BSA which in which local groups have some autonomy.
Yeah, but Dave Wendling wasn’t an activist. Nor was the guy kicked out in Philadelphia a few years ago, as far as I know. Not to mention the atheist and Wiccan kids who have been kicked out just for honestly answering when asked about their religion.
Hadn’t read those cases. Well, in that case, I was overglossing my ownself; being gay is a priori incompatible with being a Scout or Scout leader, and they should assert that.
What does “overglossing” mean?
I mean, I can infer generally what it means from the context you used it in, but I’m curious what it means specifically. I’ve never seen the word before. (And I’m not being snarky here, honest!)
Sneakiness implicitly acknowledges that bigotry is unacceptable.
“Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue”?
New coinage as far as I know.
What does “overglossing” mean?
Too many marginal notes, explanations, unneeded details, or interpretations that are given to divert attention from a main idea or to derail an opposing argument. Focusing on single words to redirect a thread or change the subject.
RonF used it to take folks attention away from the fact that the BSA practices discrimination by making it seem like the BSA would be in peril of no longer existing if it couldn’t freely practice it’s discrimination.
Robert used it to change direction by focusing on the word ‘openly’ and diverting the talk to whether open or sneaky discrimination is better or worse.
By “overglossing” I meant trying to parse too finely/spin too much and inadvertently overstep the argument’s plausibility.
By “overglossing” I meant trying to parse too finely/spin too much and inadvertently overstep the argument’s plausibility.
That is also a good definition. The only places I have seen it used is in passing on poetry sites where it is used to indicate that over interpretation or explanation can overshadow the author’s original intent and on religious sites, where it has been used to point out that focusing too intently on the meanings of single words and phrases can change the initial interpretation. Isn’t it interesting how language changes and gets added to? :)
The Wendling case is one I had not heard of before. When he called the Scouts and said, “I’m gay”, that’s pretty much “avowed”, I’d guess. So I can see where they’d have to pull his registration.
However, the assertion that he was thus banned from meetings doesn’t sound right. Was he told that he couldn’t show up as a leader (which is in accordance with National policy), or was he told that he couldn’t show up as a parent? Because that’s NOT in accordance with National policy. National policy does not ban a parent from accompanying their kid to any activity on the basis of their sexual orientation (or any other reason, for that matter). Anyone who told Wendling different was flat wrong, and needs to be corrected.
“RonF used it to take folks attention away from the fact that the BSA practices discrimination by making it seem like the BSA would be in peril of no longer existing if it couldn’t freely practice it’s discrimination.”
Let’s see you support the assertion that the former follows from the latter.
“although I wonder if you’d be as comfortable with allowing local councils to exclude based on religion or race.”
An organization that would discriminate on the basis of race would not deserve to be involved in the Scouting program.
Discrimination on the basis of religious denomination would also be wrong, presuming we’re not talking about someone who’s religious beliefs involves a doctrine that they can violate the rights of those not of their religion.
Discrimination on the basis of whether or not one has any religious beliefs at all, however, is a different story. After all, how can one do one’s “Duty to God” if you don’t think there’s a God in the first place? BTW, in the Scout Oath and Law, the idea of God is meant to encompass any religious belief. It need not be one that holds that there is a particular God or gods, non-theistic beliefs (such as Buddhism) are perfectly acceptable.
The idea is that proper moral development includes the acknowledgement that there is something beyond the material/observable plane of existence that we are accountable to. Now, you may not agree with that; atheists obviously don’t. But that’s a principle of Scouting that I do agree with. That doesn’t mean that an atheist cannot act in a moral fashion. And it doesn’t mean that a non-atheist can’t act in an immoral fashion. But overall, I think that the way to ensure that a child is brought up in a moral fashion is for them to acknowledge what I stated above.
Hm. I have to take another look at Dale.
I just love Scouting for All. They’re so dependable.
“In doing so the Council asserted a long-held Scouting convention which states that each individual council has the right to select its own leadership.”
Ignoring the equally long-held and quite well-known principle that Council leadership (and any other leader) has to agree, as a condition of accepting a leadership position, to conduct the Scouting program in accordance with National policy. Which, it seems to me, would be the same committment that anyone accepting a leadership position in any organization would have to make. When the Cradle of Liberty Council’s E-Board adopted their anti-discrimination policy, they broke the committment they made when they accepted their leadership positions. They have a right to assert that National policy is wrong. They have no right to break policy and keep their positions.
Here’s a look at how the BSA is going against the cultural grain in accepting a faith that most “conservatives” (and a lot of other Americans) seem to have a problem with .
I might note that almost ALL religions are, in essence, at conflict. Especially the monotheistic ones. If you’re a Christian, your beliefs (that Muhammed was not a messiah, and Jesus was a messiah) are at direct odds with a Muslim. And so on. I keep trying to promote a Jesus was a false messiah” display in my home town during late December, but for some reason my wife fears that the legendary tolerance of the Christian sect might be exceeded somehow.
This is what one might refer to a “christian privilege” or perhaps “monotheistic privilege.” I would bet you a whole lot of money that I could find (or create, for that matter) a religion where their “duty to God” would be in very, very, direct conflict with what you consider YOUR “Duty to God.” You know what those altars in Tikal got used for, don’t you? Or perhaps you might happily accept a Satanic leader, say, because hey, at least they have some religion…
The reality is that the Scouts mean “any God is OK, so long as their belief pretty much match those of their own, Christian, God.”
Isn’t that convenient? Look, you can sneak around it with a “so long as” clause. But really, this is an attempt to hide the ball. Don’t claim a pretense of tolerance.
I might note that almost ALL religions are, in essence, at conflict. Especially the monotheistic ones. If you’re a Christian, your beliefs (that Muhammed was not a messiah, and Jesus was a messiah) are at direct odds with a Muslim. And so on. I keep trying to promote a Jesus was a false messiah” display in my home town during late December, but for some reason my wife fears that the legendary tolerance of the Christian sect might be exceeded somehow.
I have no idea how this comment is responsive to the comment of mine that you quoted.
This is what one might refer to a “christian privilege” or perhaps “monotheistic privilege.”
Given that the BSA happily accepts non-Christian and non-monotheistic members, and that I quite plainly stated that, I have no idea what you’re talking about here.
I would bet you a whole lot of money that I could find (or create, for that matter) a religion where their “duty to God” would be in very, very, direct conflict with what you consider YOUR “Duty to God.”
I’m sure you’re right. So what? The issue is whether or not a member of the BSA acknowledges that they have a Duty to God, not whether or not it conforms to a given leader’s idea of what that given leader thinks his or her duty is.
You know what those altars in Tikal got used for, don’t you? Or perhaps you might happily accept a Satanic leader, say, because hey, at least they have some religion…
The use of those altars in Tikal would pretty much violate the rights of the victims sacrificed on them, so that would fail the test I proposed. As far as a Satanic leader goes, again, does such a leader’s doctrines involved violating other people’s rights? Because if so, then I’d oppose their membership. And in any case, leaders are not involved in telling Scouts what their Duty to God is; that’s something that the Scouts are supposed to get from their parents and spiritual leaders, not from their Scouting leaders. Scouters are not allowed to proseltyze. Of course, a given sponsor can say, “we don’t think that a Satanic worshipper is moral enough to lead our kids,” and that’s their privilege. But National puts no ban on them. Note that on an Adult Application (click through here to look at one) and you’ll see that there’s no place on it where you have to indicate your faith.
The reality is that the Scouts mean “any God is OK, so long as their belief pretty much match those of their own, Christian, God.”
The reality is that you can see numerous religious award emblems given out by other organizations that the BSA authorizes for wear on it’s uniforms. A great many of these are from religions that are at great variance with Christianity.
The BSA is not a Christian organization, folks.
The BSA is not a Christian organization, folks.
snicker…snort…LOL.
Thank you, that was very funny.
I’ll have you know, RonF, that the ID movement is ALSO not a Christian movement. At all. The movement leaders say so. Any resemblance to a Christian theology is purely conincidental.
heh.
So Sailorman and mousehounde, are you saying that the Jewish, Hindu, and Muslim Scouts (among others) and the troops which are run by mosques and synagogues and such are secretly Christian?
Or what?
And Buddhist and Shinto. They are Christian? I’m not just talking about Buddhist and Shinto members, I’m talking about units sponsored by Buddhist and Shinto organizations. I have personally attended a Troop dinner at a Buddhist temple that sponsored the Troop.
The Buddhists, I note in passing, have been intimately involved with BSA since 1920. I gather that if you’re really adept with the Eightfold Path, you can get a Sangha Emblem for your merit badge sash.
All of which I assume is code for “Christian triumphalism shall smash your pagan temples, Buddhist swine!”
Actually, the medal is worn over the left-hand breast pocket flap, so it hangs over the pocket. That’s for special occasions; for everyday wear, a small (1 cm x 3 cm) patch of a silver square knot over a purple background is sewn to the uniform at the same location where the medal is attached. It’s the same knot for all the different awards.
Note that these are not BSA awards. They are awards from the various faiths and you apply to them, not to the BSA, to get them. The BSA simply authorizes them to be worn on their uniform.
There are different levels that can be earned for the different age groups (Cub Scout, Boy Scout, Venturer) with different age-appropriate requirements. There are also adult awards as well. Unlike the youth awards, those are not something you can set out to earn; you have to be nominated for them. You usually don’t find out about it until the decision is made to award it to you by the Diocese or whatever regional authority in your faith exists.
“Greg Lattera, Life Scout, had only his Eagle project to complete before becoming an Eagle Scout [when he] was kicked out of the Boy Scouts of America simply because he is gay and an atheist.”
Greg was probably a Scout for about 4 years at least by this time (8 if he’d also been a Cub Scout, which is pretty usual). So he probably raised his right hand in the Boy Scout salute and said, “On my honor, I’ll do my best to do my duty to God ….” and “A Scout is … Reverent” at least 200 times each. How did he do this in an honorable and trustworthy fashion if he didn’t think he had a duty to God or to any supreme being or supernatural force at all?
Actually, given that their worship involves a Sacred Fire, I’d think that Zoroastrianism would be the natural religion for Scouts (and yes, there’s a religious award for them). If there’s one thing a Scout will do above all else on a campout, that’s light and sit around a fire. Even three Mondays ago, when it was 95+ most of the day and 80+ all night. Me, I kept at least 30 feet away from that fire. I was sweating just looking at it.
This may already have been linked, but, Ron, I’d be interested in your reaction to it, especially this part:
Interestingly enough, Girl Scouts pledge “on my honor I will do my best to serve God and country” (or something like that, I’m too lazy to look it up), but the organization considers the “do my best” part an escape clause for atheists — the reasoning apparently being that if you’ve tried your best to believe in God and you can’t do it, that’s OK with them.
I’d also like to know, Ron: do you think atheists should refrain from having kids?
Lu, I commented on the Wiccan case here at the end of post #3. In short, I heartily disapprove of the intolerance shown towards Wiccans by the parents of that Troop, and I think it’s a violation of the Scout Law.
The whole bit with the GSUSA’s oath change is interesting. Bascially, a while ago the GSUSA changed their oath so that its members could either substitute the name of some other deity for the word “God” in the oath, or even eliminate it entirely. They sold this to WAGGGS (the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts) on the basis that some people who were not Christian or Jewish were uncomfortable using the word “God” and that some non-theistic people didn’t want to use any word at all. WAGGGS approved on the basis and promise by GSUSA that the GSUSA wouldn’t use it as a way to allow atheists to join. But, unlike the BSA, the GSUSA program is structured in such a way that there’s never anywhere that a member might be asked about their personal beliefs, and the GSUSA basically refuses to examine the matter; thus, there is no bar for atheists to join. Again, that flies in the face of the promises the GSUSA made to the WAGGGS.
I wouldn’t presume to tell any couple whether or not they should have kids.
Again about the Wiccan case; note that this was not an issue of National policy, but of intolerance on the part of the people in that particular Troop. A Troop’s sponsor does, in fact, have the right to restrict membership on a number of different criteria. Whether or not they should actually exercise that right in certain ways is another question.
One of the the points of my admittedly quite lengthy post on the structure of the BSA is to get folks to understand where National’s policies come from. While their membership policies are approved and published by National’s Executive Board and are administered by the professional and volunteer staff, their source is the organizations that sponsor the units; the Mormons, the RCC, the Lutherans, the American Legion, etc. By no means are all the organizations behind these policies religious ones. If the E-Board defied the sponsors on this matter, either the sponsors would boot them out or the sponsors would withdraw their support for the organization.
You may say, “Good. Let such a discriminatory organization die”, and you have a right to that opinion (although I don’t share it). But it’s not exactly realistic to expect the BSA to form up a circular firing squad and commit suicide.
There are certainly gays and lesbians in the BSA. Some as youth members, and some as registered leaders and committee members who want to see their children get the benefits of participating in the BSA’s programs. Robert is right that a gay activist may well have problems in maintaining BSA registration. A lot of that is a function of local attitudes. If you live in an area where homosexual activism is accepted, neither the local populace nor the Council staff is likely to take action. And, in any case, the vast majority of gays and lesbians in this country live their lives as simply as they can, just like the vast majority of heterosexuals, and don’t engage in activism not because they are afraid of the consequences, but because they don’t feel strongly enough about a given issue to take the time and effort to be an activist. Such folks will very likely have little trouble in the BSA.
Thanks, Ron. What I thought was interesting about National’s response that any belief in God was OK, and the mom’s follow-up comment, was that apparently the local folks interpreted “any belief in God is OK” to mean “one God, OK, more than one, not OK.” It does seem that the local people were grasping at any possible straw to exclude these kids, probably, as you say, due to fear and ignorance (the irony here being that while Wiccans have no hierarchical structure or set of beliefs to which every Wiccan must subscribe, most Wiccans consider any kind of proselytizing to be bad form).
Why do the BSA consider nontheistic Buddhism to constitute belief in God?
Do I understand you correctly that any local BSA organization can bar anyone they want by saying they don’t want any Poles or African-Americans or Jews or kids from households with income under $500k a year or kids who wear glasses or any other blatantly discriminatory and nasty standard they want? I’m glad I’m not faced with the decision whether to allow my son to be a Boy Scout.
I didn’t know the background info on the Girl Scouts. I’m a little torn here — on the one hand, I agree with you that everyone should play by the rules they signed up for, but on the other, I’d have trouble with their not allowing atheists.
I have to say that while I applaud your refusal to mind other people’s business, I strenuously disagree with your belief that kids should be raised to believe in God. In my experience atheists are some of the most honest and moral people around, in large part because they’ve given theology and morals a lot of thought, tried really hard to believe in God, and decided they couldn’t. The ones I know do believe in things higher than themselves, such as truth, honesty, justice, all that hokey stuff. (Just for the record, I’m not an atheist myself.)
What an interesting peek into the cult of manhood.
Q Grrl, the “cult of manhood” has enrolled well over 100,000 young women between the ages of 14 to 21. In fact, the GSUSA’s Senior division is losing a lot of young women to Venturing.
Those aren’t women. They’re Christians! Er, I mean, they’re men in disguise. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Lu, if a sponsoring institution started rejecting members on the basis of race, ethnicity, income, etc., they’d get their charter pulled. A sponsor is perfectly free to limit it’s membership to it’s own members’ kids, so such a unit sponsored by a Jewish temple, say, would be de facto limited to Jews. But if a unit admitted Catholics from all different parishes but didn’t admit members of any other denomination, I again believe they’d quickly get a visit from their District Executive or District Commissioner.
I’ve never heard of any unit limiting it’s membership to a given denomination or on any of the other criteria you’ve named. In fact, unless the unit has a leadership resource problem (too many kids for the number of adults willing to become registered leaders), I’ve never heard of a unit putting any restrictions on membership. It’s very typical for a unit sponsored by an organization to have a majority of it’s members not be affiliated with the sponsoring organization at all.
When I was Cubmaster, I once had about 8 families walk out one recruiting night. All of our Dens had 8 or more kids in them. A Den with 8 kids is about the limit; after that it gets very hard to keep the kids organized and focused enough to get anything done. The families came in and after our presentations were very eager to join. I got them together and asked them to choose from among themselves who the Den Leader and Assistant Den Leader would be. They looked at me quite blankly and wanted to know why their kids couldn’t be put into the existing Dens. I told them that they were full, and that their kids would all be in one Den and that they would provide the leadership for them. They left. These were almost all 2-parent families, and not poor, either (trust me, I know the neighborhood). Apparently taking 3 hours a week out of their other activities to organize and run a Den meeting was not something they were willing to do. I guess sacrificing the weekly golf game or a couple of aerobics classes was too much to ask.
Units sponsored by Mormon stakes tend to be 100% Mormon because of the way they structure the program (e.g., they don’t camp overnight on Saturdays and their leadership structure is the same as the leadership structure in their church’s youth organization), making them unattractive to. But there’s usually a non-Mormon unit in the area.
In fact, the Mormons almost got their butts thrown out of the BSA back in the 1970’s. Because of that leadership parallel, and because at that time it was official doctrine that the black race was tainted with the curse of Cain, blacks could not have leadership positions in the LDS. That meant that a black kid was never going to be a Patrol Leader or Senior Patrol leader in an LDS Troop. In a good BSA Troop, the Senior Patrol Leader actually runs the Troop’s activities, and the Patrol Leaders direct the activities of the Patrols (groups of 6 or so kids who do their activities together). Acceptance of blatant racial discrimination within the program became completely untenable, and the BSA told the LDS that things would have to change or they would have to leave. The situation was resolved when the (I forget the official title) head prophet of the LDS had a revelation that blacks had become able to become full members of the LDS and achieve leadership positions. I’m sure that this was due to many pressures outside of the BSA, but it benefited the BSA as well.
Why does the BSA consider Buddhism to constitute belief in God? Because the word “God” is used for historical and convenience reasons. The actual policy is that any belief in any kind of supernatural or non-material force or plane suffices, even if it is not part of any organized religion.
As far as admitting Jews and blacks and kids with glasses or income under $500 K a year, these days the BSA’s unit leader training stresses diversity very strongly. Every training course has time spent on it. There’s a special outreach program to Hispanics, and the rules for leaders has been changed so that leaders no longer have to be American citizens.
I may have gotten a little carried away there. But you did say
I couldn’t tell (and still can’t for sure) if you meant by this that a sponsor had the right to block the membership of Wiccans (for example), however unwise it might be to do so.
I understand why National won’t change its policies on gays and atheists; but I really can’t see that barring them is morally any different from barring Wiccans, or Lutherans, or kids with glasses. I gather that you disagree, and wish you would explain why (in moral rather than practical terms).
Homosexual behavior is seen as a moral issue, and those who oppose accepting homosexual leaders believe that homosexual behavior is immoral and sets an unacceptable example for the youth they would lead. Wearing glasses, or choosing to be Catholic vs. Lutheran is not seen as a moral issue; e.g., Catholics see Lutherans as being in error doctrinally, but don’t see them as being immoral.
I disagree to a certain point. There’s a lot of behavior that many people view as immoral that is allowed to be controlled at the unit level. For example, a sponsor could decide that someone who is divorced should not be a leader (which might make it tough to sign up leaders in my suburban area, anyway, but I digress). The Mormons and the Catholics especially have a problem with divorce, but that hasn’t resulted in divorced persons from being banned from leadership by National policy. I guess that they view the degree of immorality represented by homosexual behavior as being that much greater than divorce or other such things. I would disagree with this and would allow “local option”; let this be adjudicated at the sponsor level, rather than at the National level. The Relationships Committee opposed local option on the basis that they didn’t want homosexual leaders at multi-unit events (Camporees, Jamborees, etc.), but I think that’s bogus. I’ve staffed and even directed a number of such events, and I don’t see how someone’s sexual orientation would become apparent to anyone there.
I obviously disagree (to put it mildly) that homosexual behavior is immoral and that a person would be a bad role model simply by virtue of being gay, and perhaps you do as well, so I’ll leave that there. How about atheism?
If a homosexual builds a fire in the woods, is he practicing homosexual behavior?
I’d say that’s flaming behavior.
[Roll on snare drum.]
Amp, I’m back and I need some pancakes. Where the Hell are you ? We should go soon before I blow my miniscule temp income on something stupid, like the electric bill. Q, can you stop by, too ?
So, if I profess to not believe in a god or life after death, but I do have a belief in transdimensional beings that others commonly call ghosts, then that’s good enough for the BSA? Somehow I doubt it.
I also find the “doctrinally in error” vs. “immoral” argument to be specious. Generally speaking, among Christian factions, doctrinal errors equal eternal damnation. And what Christian wants their child’s role model to be someone who is going to hell?
As much as some would like to believe the BSA not to be a Christian organization – and it’s possible that the rules & bylaws of the BSA do not overtly make it one -, in practice that is exactly what it is.
Mmmmm, pancakes. When are these pancakes happening?
As much as some would like to believe the BSA not to be a Christian organization – and it’s possible that the rules & bylaws of the BSA do not overtly make it one -, in practice that is exactly what it is.
Perhaps you could illustrate this assertion with some kind of actual logic. Please make sure that it explains what part of the BSA’s policies and practices make it a Christian organization and that also takes into account the numerous non-Christian members (Buddhists, Shintos, Jews, Moslems, Mormons, etc.).
I’ve always wondered about practicing homosexuals myself. Are there any out there that can get it right and don’t have to practice all the time?
Jake, if we are accountable to these ghosts for the morality of our actions, then yes, that would pass with the BSA. But if they are simply there to provide Stephen King with inspiration for his novels, then no, you’re right.
RonF,
I’ll try to get back to you tomorrow on why BSA is a Christian organization in practice. I don’t want to leave you a one sentence thought fragment for this.
Will you be in Portland sometime soon? We could try to do it when you’re in town, if there’s a time we’re all available.
I’ll be there today/this weekend.
For those who are interested, this is an interesting article about the BSA and religion:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/517047.html
Note the references to “muscular Christianity.” There is no doubt that, though they tried to be inclusive, the BSA is at heart a Christian organization. It’s largest (and first) sponsor is the LDS. The RCC is 4th in size among its sponsors. There has been a meme in the Jewish community for at least 3 decades that the BSA is an anti-semitic organization. Whether this belief is true or not, it does function to limit the number of Jews who take part in the BSA. Nor is this belief a big secret. I haven’t seen the BSA actively combat this perception among American Jews. Although I haven’t been able to find demographics for the BSA, I’d be willing to bet that there is an over-representation of Christians as compared to US demographics and an under-representation of all other religions as compared to US demographics. If anybody knows where BSA religious demographics can be found, I’d love to see them.
There is no doubt that, though they tried to be inclusive, the BSA is at heart a Christian organization. It’s largest (and first) sponsor is the LDS.
So it’s Christian because its got a bunch of Mormons?
A lot of Christians are pretty iffy about whether Mormons are Christian or not. LDS sponsorship of something isn’t really a compelling snippet of evidence.
So it’s Christian because its got a bunch of Mormons?
Because, you know, that comment only had those two sentences and no link or anything.
From http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/review_bsa_gay_policy.html :
In November 1995, the church expelled Umar Abdul-Mutakallim as Cubmaster simply because he was Muslim. The church felt that the Cubmaster should be Christian. “For any of the programs we offer here at the Protestant church, it only seems consistent that the people leading those programs would at least identify with what it is that we represent,” said program director Dale Boone.
According to newspaper reports, BSA officials said the church was within its rights. The charter agreement made the troop a program of Haven Reformed, giving it authority to select leaders. A Michigan scouting official defended the church’s right to determine the shape of its program. “We let (sponsors) decide… how they want to use scouting in their outreach,” said Verlyn Haahr, field director for the Southwest Michigan Council.
Abdul-Mutakallim said the church should have been up front about its requirements, especially since it recruits Cub Scouts at public schools. Many parents, both Christian and non-Christian, reported that they were not aware of the church’s opinion and planned to take their sons out of the pack and start another one.
To our knowledge, once a chartering organization decides to include Scouting as a part of its youth programs, it is free to determine who will be the adult leaders of the program. While there are laws that prohibit discriminating against persons on the grounds of race, sex, religion, marital status, etc., religious-based chartering organizations are free to discriminate on these and many other areas regarding adult leaders.
Yet BSA is against proselytizing? You can’t proselytize but you can remove anybody not of your preferred religion from program leadership? Functionally, what is the difference? What message is sent to participants when you say that while we are happy to have Muslim children, Muslim adults are not welcome?
Hmmm. A search reveals that out of over 52,000 troops in the US only 31 identify as Jewish sponsored. That seems to me to be somewhat less than the 1.3% of Americans who identify as Jewish. I would go so far as to say that .05% is significantly less than 1.3% – in fact that seems like 26 times less. Why do you think that is?
And only 112 Muslim identified troops despite the fact that .5% of Americans identify themselves as Muslims.
If you look at their site, the Traditional Values Coalition considers the BSA to be a Christian organization.
OK.
The article contributes essentially nothing to the discussion; it’s essentially a restatement of the position “the Boy Scouts could embrace our values, if they had our values instead of their values” and some interesting history of people from three generations ago. So, nice for them, but big whoop. Next let’s have a discussion of how the anti-abortion position of some early feminists means that the current feminist movement could abandon abortion rights as a central tenet.
The fact that the Catholic Church is the 4th largest sponsor does not speak compellingly of an organization that is explicitly Christian. The Catholic Church is probably in higher than 4th place in providing health care in the United States; is “health care” an essentially Christian enterprise?
I’ve never heard of any anti-Semitic strain in the BSA, and never saw it in my own fifteen-year Scouting progression; admittedly, that’s not dispositive. On the other hand, even if the BSA were the most ravingly anti-Semitic group on the planet, I fail to see how that supports the central contention. “Anti-Semitic” and “Christian” are not equivalent descriptive groupings. The amount of overlap on the Venn diagram is, regrettably, non-zero – but that’s true of pretty much any group, since anti-Semitism is a fairly widespread phenomenon. “They’re anti-Semites” no more means that they’re Christian than it means that they’re Muslim; it means that they’re anti-Semites. If they even ARE anti-Semites.
Finally, the last part of your paragraph is a discussion of the religious representation of the constituent individuals in Scouting, vs. in the US as a whole. You present no information, other than the fact that you wouldn’t be shocked to find a differentiation, and that you don’t actually know what any of the numbers are. This does not constitute evidence of anything.
So, now that I’ve discussed the OTHER irrelevancies and non sequiturs that you’ve presented, do you have a response to my critique of your FIRST point?
Right. The article says nothing about the changes made in the BSA or why they occurred in the 1950s nor does it say anything about where their values come from. Nor does it say anything about those currently controlling the BSA at the national level being self-identified conservative Christians. And, therefore, the article contributes essentially nothing to the conversation except for the fact that the BSA’s outlook and practices derive from 19th century Christian beliefs about masculinity, that the changes to the charter and various oaths in the ’50s were driven by what the author calls the Civic Religion (which was a sort of generic Protestantism) and that fact that those in charge of the BSA are conservative Christians.
Do Christian based/sponsored health care entities exclude those whose beliefs are different from the sponsoring organization?
What has the BSA done to combat its negative image among Jewish groups in the US?
I have now presented some data on the religious representation of troops within the BSA and, as I predicted, representation among non-Christian groups in the BSA is a tiny fraction of those groups representation in the US population.
Yes, my critique of your critique of my first point is: That is just one bit of information representing my position that the BSA is a Christian organization.
But, please, do go on.
Nor does it say anything about those currently controlling the BSA at the national level being self-identified conservative Christians.
Is the United States a Christian nation?
What the BSA is doing wouldn’t pass muster anywhere else on this board, in any other context:
They KNOW what the makeup of this country is. They KNOW what their “unspoken” message is, and what the history if their society is.
Knowing this, it allows them to conveniently escape blame by having a policy (on the national level) which is technically inclusive, while knowing full well that the IMPLEMENTATION of the policy is de facto exclusive. Then they can happily shrug their shoulders and blame the mormons, (or anyone else), or claim it’s not “their fault”. Christianity just so happens to be the best religion, most suited to scouting, so…..
Similar arguments arte made regarding women and minorities. They (correctly) don’t fly. Anyone else see the parallel?
The BSA’s entire moral position doesn’t pass muster with the American left, Sailorman. I don’t think there’s any contention about that.
I wonder about your assertion that the implementation of the policy is de facto exclusive. Are (fill-in-the-blank-religious group) blocked from starting a troop? As far as I can see, the answer is no. The 1st Church of Wicca can start a troop; so can the local mosque or Buddhist temple.
I tend not to worry overmuch about “exclusion” that manifests itself only in outcomes. I lack the wisdom to look at an outcome and divine all the causal factors that made it up; when I stroll around and look at the input side and see no barriers to entry, I’m pretty much done with the assessment. YMMV.
Jake, too be fair, you should recognize that some of the sponsoring organizations of BSA troops are in principle not religious at all; RonF lists PTAs, PTOs, Veterans, and American Legion. A more fair comparison would compare the number of Jewish or Muslim organized troops to the total of all troops organized by some religious organization, though that would still be flawed.
Note the references to “muscular Christianity.”
Yes, I note the references. Of course, they are by the author, not the BSA itself, which as has been repeatedly shown in this thread by reference to actual BSA publications and policy instead of someone’s imagination is non-denominational. The link between “muscular Christianity” and the BSA is an assertion by the author, not anything based in actual fact.
There is no doubt that, though they tried to be inclusive, the BSA is at heart a Christian organization.
Actually, there’s a ton of evidence and no doubt at all that the BSA has acknowledged a variety of sources for America’s spiritual heritage for a long time. From page 527 of my copy of the 1927 BSA handbook (I have a bit of a Scouting library):
“The real heritage of a people is their ideas and ideals, the traditions of a JUST past, the lofty service of their unselfish leaders. The heritage of America (yours and mine) includes the prehistoric mound builders, the cliff-dwellers, the sun worshipping peoples of Central America, the fine, simple nobility of the American Indian, his religious devotion, …”
I have never seen sun worship and Native American religious practices claimed as it’s heritage by a Christian organization.
It’s largest (and first) sponsor is the LDS.
The central doctrines of the LDS are so non-Christian that no Christian denomination recognizes it as a Christian church. So this is actually evidence against your proposition.
The RCC is 4th in size among its sponsors.
The RCC is one of the largest organizations in the U.S. It thus makes sense that it would be one of the largest sponsors of the BSA. This is hardly a surprise.
There has been a meme in the Jewish community for at least 3 decades that the BSA is an anti-semitic organization.
We have only your assertion for this.
Whether this belief is true or not, it does function to limit the number of Jews who take part in the BSA. Nor is this belief a big secret.
It’s a secret from me and from the Jewish Scouters I know. I’ve been involved in the BSA for 25 years and have held (and hold) responsibilities that put me in contact with people from around 80 to 100 units. I’m involved in promoting Scouting all through my area. I have never heard of this until this very second.
I haven’t seen the BSA actively combat this perception among American Jews.
Probably because it doesn’t exist. Unless you have some actual evidence.
Although I haven’t been able to find demographics for the BSA, I’d be willing to bet that there is an over-representation of Christians as compared to US demographics and an under-representation of all other religions as compared to US demographics. If anybody knows where BSA religious demographics can be found, I’d love to see them.
You haven’t been able to find those demographics because they don’t exist. While the BSA knows how many Scouts are members of units sponsored by given religious and secular organizations, the BSA does not gather any information regarding the denomination membership of it’s members. While it’s a safe bet that 95%+ of kids in LDS Troops are Mormon, that pretty quickly breaks down for units sponsored by other denominations. They have no idea in Irving if I am Episcopalian, Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist or Hindu. So your baseless assertion will have to remain just that.
The last time I checked, 45% of Scouts were members of units sponsored by secular organizations. It may be less now that the ACLU has done it’s level best to drive public schools away from sponsoring BSA units, but that’s hardly the fault of the BSA.
There’s no question that the BSA’s membership is predominantly white Christians. I’d guess that this is because the U.S.A.’s population is predominantly white and Christian. But there’s other factors, and that’s cultural and financial.
First, cultural. Many people who come to the U.S either legally or illegally come from countries where the idea of civic volunteer associations is not nearly as strong as they are here. In many countries, organizations such as the BSA are run by the State; they are not used to being expected to run such organizations themselves and volunteering their time. They also often have not exactly had great experiences with people in uniforms. This is not a guess on my part; the BSA has done studies on why Hispanics (the most quickly growing minority in the U.S.) are not joining the BSA in proportion of native Americans, and these specific points have come up in these results. If you come to the U.S. from Pakistan or Palestine and you aren’t particularly familiar with American culture, the last thing you want to do is to trust your kid to a bunch of people in uniforms.
Then there’s the “didn’t we just get out of this?” factor. I’ve got a very well-off physician who is from Palestine as a parent in my unit. He was damn near brought up in a tent. It’s taken a long time to get him to come around to getting back into one.
The BSA’s need for volunteers also mitigates against membership by minorities. Minorities tend to be disproportionately single-parent families. Since BSA units are led by parents using their spare time in an unpaid fashion, and since without such volunteers units fold, it’s harder to start up or maintain BSA units in minority areas.
Finally, there’s an issue with finances. Uniforms cost money. Sleeping bags cost money. Taking the weekend off, driving 2 or 3 hours to the middle of nowhere, and doing something like canoeing, etc., costs money. Minorities tend to again be disproportionately economically disadvantaged and thus have a harder time doing the BSA program.
Sailorman says:
They KNOW what their “unspoken” message is, and what the history if their society is.
Well, I don’t. But, then, I’ve only been in the BSA for 25 years and have 12 feet of bookshelves of BSA publications. Can you let me in on the secret?
Is the United States a Christian nation?
In the sense that Iran or Saudi Arabia identify themselves as Moslem nations, no – there is no established religion in the U.S. It is not a Christian nation if that is what that phrase means.
The majority of the American population identifies itself as Christian. The majority of people who founded this country and first expounded it’s founding principles were Christian and referenced religious principles in general and Christian beliefs in particular as part of their inspiration. Law creation and enforcement tends to conform to Christian beliefs of what is just. On that basis, you might say that the U.S.A. is a Christian nation.
But overall, I wouldn’t use the phrase at all, given the liklihood that people will have the first set of concepts in mind, not the second.
If you look at their site, the Traditional Values Coalition considers the BSA to be a Christian organization.
The TVC can consider the BSA to be a Christian organization, but that does not make it one. The Assemblies of God formed the Royal Rangers to mimic the BSA for their kids because it thinks the BSA isn’t a Christian organization. You can pick any pre-formed opinion you want and find someone that will support it. That doesn’t make it the truth.
A lot of Christians are pretty iffy about whether Mormons are Christian or not.
Their religious leader’s aren’t iffy. They’re pretty set that Mormons are not Christian. Go to the national website of pretty much any Christian denomination and look up the word “Mormon”. Here’s a lengthy treatment of the topic. The RCC’s, the Methodists, the Lutherans, the Baptists, the Presbyterians; shit, even the Episcopalians don’t accept them as Christians.
The fact that a sponsoring organization decided that the best choice for someone to lead their BSA unit would be someone who supports the ideals and policies of that organization doesn’t bother me at all. If the Moslem parents don’t like it, the BSA would be more than happy to let them know what the other units in the area are. And let me assure you that the local District Executive and District Membership chair would be positively thrilled to help them organize their own unit, where they could have a Moslem Cubmaster or a Cubmaster of any faith they want.
RonF,
While you make a lot of good points, this:
The central doctrines of the LDS are so non-Christian that no Christian denomination recognizes it as a Christian church. So this is actually evidence against your proposition.
is absurd. The Catholic church doesn’t recognize any Protestant sect as Christian. Many Protestants don’t recognize Catholics as Christian. You don’t need to have other Christian sects agree that you are Christian in order to be Christian. AFAIK, the only requirement to be defined as a Christian is believing that Jesus is Christ. And the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints certainly meets that definition. To quote back at you, “You can pick any pre-formed opinion you want and find someone that will support it.”
The last time I checked, 45% of Scouts were members of units sponsored by secular organizations.
Can you point me to where you found those BSA numbers? I haven’t been able to find anything really usefule (I had to go to 4 different sites to calculate my percentages). And I’d also be interested in seeing how the BSA is defining secular organization. But, honestly, this is your best argument.
As to the meme among American Jews about BSA being an anti-Semitic organization, yeah that’s anecdotal. It could be that that only exists in the community that I grew up in. I think that is unlikely given that few of the Jews in that community had been there for a long time, but okay we can disregard that.
Dylan,
You’re absolutely correct in your comment. It is a flawed method, but it was the best I could do with the information I could find.
Sailorman,
I do see the parallel. It is, in part, what I was trying to demonstrate with my point about proselytizing and allowing Muslim children but not Muslim adults into a particular troop.
Robert,
Is the United States a Christian nation?
Is the United States a self-identified Conservative Christian nation?
One last thing… I was finally able to find some examples of Jews who believe that the BSA is anti semitic. Here is one.
Hannah Naiditch: http://www.pasadenaweekly.com/article.php?id=3353&IssueNum=17
And, in further searching, it becomes clear why Jews believe that the BSA is anti-semitic. It may just be an accident of the name of the organization, but it seems that Boy Scouts were involved in the genocide of Jews in Europe and in post-Holocaust violence in Poland at least. This may be where the belief came from and it may have something to do with the meme (which as it turns out exists beyond suburban New York City).
You know, I never really thought about where that idea came from. Thanks for challenging it, RonF. I’ve learned something new.
The Catholic church doesn’t recognize any Protestant sect as Christian. Many Protestants don’t recognize Catholics as Christian.
The first statement is flat wrong – laughably so, to anyone who knows anything about the structure and politics of the Christian church. The second statement is kind of true, with an asterisk. Many Protestant individuals, including no doubt some pastors, think there’s lots of things wrong with the Catholic Church, and some of them no doubt think this arises to the level of the Church not being a Christian institution.
You are quite right that you don’t need permission from other sects to be considered Christian. But, alas, “because Jake Squid thinks you are or aren’t” is even less of a factor.
The generally accepted commonsensical definition for whether someone is a Christian is not whether they believe in Jesus; lots of people believe in Jesus without being Christian. Rather, it’s whether they accept the Nicene Creed, the basic statement of Christianity’s truth claims. Some pentecostals, the Mormons, some church of Christers, and a few others reject the creed; they are in turn more-or-less rejected by the main body of the church as being non-Christian. (Not specifically for disagreeing about the creed; for disagreeing about the underlying theological questions, which are complex and way outside my competence to meaningfully discuss.)
Just for the sake of Googlebombing Alas into the communion of saints, here’s the creed in a modern translation.
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven,
By the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
He suffered, died and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father (and the Son)
Who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
Who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Also, Rich Mullins does (did, he’s dead now) a really kicking folk version. You can get it at iTunes. (The jury is not out on whether owning the MP3 makes you a Christian.)
It’s become very clear, Jake, that (a) you don’t know all that much about Christianity, although you seem to think that you do, and (b) you’re on the wrong track about the BSA. Why not just acknowledge that RonF’s encyclopedic knowledge of scouting, and his to-date frank and honest discussion of the questions involving the Scouts and current liberal thinking, are a little more on-target than your conflations and misunderstandings?
Bean, the central Protestant issue with the Catholic Church on theological (as opposed to historico-snarky) grounds is the Protestant idea that a person must be born again in Christ to achieve salvation; you can’t get there through rituals that do not have a personal spiritual and emotional commitment to Jesus. Go up to any of the Protestants you mention and say “my sister is Catholic, but just yesterday she was born again and accepted Jesus as her savior. Is she a Christian? Is she going to heaven?” and the answer will be “yes”. The objection, in other words, isn’t to Catholicness per se – it’s to the Catholic practice of assuming that baptism and confirmation are sufficient assents to accepting Jesus in one’s life. And there are a lot of born-again Catholics out here. (Waves hand.)
Their objection(s) to the Church qua the Church is a bit more complex, and can get into some pretty woolly territory. But the number of people who have an informed objection to the Church on those grounds is fairly small. 90% of it is the salvation thing, and is motivated (more or less) on concern for the individual souls involved, along with a healthy dose of American competitiveness.
(The irony here is that if Catholics weren’t Christian, it would further erode the support for Jake’s position. “Two groups that are considered non-Christian are the biggest supporters of the BSA – PROVING that it’s a Christian organization!” But we are, alas.)
The irony here is that if Catholics weren’t Christian…
Yeah, that always makes me laugh. I can’t understand how so many people think that the original sect of Christianity (well, after the several hundred years of many wildly divergent sects coalesced) isn’t Christian. A lot of it has to do with how non-Catholics view the pope, as far as I can tell.
Why not just acknowledge that RonF’s encyclopedic knowledge of scouting…
Because RonF isn’t a generally accepted source of facts on the BSA. Although I respect RonF’s work and beliefs, just as he cannot just take my word about the anti-semitic meme as fact, I cannot accept all the info that he reports as fact without some supporting evidence. I’d still like to see where RonF is getting his info on the demographics of supporting organizations since I so utterly failed at finding any.
Rather, it’s whether they accept the Nicene Creed, the basic statement of Christianity’s truth claims.
My research indicates that this is wrong. For example go and read http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn.htm
Also, the inclusion of this sentence in your version:
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
seems to indicate that any non-Catholics are not Christians. But I may not understand this correctly and perhaps it isn’t a reference to the Pope-led church.
I will also note that Wikipedia and a large number of other sites about religion and Christianity list Mormons among the branches of Christianity. Although almost all of them acknowledge that there are churches that don’t recognize Mormonism as Christian, the general consensus appears to be that Mormonism is a branch of Christianity. In ages past, there is no doubt that there would have been a Crusade called against them. But their version of Christianity certainly seems more in line w/ the mainstream of Christian belief than, say, the Cathars were.
Although I will give up arguing with you and RonF on the BSA, there can be no disputing the fact that they are widely viewed as being a Christian organization. Whether it is important enough to them (if the leadership doesn’t view the BSA this way) to work to change that perception is something else.
But, on the issue of whether or not Mormons (or Unitarians or Pentecostalists or Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.) are Christian or not… your knowledge of this issue is not quite as broad as you claim. You certainly know what your own sect thinks and you may know the position of other large denominations, but to believe that that is what actually defines a sect as Christian or not is mistaken. When you go that route you are relying on narrow religious doctrine rather than on comparitive religion studies. Damn, I’m not sure how to make that sentence clear. Perhaps I should say that you are relying on a subjective rather than objective view? In any case, your citing of the Nicene Creed is only partially correct, as far as I can tell, in that the Nicene Creed is often part of what defines Historical Christianity and not what defines Christianity (if I understand what I have read correctly). It also seems that adherence to the Nicene Creed is what qualifies one as Catholic (as opposed to Roman Catholic) and not what qualifies one (or one’s church) as Christian.
Clearly I am wrong about the Roman Catholic Church not accepting Protestant churches as Christian. Can you point me to some info that says when that changed? I had thought that during the Reformation that Protestants were not considered Christian – was I wrong about that, too? Are heretics still considered to be Christian?
Jake Squid says:
“The Catholic church doesn’t recognize any Protestant sect as Christian.”
They certainly recognize members of other Christian sects (Protestant and Orthodox) as Christian. A little research turns up this in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 1271:
The sacramental bond of the unity of Christians
1271
Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: “For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.”81 “Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn.”82
81 and 82 are footnotes in the document.
So; indeed, the RCC recognizes other members of other Christian sects as Christian.
Many Protestants don’t recognize Catholics as Christian.
I’ve run into a couple of these, but overall their numbers, and their attitudes, are not significant.
You don’t need to have other Christian sects agree that you are Christian in order to be Christian. AFAIK, the only requirement to be defined as a Christian is believing that Jesus is Christ.
Then perhaps you should do some reading on the subject. There are a number of things you have to believe in besides Jesus Christ to be considered a Christian; as Robert pointed out, the Nicene Creed has been accepted as a summary of what those things would be since the 3rd or 4th Century (I forget exactly when).
And the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints certainly meets that definition.
No, they don’t. They don’t believe in one God; they believe that if you or I become Mormon and lead a righteous life, we can become Gods of our own planets and populate them with our own spiritual children that we will make through relations with our wives, who will also be deities; God the Mother! They don’t believe that Jesus is the only Son of God; they think that everyone on this planet is. They don’t believe that Jesus is one being with the Father; God the Father, God the Mother, and Jesus are all separate beings. And it goes on. They deny the existence of the Trinity, which is a central doctrine of Christianity. If you read the admittedly lengthy document I linked to, and if you do some more research, you’ll see that the Mormons differ with Christians on a number of essential doctrines that all the Christian sects agree among themselves on. It takes more to be considered a Christian than “I say so”.
“catholic” in the context of the Nicene Creed means “all-encompassing” or “world-wide”. It is not shorthand for the Roman Catholic Church.
Wikipedia’s listing of the Mormons as being a Christian Church is an excellent example of why Wikipedia is not a definitive reference and should be used with caution. It is true, however, that the issue was only examined in detail by the RCC and other Christian sects within the last few years; the LDS wasn’t big enough or widespread enough for them to be concerned about them until recently.
I had read that link from Hannah Naiditch some time ago. I note that:
a) Ms. Naiditch never says that Lord Baden-Powell was anti-Semitic.
b) One author, Michael Rosenthal, may have said he was anti-Semitic (it’s not clear)
c) Another author, Tim Jeal, not generally considered favorable towards Baden-Powell, says he wasn’t anti-Semitic.
d) Neither those authors nor Ms. Naiditch says that the BSA is anti-Semitic
e) Neither those authors nor Ms. Naiditch says that anyone considers the BSA is anti-Semitic.
So it’s hard to see how from that one article you can support the proposition that the BSA is viewed as anti-Semitic by anyone, never mind Jews in general or any subset thereof.
My original reference for the sponsorship numbers are directly from the BSA. Unfortunately, it’s an internal BSA publication and I have not been able to find a web-based reference for it. I am looking, and have put out a request for assistance. If I can come up with a public reference, I’ll be sure to post it.
RonF,
The issue, to me, is not whether or not Ms. Naiditch is factually correct. The reason that I linked to her essay was to provide a reference that is external to myself to the belief among American Jews that the BSA is anti-Semitic. IOW, it isn’t just me claiming that this belief exists. Although Naiditch does not bluntly say that the BSA is anti-Semitic, the subtext is clear as day. What other purpose does that article serve? It may just be that the article was written using language that resonates with Jews and that is the reason that you don’t get the same thing from the article that I do. But, for me, the article clearly states that the BSA is anti-semitic. If you’d like, I’d be happy to do a breakdown of the article in order to explain to you why I (and most Jews, I suspect) read it that way.
As I said before, the BSA does not need to actually be anti-Semitic for this to be a problem, the BSA just needs Jews to believe that they are anti-Semitic for this to be a problem. Also, as I wrote in the same comment, I believe that the reason for this belief is related to the Holocaust and to post-Holocaust violence against Jews in which “Boy Scouts” were an organization that took part. I haven’t bothered to see whether there is a connection between the organizations called “Boy Scouts” in Europe in the 30s & 40s and the BSA, but that isn’t really important in discussing whether the perception that the BSA is anti-Semitic exists or not among the American Jewish community.
If you and the BSA want to dismiss my assertion, I honestly don’t care. I think that it is a counter-productive thing to do if you and the BSA care about how you are viewed, but it really has no effect on me.
As to the BSA being viewed as a Christian org… I’m not the first person to mention it on this thread, nor was I the last to join in the conversation. I suppose that it’s possible that there are only the 3 of us (and our families) who believe this, but that seems unlikely. And again, if that perception isn’t a problem for you or the BSA, that’s fine. Denying it exists seems strange, though.
On to the Nicene Creed.
as Robert pointed out, the Nicene Creed has been accepted as a summary of what those things would be since the 3rd or 4th Century (I forget exactly when).
This is simply not correct. The Nicene Creed has been accepted as a summary by Churches that accept the Nicene Creed. If you read Comparitive Religion texts or essays by prominent professors of Comparative Religion you will find a somewhat different perspective. Also, please note the link to Religious Tolerance .org that I included above. This is a Christian organization that obviously feels that the LDS is Christian. Wikipedia, though not 100% reliable is generally a good indicator. But that is why I included a link to a non-Wikipedia, Christian source. If you’d like, I can put up a few links from non-Christian associated Comparitive Religion sources that find the LDS to be a Christian sect.
Other than that…
They don’t believe in one God…
They don’t believe in one God in the same sense that Catholics are idolaters and pantheists. It seems to me that Mormon theology is somewhat more subtle in that they don’t actually worship gods other than the Christian God. Catholics on the other hand worship the minor gods that they call Saints. Mormons believe that God was once mortal and that each of us has the potential to also become divine. That isn’t quite the same.
As to the Trinity… from outside of the Christian perspective the divide (and, often, subtlety) between believing that the 3 are really one versus that the 3 are seperate parts of the one is not something that distinguishes 2 separate religions. I mean, we’re talking about belief of the nature as opposed to belief of the existence of the tri-partate god. To somebody who studies religion, this does not signify two different religions (or so my, thus far, limited reading indicates).
God the Father, God the Mother, and Jesus are all separate beings.
I’ve never seen anything on the LDS site referring to “God the Mother.” They refer to, “God is our Heavenly Father,” “Jesus Christ,” and “The Holy Ghost” as the familiar components of the Trinity. Why have you replaced the “Holy Ghost” with “God the Mother”? They say that, “The Holy Ghost—sometimes called the Holy Spirit—is the third member of the Godhead.” As far as I can tell, the woman who expounded on “God the Mother” was excommunicated from the LDS for her heretical beliefs.
I believe that you have some mistaken ideas of what the LDS believes. I am not an expert on the LDS, but – since this will no doubt bore the pants off of most folks – I’d be happy to continue, via email, an examination of what the LDS does actually believe (through judicious use of links to the LDS and other reliable sources) and why that does or why that does not exclude them from the Christian religion. I’m sure that I can learn a lot more from whatever references that you have.
“catholic” in the context of the Nicene Creed means “all-encompassing” or “world-wide”. It is not shorthand for the Roman Catholic Church.
How is this interpreted in a way that accepts those of another sect as Christian? I don’t understand how to read this other than if you believe in oneholy catholic and apostolic Church. that must be the one to which you belong. Therefore none of the other churches can be adhering to the Nicene Creed.
I wonder about your assertion that the implementation of the policy is de facto exclusive
Well it’s certainly exclusive in the sense that it won’t let the local LGBT society set up a branch. After you’ve excluded 1/10th of the population, it’s kinda hard to argue it as inclusive.
There’s no clear subtext to me. What is clear is that Ms. Haditch’s opinion is that the BSA’s views on homosexuality may well be based on a viewpoint prevalent in 1910 and not on modern understandings of homosexuality. I would dispute that, but it has nothing to do in any case with anti-Semitism on the part of the BSA either explicit or implied. Her purpose, which she is quite clear about, is to criticize the BSA for those policies where they do explicitly discriminate, specifically against homosexuals. Neither the general nor the specific case have anything to do with anti-Semitism. It does not support your allegations on that point at all.
You stated that “Also, please note the link to Religious Tolerance .org that I included above. This is a Christian organization that obviously feels that the LDS is Christian.” Well, I went to http://www.religioustolerance.org and looked around. It took me all of 3 minutes to find this:
ORCT Statement of Belief
We are a multi-faith group. As of 2006-JAN, we consist of one Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Wiccan and Zen Buddhist. Thus, the OCRT staff lack agreement on almost all theological matters: belief in a supreme being, the nature of God, interpretation of the Bible and other holy texts, whether life after death exists and what form it takes, etc.
If that’s what you think is a Christian group, no wonder we have a disagreement. They are a multi-faith group that has no agreement on whether or not there even is a God, never mind any other doctrines one might expect a Christian group to agree on. Their authority to define Christianity is nil.
But that is why I included a link to a non-Wikipedia, Christian source
No, you didn’t. Religioustolerance.org is quite specifically not a Christian source, as their Statement of Belief clearly shows. Let me know if you do find one that considers the Mormon church to be a Christian church.
The “one holy catholic and apostolic church” statement in the Nicene Creed was not meant to prove that the RCC believes other Christian sects are Christian. I was simply trying to clear up your question on what the word means in the Nicene Creed, and that it was not meant to be specific to the Roman Catholic Church. After all, plenty of other Christian churches accept it (Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, etc., etc.). The quote from the RCC’s catechism was the proof that the RCC accepts other denominations as Christian.
Catholics on the other hand worship the minor gods that they call Saints.
Catholics (of which I am not one, but I have a lot of Catholic friends and have studied the matter) do not worship Saints. Neither do they nor the various Orthodox denominations worship idols. You really need to read up on that.
As to the Trinity… from outside of the Christian perspective the divide (and, often, subtlety) between believing that the 3 are really one versus that the 3 are seperate parts of the one is not something that distinguishes 2 separate religions.
Well, a) I have to question your authority on this based on some of the other errors you’ve made above, and b) we’re not talking about outside the Christian perspective; we’re talking about whether Christians consider the LDS to be a Christian denomination. And the top spiritual authorities in those denominations clearly don’t. Christians who would offer the opinion that the LDS is Christian would do so out of ignorance, not an acceptance of the doctrinal differences as minor.
I didn’t replace the Holy Ghost with God the Mother. They believe in the Holy Ghost as well, but again not the same way that Christians do. Given that 1 out of every 8 Scouts belongs to a LDS Stake-sponsored unit, it’s safe to say that 12.5% of all Scouts is Mormon (they tend to be exclusive). I’ve run into a few and discussed their religion with them, and done a fair amount of reading.
As far as what the BSA thinks; I’m quite sure that if National thought that the Jewish community thinks that the BSA was anti-Semitic, they would take action. My guess would be that any lack of action on this part would be based on National’s not thinking that any such belief was prevalent, not because they understood this to be the actual case and didn’t care. And National does have a marketing department that pays attention to such things.
Catholics (of which I am not one, but I have a lot of Catholic friends and have studied the matter) do not worship Saints. Neither do they nor the various Orthodox denominations worship idols. You really need to read up on that.
Dude, many, many people believe that the Catholic version of worship means that they worship Saints. There are Christian sects that believe that Catholics are idolaters based on their use of icons, statues, etc. This is not a novel nor unheard of impression of Catholicism.
b) we’re not talking about outside the Christian perspective; we’re talking about whether Christians consider the LDS to be a Christian denomination.
I’m talking about it from outside the Christian perspective. Outside of the Christian perspective is certainly relevant to whether & why people view the BSA as a Christian organization.
Sites that classify the LDS as Christian:
http://www.adherents.com/
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/religion/blrel_type.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ldswho.htm (I recommend their essay “Who is a Mormon? Are they Christian? Are they Protestant?)
http://www.religionfacts.com/mormonism/comparison.htm (this one is more non-commital)
http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/boards_main.AllCategories.asp?Category=39
http://www.cymruarywe.org/cayw/index/en/280
http://www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/contributions/bible/position.html
Sites that don’t classify the LDS as Christian:
http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/class.html
http://netministries.org/denomlst.htm
http://www.religion-cults.com/Christianity/Protestant/P-Denominations.htm (classifies Mormons as a cult)
Catholics (of which I am not one, but I have a lot of Catholic friends and have studied the matter) do not worship Saints. Neither do they nor the various Orthodox denominations worship idols. You really need to read up on that.
A few sites condeming Catholicism for practicing idolatry (yes, most of these folks are loony, IMHO, but this is still what they believe – and they do make some points worth examining – on occasion):
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Russian_Orthodox/orthodox_idolatry.htm
http://www.sxws.com/charis/silly.htm
http://www.lamblion.com/articles/other/religious/RI-01.php
Consider a start on reading as having been done.
It is absurd to claim that nobody says that Catholics are polytheistic idol worshippers or that the idea has no credible footing. That, as far as I can tell, is one of the major reasons that a number of people and churches claim that Catholics are not Christian. It is also absurd to dismiss the interpretation of statuary, votive candles with Saint’s images, use of relics, and actual prayer to Saints as idolatry and polytheism. You may disagree, but these are not interpretations without merit. Many, if not all, Saints are credited with powers over certain aspects of the world (granted, technically they have power to intercede with God about those aspects – but the reality is that most people don’t know the technical part and actually worship particular Saints as if they were gods). Never mind that the practice of communion and the belief in transubstantiation is essentially symbolic cannibalism (something else that is bound to be responded to by angry denial), a practice most often associated with polytheists. Please note that I am not claiming that Catholics are idolatrous polytheists, but that I am pointing out that there are people and Churches who believe this and that, therefore, Catholics are not Christians.
Yet again, from the hated Wikipedia:
Within Christianity, Catholicism uses Saints as projections of divine or revered examples, and these may be seen to form a pantheon-hierarchy of lesser and greater deities.
Claiming that one can only be Christian if one accepts the Nicene Creed must mean that early Christian sects were not really Christian. If you hold to that definition of Christian, I suppose you must refer to those Churches as “pre-Christian” and not as “early Christian.” I would guess that 500 years ago that most present-day Christians would not be considered to be Christians – but this is only a guess.
On a defense of my earlier reference:
From religious tolerance.org:
Almost all of the over 3,284 essays and menus on this web site were written by our main author, Bruce A. Robinson… Bruce was born into a Baptist family in 1936 in Leaside, which at the time was a suburb of Toronto, ON, Canada. The family switched to the United Church of Canada shortly thereafter. He had been fascinated by religion since his early teen years when he experienced a religious conversion from the “nominal” Christianity of his childhood to the Unitarian faith.
Seems pretty Christian to me.
How does all of this relate to the BSA and the perception of that organization as Christian? Well, the perceptions of non-Christians (and non- or anti-religious Christians) seems to me to be the important aspect. Who cares if Christians view it as a Christian organization or not? That probably doesn’t affect their decision on whether or not their children will join. However, non-Christians will often make that perception a major part of their decision. And if non-Christians believe that Mormons are Christian and the LDS sponsors 25% of troops, well, that may add weight to the idea that the BSA is a Christian organization. (I was not allowed to join the BSA because my parents believed that it was an anti-Semitic organization. Very few Jews in my growing-up place took part in the BSA, a hint that that belief may very well have extended beyond my parents.) What the BSA charter does is to provide plausible deniability to the BSA on a national level by allowing unspecified religious discrimination at the local level. In an overwhelmingly Christian culture, that discrimination will normally be against non-Christians. You may not care about that, and the BSA national leadership may not care, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
The “one holy catholic and apostolic church” statement in the Nicene Creed was not meant to prove that the RCC believes other Christian sects are Christian. I was simply trying to clear up your question on what the word means in the Nicene Creed, and that it was not meant to be specific to the Roman Catholic Church. After all, plenty of other Christian churches accept it (Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, etc., etc.). The quote from the RCC’s catechism was the proof that the RCC accepts other denominations as Christian.
I appreciate your help on this. I admitted my mistake on the RCC re: other denominations prior to your initial response to my erroneous claim, I think. My question on that phrase from the Nicene Creed has to do with how it allows members of a Church (and that Church) to accept members of other Churches (and other Churches) as Christian. Can there be multiple “global” or “world-wide” churches? How does, “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church, ” allow acceptance of multiple churches as Christian?
So, the BSA discriminates against non-Christians. You can be nit picky as you want, but in the US, it is generally understood that believing in “god” means you are christian.
Private organizations are allowed to discriminate. That is true. But how can an organization that is allowed to recruit in public schools, that receives public funds from the United Way, that receives government gratuities by way of perpetual leases to publicly owned property be called private?
Name-calling? It is admitted by the BSA that they discriminate based on religion and sexuality, how is that name calling?
Private, yeah. And them there gay folks ain’t moral! Can’t have them around fine, upstanding young boys. Boys might start thinking gay folks are people too!
So, upthread, when you said that the BSA does not discriminate per se, but that individual charters did, that wasn’t what you really meant.
The BSA discriminates. It should be allowed to die out like the dinosaur it is.
So, the BSA discriminates against non-Christians. You can be nit picky as you want, but in the US, it is generally understood that believing in “god” means you are christian.
In general, that may be the understanding. But specifically in the BSA (and you’re quoting from a BSA document, I presume, so that’s relevant) it is not so understood. Given that there are large numbers of non-Christians in the BSA, I don’t see how you can say that the BSA discriminates against the very people it admits as members.
I don’t dispute that the BSA discriminates against atheists and what the BSA terms “avowed” homosexuals. I don’t see what that’s got to do with their ability to recruit in public schools.
The BSA doesn’t dispute that gays or lesbians are people. The BSA does follow the policies of it’s major sponsors, who do dispute that the sexual behavior of such people is moral. That doesn’t deny their personhood anymore than disputing the morality of adulterers makes them non-persons.
I don’t deny that the actions of the BSA are discriminatory; I explained the source of that policy so that people would understand where it was coming from and what it would take to change it. And I specifically gave my personal opinion that the argument that not allowing “local option” because kids might thus run into gays and lesbians at Jamborees, etc., is wrong.
I don’t dispute that the BSA discriminates against atheists and what the BSA terms “avowed” homosexuals. I don’t see what that’s got to do with their ability to recruit in public schools.
I dunno, maybe something along the line of discrimination is wrong and we shouldn’t promote such ideas to children? I don’t really see how you can defend this. Even if it is just “policies of it’s major sponsors”, I don’t see why it should be allowed to push those policies.