Over the past several months, I have been following a discussion in LinkedIn. I belong to a group there called "Eagle's Nest -- Eagle Scout Award Recipients." One individual asked the following question "How do you deal with a strong scout that doesn't hold any religious beliefs?" to start the discussion.
Now, on first glance, one kind of expects this to be a question from a concerned adult leader who is wondering what to do with a member of the troop who is agnostic.
Boy Scouts of America (BSA hereafter) policy is stated succinctly and concisely in it's Declaration of Religious Principle, which states:
"The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and organization or group with which a member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life. Only persons willing to subscribe to this Declaration of Religious Principle and to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of membership."
In other words, to be a member of the BSA as a youth or an adult, one can not be atheist. The right of the BSA as an organization to set it's own policy and membership criteria for acceptance and continued involvement in the BSA has been legally affirmed by the U.S. judicial system, be it a requirement concerning a belief in God or denial of membership due to homosexuality.
The Scout Oath includes at the beginning "Oh my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God". The last of the twelve points of the Scout Law is ("A Scout is...") "Reverent."
After the first response to the question, it was clear to some that the real question is if the BSA program and policy endorsing religious observance and reverence towards and duty to God can be watered down or ignored altogether so that those who are atheists or otherwise do not subscribe to a belief in a supreme being can be a part of the organization.
I guess I was kind of dense. I didn’t get it until 3 months later and the discussion had 94 comments, many of which in the latter half of the discussion were back and forths between various theists and atheists, some of the latter who became rather snarky. So, my contributions to the discussion were based on the assumption that the leader asking the question wanted to know how to teach what duty to God and reverence were within the Scouting approach to a boy who has no religious conviction. I suggested that it be approached based off what the troop's chartering organization's religious belief system is, if said organization is a religious body. If it is not, then perhaps the best thing to do is to teach the boy to respect the religious beliefs of others, to keep an open mind towards religious expression, and to encourage the boy that it is his right, duty and privilege to search out religion himself.
For others, the response varied. On one side, if a boy or leader are atheist, they should not be in the BSA. On the other, that being reverent is nothing more than being true to one's self or "to show reverence to human kind and one another" (quoting the original questioner 87 comments into the discussion) where there was no mention of a god or supreme being or power.
It turns out, the original questioner classifies himself as an agnostic who does not believe in God. Okay, I am confused, isn't that the same thing as saying you are atheist? Let's look at the The American Heritage Dictionary...
By definition, an agnostic is:
- One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
- One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
Whereas, an atheist is:
"a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."
Reverent is defined as:
feeling, exhibiting, or characterized by reverence; deeply respectful
Reverence is defined as:
- A feeling of profound awe and respect and often love; veneration. See Synonyms at honor.
- An act showing respect, especially a bow or curtsy.
- The state of being revered.
So, the question comes back now, can one have a profound feeling of awe and respect towards something that they deny or disbelieve even exists? Let's be honest about it. No, one can not. To do so would, by their own philosophy, be hypocritical. It is tantamount to a person who values personal liberty and freedom in his own nation giving respect to a despotic and repressive political regime that denies that same liberty and freedom in another land.
Yet, the same can't be said for those who adhere to different religious persuasions. One can respect the beliefs towards religion another holds even if they differ because the two have the common ground of holding beliefs in a supreme being or power. It is more along the lines of "I may not agree with everything or anything you believe, but I know what you believe in is important to you, so I can and will respect your right to believe what you do, just as I hope you will for me."
The discussion on LinkedIn has devolved over time to the desire of some to get rid of the whole religious aspect within the BSA. I feel betrayed that these men were ever awarded the Eagle Scout, for they clearly have no concept of what reverence is. Like the proud and "intelligent" skeptics they are, they mock.
Why do you think the skeptics mock? I submit because they (just as boys who are "tool cool" for something mock that something) are actually terrified of embarrassing themselves. They ridicule, deride, and attempt to tear down that which discomforts them in order to remove the feeling they are threatened with -- in this case religious expression or belief they do not understand or choose not to experience.
In our day, we see this sort of behavior prevalent in the adult world whenever it comes to anything dealing with values, morals, or religious expression. Ultimately, the mockers' basis is "I never had that experience, so therefore no one else has or can either. So, if you said you did, you are a liar to me and yourself. Hence, I am mentally superior to you because I don't need to rely on anything I can't prove with my five senses. So, to ensure that I am not shown as vulnerable, there shall be no giving credibility or respect to your experience by even letting it have place to exist in this venue." And the proud skeptic attitude of mockery is being passed to young people more and more under the guise of a variety of philosophies and causes. Why else should there be the real desire to dilute the meaning of reverence in an organization like the BSA? Because the BSA influences so many and it stands for something that the mockers feel threatened by.
For those of you familiar with The Book of Mormon, does any of this sound familiar? Perhaps Sherem (see Jacob 7:7), "for no man knoweth of such things; for he cannot tell of things to come." Or more likely Korihor (see Alma 30:6-17), "...why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things?" and "...it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so."
If you are not familiar with The Book of Mormon, may I encourage you to read and ponder it? I can guarantee you that if you approach it with a reverent attitude, you will gain wisdom by having an open mind. You could even gain more than just wisdom, if you’re willing to accept it…
Now, here is the clincher. The man who started the discussion with his question stated this (mispellings included): "The reason people like (name withheld) take this stance is the terrible opression upon non-believers (such as kicking out non-believing young men). A young man that perceives no consequence after death but still chooses the right, is a very noble man." The question becomes who defines what is right? If one can not reverence that which one does not believe, how can one accept that a decision that is deemed "right" by those belief systems one doesn't believe or reverence is actually "right" and worthy of being made? Seems to me that the individual is more apt to make the decision based on what he or she feels comfortable with instead.
And the cherry on the top, again likening the scriptures to us for our profit and learning, here is a typical atheist argument: "the terrible opression upon non-believers (such as kicking out non-believing young men)." Doesn't that sound like every group of people who dissented from the Nephites due to said group's choice to believe as it chose? They blamed those who stuck by the standard of oppressing them because they chose to oppose the standard?
Is denying membership in a private organization to an individual who does not meet the standard membership criteria that is applied to all oppression, particularly when membership is sought on a fully voluntary basis? No. And it isn't discrimination either, as in the nasty epithet that gets thrown at people in this messed-up, politically-correct society we live in. It is an example of the U.S. Supreme Court recognized right to association, which in layman's terms means that a private organization has the right to associate with whom it chooses.
Well, so what is oppression? According to Random House Dictionary:
- the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.
- an act or instance of oppressing.
- the state of being oppressed.
- the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, anxiety, etc.
Hmm... maybe a legal definition from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law would help:
"an unjust or excessive exercise of power: as
- a: unlawful, wrongful, or corrupt exercise of authority by a public official under color of authority that causes a person harm
- b: dishonest, unfair, wrongful, or burdensome conduct by corporate directors or majority shareholders that entitles minority shareholders to compel involuntary dissolution of the corporation
- c: inequality of bargaining power resulting in one party's lack of ability to negotiate or exercise meaningful choice"
Okay, saying that an atheist can not be a member of the BSA is not unjust or excessive exercise of power to begin with, but to further prove it isn't oppression; "a:" does not apply, because the BSA is a private organization and it's policy has nothing to do with public officials; "b:" does not apply because there is nothing in the policy that compels involuntary dissolution of the BSA; and "c:" does not apply because the policy does not impede the ability of a party to exercise a choice.
In other words, if an atheist's choice is to be part of the BSA, then the exercise of that choice should logically conclude with the individual’s agreement to bring himself into compliance with the membership requirement of showing reverence and recognizing an obligation to God. It is not like The Declaration of Religious Principle is some piece of information that no one is aware of until they are in the BSA… it is contained on every membership application form.
