The truth about the BSA's Buddhist Scouts
Graham Holland
been following on rec.scouting.issues. The first area covers the
BSA's Code of Conduct (its Oath and Law), whether or not it
discriminates against atheists, and exactly what nature and level of
support the BSA should receive from public bodies (schools,
towns/cities, government departments, government) because of its
membership policy. Stan's disagreement with BSA policy statements and
legal submissions only adds to the amusement, but in the end won't
change a thing. His lack of awareness and understanding is truly
staggering though! He is the only person I know who would even
*consider* arguing that "duty to GOD" in the Scout Oath isn't
religious! However, Stan's views are often outrageous but, in the end,
harmless. He's not in any real position of power within the BSA, and
given the size of the organisation his warped opinions actually affect
a very small number of boys indeed.
The second area of debate is the BSA's openness to different
religions. Stan claims that the BSA is fully open to all religions and
that there are no issues with regards to the use of the word "God"
in the Oath. Stan has no first-hand evidence since there are no
followers of non-theist religions in his Unit. He did mention something
about boys from "Asian descent" IIRC but when asked he failed to
say what their religions are. His 'evidence' (for want of a better
word) to support his view is that there are Buddhist Scouts in the BSA.
In his bigoted view, the fact that some Buddhists are able to cope with
a theistic oath means that ALL Buddhists should be able to do the same.
He is so convinced by his own ignorant argument that he even refuses to
admit the existence of Buddhists who *do* have a problem with "God"
in oaths, promises and pledges - this despite being presented with
irrefutable evidence showing that such people actually exist! The Word
According To Stan is that I'm creating a problem that doesn't
exist. He is wrong.
As far as I can see, there are two strands to this particular debate
about Buddhism and non-theist religions. The first one is regarding
Buddhist who are excluded from BSA membership by the use of the word
"God" in the Oath. These are the people Stan refuses to admit the
existence of. The second strand, which hasn't really been covered in
any great detail, is the mystery of the current Buddhist Scouts. Given
that the word "God" relates to a theist principle I was puzzled as
to how followers of non-theist religions manage to take the Oath. In
the UK this isn't a problem because religion-specific alternatives
are allowed, such as "duty to my Dharma" for Buddhists. As I've
previously stated, my partner is from Taiwan and is a Buddhist, and
we've had a number of conversations over the years as to the nature
of religion and belief. In some Buddhist sects there are 'gods' and
spirits of ancestors which are prayed to. I had thought that maybe
Buddhist Scouts in the BSA cope with the Oath by using these
gods/spirits to interpret 'God' in a different way. However, after
looking into the subject a little deeper it would appear that the
gods/ancestors/spirits do not share the same divine nature as the
creator gods recognised by Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and do not
alter the fundamental Buddhist belief in the non-existence of God.
So in the spirit of research I emailed the National Buddhist Committee
on Scouting which oversees the official Buddhist involvement with the
BSA. I got a reply from the Chair of the committee. I have his
permission to post his replies on this forum.
====================================
From: Graham Holland
To: National Buddhist Committee on Scouting
Subject: Question about the Scout Oath
I was wondering if you could help me with a bit of research. I'm a
Scouter from the UK and have been recently drawn into a debate on the
Internet about Buddhists in Scouting. Here in the UK the Scout
Association allows alternative wording for the Scout Promise (such as
"duty to my Dharma") so that it's accessible to all religions. However,
I've been informed that the BSA doesn't make any similar accommodation
by offering alternative phrasing for their Scout Oath, and that all
members must promise "duty to God".
I know that Buddhism has many different branches around the world and
that some of these branches recognise a variety of gods. My partner is
from Taiwan and I've seen the many wonderful statues in the temples
during my time living there! However, I used to have a friend who, as a
Buddhist, didn't believe in *any* God, gods or deities. How do such
strictly non-theist Buddhists cope with the BSA's "duty to God" phrase?
Are some Buddhists unable to join because of the use of the word "God",
and have there been any formal or informal representations to the BSA
or the National Buddhist Committee on Scouting about this?
I would be grateful for any questions answered and for any help given.
====================================
From: Victor Iwamura
To: Graham Holland
You bring up an interesting topic. The BSA in the USA is predominantly
a Christian organization and have strong support by them. As Buddhists
in the BSA, we have told our Scouts that they may substitute or be
silent when it comes to saying "under God". We are trying to influence
the powers that be here but it is a difficult struggle. I am going to
the BSA meeting in October and will mention to them what you do.
Victor Iwamura, Chair
National Buddhist Committee on Scouting
====================================
From: Graham Holland
To: Victor Iwamura
Thank you for your courteous reply. Is it OK if I share your response
with my fellow debaters on the Internet forum?
You mentioned about staying silent or substituting when it comes to
saying "under God". Is this what your Scouts do when the Pledge of
Allegiance is made during Scouting events? And does this also apply to
the "duty to God" part of the Scout Oath?
====================================
From: Victor Iwamura
To: Graham Holland
I tell them when it's not comfortable with them.
BTW: My only minor victory was when the PRAY organization which
handles the religious awards was developing a religious patch for BSA,
they were calling it "Duty to God". I objected and got consensus from
the BSA Religious Committee and we agreed to "A Scout is Reverend" or A
Scout is Faithful". The chair went and discussed it with others and
they decided to keep the Title and work it outside the BSA sponsorship
and promote it under PRAY. Basically the circumvented the decision by
the committee and did it their way anyhow.
====================================
So there you have it, and it raises a number of interesting points and
questions. I hope you're reading this, Stan...
Point 1
There *is* a formal Buddhist approach to the BSA with regards the
problems they have with the use of "God" in the Scout Oath.
Point 2
The National Buddhist Committee on Scouting objected to a religious
patch called "Duty to God".
Point 3
Buddhist members of the BSA are advised to stay silent or substitute
rather than promise "duty to God", a phrase which is incompatible
with their religion.
Question 1
Will Stan now recognise that there the BSA is NOT fully open to ALL
religions, and that the theistic language (in particular, the use of
the word "God") is a barrier which discourages or prevents some
followers from non-theist religions from joining?
Question 2
Will Stan now acknowledge the existence of Buddhists both inside and
outside the BSA who cannot accept the "duty to God" section of the
Oath because it is incompatible with their religious beliefs?
Question 3
Will Stan also acknowledge that the presence of Buddhists in the BSA
does NOT mean that there is no problem or issue?
People might be wondering why I've gone to such lengths to research
and post my findings. The reason is that I have a personal interest in
this because my partner is a Buddhist. I really didn't like his
personal, religious beliefs being dismissed and ignored on this forum.
I didn't like the idea that someone would refuse to admit that he,
and others who shared his religious beliefs, exist. I *know* the use of
the word "God" is a problem for some Buddhists, and for someone
else to refuse to accept this is annoying. For that person to then turn
round and claim he's protecting religious freedom is outrageous. The
fact that the main culprit is a fellow Scouter is even more sickening.
As far as my correspondence with National Buddhist Committee on
Scouting is concerned I was expecting a reply to say that the BSA's
Buddhists "interpret" "duty to God" in some different way. The
fact that this is not the case makes my original statements even
stronger and shows that it's an even bigger problem for the BSA than
I had originally thought.
And yes, Stan, my partner is a 'he'. Though given your track
record, you'll probably say that the whole post is irrelevant because
of it. I must admit it's been fun watching you squirm, trying to find
out but not having the bottle to ask the direct question! The point is
that even if I was a 'she' my partner would still be unable to join
the BSA under Stan's regime, even though Stan claims the BSA is open
to all. It is not, and won't be until it provides alternative wording
to the Oath which is acceptable to ALL religions, not just those which
accept the concept of a creator God.
As a final point, if anyone is interested in how this matter is handled
in the UK you might wish to view the following. Below is a link to the
Scout Association's Policy, Organisation and Rules (POR) where the
alternative wordings are explained.
http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/por/2006/1_5.htm#rule_1.1
Below is a link to the Adobe Acrobat pdf factsheet on the matter.
Buddhism isn't mentioned specifically here, although it is
supplementary to the POR document.
http://scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/facts/pdfs/fs322016.pdf
Graham
Emma Pease
> Graham Holland wrote:
[snip evidence for the sake of space]
>
> So there you have it, and it raises a number of interesting points and
> questions. I hope you're reading this, Stan...
>
> Point 1
> There *is* a formal Buddhist approach to the BSA with regards the
> problems they have with the use of "God" in the Scout Oath.
>
> Point 2
> The National Buddhist Committee on Scouting objected to a religious
> patch called "Duty to God".
> Point 3
> Buddhist members of the BSA are advised to stay silent or substitute
> rather than promise "duty to God", a phrase which is incompatible
> with their religion.
>
> Question 1
> Will Stan now recognise that there the BSA is NOT fully open to ALL
> religions, and that the theistic language (in particular, the use of
> the word "God") is a barrier which discourages or prevents some
> followers from non-theist religions from joining?
>
> Question 2
> Will Stan now acknowledge the existence of Buddhists both inside and
> outside the BSA who cannot accept the "duty to God" section of the
> Oath because it is incompatible with their religious beliefs?
>
> Question 3
> Will Stan also acknowledge that the presence of Buddhists in the BSA
> does NOT mean that there is no problem or issue?
Graham, many thanks for looking into this. It adds new grist to the
mill.
Emma
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Stan
> There have been two main areas of debate in the threads that I've
> been following on rec.scouting.issues. The first area covers the
> BSA's Code of Conduct (its Oath and Law), whether or not it
> discriminates against atheists, and exactly what nature and level of
> support the BSA should receive from public bodies (schools,
> towns/cities, government departments, government) because of its
> membership policy. Stan's disagreement with BSA policy statements and
> legal submissions only adds to the amusement, but in the end won't
> change a thing. His lack of awareness and understanding is truly
> staggering though! He is the only person I know who would even
> *consider* arguing that "duty to GOD" in the Scout Oath isn't
> religious! However, Stan's views are often outrageous but, in the end,
> harmless. He's not in any real position of power within the BSA, and
> given the size of the organisation his warped opinions actually affect
> a very small number of boys indeed.
That's right Graham. I'm a leader in one BSA unit. Within that unit,
my protection of religious freedom is beyond reproach, and I'm getting
sick and tired of your baseless assertions to the contrary.
My answer could be that since you're not qualified to be a BSA leader,
you have no standing on this matter, or any other BSA matter.
> I must admit it's been fun watching you squirm, trying to find
> out but not having the bottle to ask the direct question! The point is
> that even if I was a 'she' my partner would still be unable to join
> the BSA under Stan's regime, even though Stan claims the BSA is open
> to all. It is not, and won't be until it provides alternative wording
> to the Oath which is acceptable to ALL religions, not just those which
> accept the concept of a creator God.
>
> As a final point, if anyone is interested in how this matter is handled
> in the UK you might wish to view the following. Below is a link to the
> Scout Association's Policy, Organisation and Rules (POR) where the
> alternative wordings are explained.
> http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/por/2006/1_5.htm#rule_1.1
> Below is a link to the Adobe Acrobat pdf factsheet on the matter.
> Buddhism isn't mentioned specifically here, although it is
> supplementary to the POR document.
> http://scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/facts/pdfs/fs322016.pdf
By bringing up the question of non-theist Buddhists, Graham, you opened
a totally different thread from what Bigot Brian Westley has been
polluting this newsgroup with for almost 20 years. What I see is that
Buddhists are eligible for BSA membership. If there's an issue with
the text of the Oath, that's a totally different matter entirely.
I still contend that one way or another, ALL American boys are eligible
for BSA membership. If they have a religious affiliation, they're
eligible. If they have no religious affiliation, an affirmation
consistent with the fact that we're One Nation under God who In God We
Trust is sufficient.
As far as what I would do under the circumstances, you don't know and
you have no basis on which to speculate, because I have not shared all
my opinions and all my actions on implementation of BSA policy with
the world. I have told you that my record on the protection of
religious freedom is beyond reproach, and you're just going to have to
accept it.
Graham Holland
> Graham Holland wrote:
> > There have been two main areas of debate in the threads that I've
> > been following on rec.scouting.issues. The first area covers the
> > BSA's Code of Conduct (its Oath and Law), whether or not it
> > discriminates against atheists, and exactly what nature and level of
> > support the BSA should receive from public bodies (schools,
> > towns/cities, government departments, government) because of its
> > membership policy. Stan's disagreement with BSA policy statements and
> > legal submissions only adds to the amusement, but in the end won't
> > change a thing. His lack of awareness and understanding is truly
> > staggering though! He is the only person I know who would even
> > *consider* arguing that "duty to GOD" in the Scout Oath isn't
> > religious! However, Stan's views are often outrageous but, in the end,
> > harmless. He's not in any real position of power within the BSA, and
> > given the size of the organisation his warped opinions actually affect
> > a very small number of boys indeed.
>
> That's right Graham. I'm a leader in one BSA unit. Within that unit,
> my protection of religious freedom is beyond reproach, and I'm getting
> sick and tired of your baseless assertions to the contrary.
I have posted evidence to prove my point that you are a bigot, Stan.
You refuse to recognise the existence of certain people because their
religious beliefs differ from yours. I could understand someone not
wanting to acknowledge an opposing view, but not wanting to acknowledge
that the people who hold those opposing views actually exist and are
real people is taking bigotry to a new level.
What's up, Stan. Haven't you got any answers to these questions? I
mean, they are directly relevant to the BSA and the Oath, so what's
your objection? They are also based on the personal opinion of the
Chair of the National Buddhist Council on Scouting.
Oh, I get it. You're refusing to accept that this person exists! Of
course! Silly me...
> >
> > People might be wondering why I've gone to such lengths to research
> > and post my findings. The reason is that I have a personal interest in
> > this because my partner is a Buddhist. I really didn't like his
> > personal, religious beliefs being dismissed and ignored on this forum.
> > I didn't like the idea that someone would refuse to admit that he,
> > and others who shared his religious beliefs, exist. I *know* the use of
> > the word "God" is a problem for some Buddhists, and for someone
> > else to refuse to accept this is annoying. For that person to then turn
> > round and claim he's protecting religious freedom is outrageous. The
> > fact that the main culprit is a fellow Scouter is even more sickening.
> >
> > As far as my correspondence with National Buddhist Committee on
> > Scouting is concerned I was expecting a reply to say that the BSA's
> > Buddhists "interpret" "duty to God" in some different way. The
> > fact that this is not the case makes my original statements even
> > stronger and shows that it's an even bigger problem for the BSA than
> > I had originally thought.
> >
> > And yes, Stan, my partner is a 'he'. Though given your track
> > record, you'll probably say that the whole post is irrelevant because
> > of it.
>
> My answer could be that since you're not qualified to be a BSA leader,
> you have no standing on this matter, or any other BSA matter.
Your answer "could be" is no answer. If you want to make a statement
either for or against my sexuality or that of my partner then feel
free. However, this wishy-washy in-betweeny rubbish impresses no-one
and states nothing.
As for your assertion that I have "no standing" (you've yet to explain
what that phrase means) on this matter or any other BSA matter, this is
a USENET forum open to anyone in the world who wishes to post here. If
you don't like that FACT then you know where the door is. By the way, I
don't want to worry you but I have been a fully paid up member of the
BSA and am still *actively* involved. If "standing" or "rights" were
ever needed in order to comment on the issues then I think I've just
about earned them.
But it's not about who is a leader and who isn't. You make statements
based on nothing more than hot air and conjecture. My statements are
based things such as BSA policy statements and first hand accounts.
Since you have no contact with Buddhists either in your personal life
or within Scouting I rather think that YOU might just be the one who
has "no standing on this matter"...
> > I must admit it's been fun watching you squirm, trying to find
> > out but not having the bottle to ask the direct question! The point is
> > that even if I was a 'she' my partner would still be unable to join
> > the BSA under Stan's regime, even though Stan claims the BSA is open
> > to all. It is not, and won't be until it provides alternative wording
> > to the Oath which is acceptable to ALL religions, not just those which
> > accept the concept of a creator God.
> >
> > As a final point, if anyone is interested in how this matter is handled
> > in the UK you might wish to view the following. Below is a link to the
> > Scout Association's Policy, Organisation and Rules (POR) where the
> > alternative wordings are explained.
> > http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/por/2006/1_5.htm#rule_1.1
> > Below is a link to the Adobe Acrobat pdf factsheet on the matter.
> > Buddhism isn't mentioned specifically here, although it is
> > supplementary to the POR document.
> > http://scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/facts/pdfs/fs322016.pdf
>
> By bringing up the question of non-theist Buddhists, Graham, you opened
> a totally different thread from what Bigot Brian Westley has been
> polluting this newsgroup with for almost 20 years.
Stan. Can I ask you a personal question? Are you having a secret affair
with Brian? It's just that every time (it seems) I post something about
the issue I'm following (Buddhism) you feel obliged to bring Brian into
the conversation, even though I'd never mentioned him at all.
> What I see is that
> Buddhists are eligible for BSA membership. If there's an issue with
> the text of the Oath, that's a totally different matter entirely.
"If" there's an issue? More weasely words? Stan.
Is there an issue with the text of the Oath as far as Buddhists are
concerned?
And what you FAIL to see is that although there are *some* Buddhists
who join the BSA, there are many more who would *not* join because of
"duty to God".
What you also FAILED to comment on is the way in which the BSA's
Buddhist Scouts "get around" their very real problem with "duty to
God".
> I still contend that one way or another, ALL American boys are eligible
> for BSA membership.
> If they have a religious affiliation, they're eligible.
> If they have no religious affiliation, an affirmation
> consistent with the fact that we're One Nation under God who In God We
> Trust is sufficient.
It is tempting to answer these point by point but that would only take
us back to where we were on the other threads. You had previously said
that "duty to God" is not an issue for Buddhists because there are
Buddhist members of BSA. You also said that it's not an issue because
the Buddhists had not brought it up as a concern with BSA. However,
given what the Chair of the committee has said, it would appear that
you are wrong and that there IS an issue. Do you deny this?
The other issue this post brings up is that of atheists. Currently
there are Buddhist who are members of the BSA ONLY because they DON'T
say the "duty to God" part of the Oath. If this is being allowed by the
BSA (and I find it difficult to believe that HQ isn't already aware of
what goes on) then it makes a mockery of the BSA's exclusion of
atheists. After all, if a Buddhist can join by not saying "God" then
why not an atheist? There's no difference in his actions or his Oath,
so what's the problem?
> As far as what I would do under the circumstances, you don't know and
> you have no basis on which to speculate, because I have not shared all
> my opinions and all my actions on implementation of BSA policy with
> the world. I have told you that my record on the protection of
> religious freedom is beyond reproach, and you're just going to have to
> accept it.
Here's you opportunity to banish our unfounded speculation forever,
Stan. You can do this by answering the questions below.
Question 4
If one of Victor's Buddhist Scouts joined your Unit, would he be
allowed to stay silent (or make a substitution) during "duty to God"
and "under God"? A simple yes or no will suffice.
To close, here are the questions you skipped over in your reply. I've
rephrased Question 1 for you, Stan, taking into account your response
so far.
Question 1
Given Stan's assertion that the BSA is open to ALL religions, does he
concede that the theistic language (in particular, the use of the word
"God") is a barrier which discourages or prevents some followers
from non-theist religions from joining?
Question 2
Will Stan now acknowledge the existence of Buddhists both inside and
outside who cannot accept the "duty to God" section of the Oath
because it is incompatible with their religious beliefs?
Question 3
Will Stan also acknowledge that the presence of Buddhists in the BSA
does NOT mean that there is no problem or issue?
Graham
Chimp
Thank you Graham, that is most useful. Stan's position would
now be holed below the waterline, were it not already sunk
long ago and lying lifeless and rusting at the bottom of the ocean.
Chimp
Chimp
> Graham Holland wrote:
>
>>
>> From: Victor Iwamura
>> To: Graham Holland
>>
>> You bring up an interesting topic. The BSA in the USA is predominantly
>> a Christian organization and have strong support by them. As Buddhists
>> in the BSA, we have told our Scouts that they may substitute or be
>> silent when it comes to saying "under God". We are trying to influence
>> the powers that be here but it is a difficult struggle. I am going to
>> the BSA meeting in October and will mention to them what you do.
>>
>> Victor Iwamura, Chair
>> National Buddhist Committee on Scouting
>>
>
> By bringing up the question of non-theist Buddhists, Graham, you opened
> a totally different thread from what Bigot Brian Westley has been
> polluting this newsgroup with for almost 20 years.
Well no, actually it is exactly the same issue, and Brian and
others have brought up the Buddhist issue often enough.
> What I see is that Buddhists are eligible for BSA membership.
> If there's an issue with the text of the Oath, that's a totally
> different matter entirely.
Stan's ability to simply ignore things is utterly breathtaking.
Exactly who does he think he is fooling? Has he _read_
those emails from Victor Iwamura, Chair of the National
Buddhist Committee on Scouting??
When I posted my analogy of the blind person who
couldn't see the front end of a bus, I thought I was
being facetious. But did I get it spot on?
Stan is still going to go around claiming that "God"
is "inclusive of all religions" even though the Chair
of the National Buddhist Committee on Scouting
thinks that it doesn't include Buddhism. Utterly
mind boggling!
Chimp
Graham Holland
>
> Stan's ability to simply ignore things is utterly breathtaking.
> Exactly who does he think he is fooling? Has he _read_
> those emails from Victor Iwamura, Chair of the National
> Buddhist Committee on Scouting??
I'm sure he's read the emails, and being unable to make a sensible
response chose not to respond to them at all. Probably for the best...
He'd only make himself look even more of a bigot than he already does.
>
> When I posted my analogy of the blind person who
> couldn't see the front end of a bus, I thought I was
> being facetious. But did I get it spot on?
You know, I think you have got it spot on, my dear Chimp. It's a
classic case of selective reasoning where the subject refuses to admit
what his brain tells him he doesn't want to see.
> Stan is still going to go around claiming that "God"
> is "inclusive of all religions" even though the Chair
> of the National Buddhist Committee on Scouting
> thinks that it doesn't include Buddhism. Utterly
> mind boggling!
Maybe Victor just needs some guidance from Stan in order to see the
error of his ways. Victor should realise that he's living in a country
that is one nation (that's a laugh) under God in whom in God (and bad
grammar) we trust. So there's nothing wrong with expecting his Buddhist
Scouts to recognise that and to swear a solemn oath of duty to God.
It's all part of religious freedom, isn't it?
So whose problem is it when these Buddhist Scouts DON'T promise duty to
GOD? The BSA's problem, or the Buddhists' problem? I say the former.
Stan is already on record as saying the latter, although it's not too
late for him to change his mind...
Graham
Chimp
> Chimp said:
>
>> Stan's ability to simply ignore things is utterly breathtaking.
>> those emails from Victor Iwamura, Chair of the National
>> Buddhist Committee on Scouting??
>>
>> When I posted my analogy of the blind person who
>> couldn't see the front end of a bus, I thought I was
>> being facetious. But did I get it spot on?
>
> of the human brain, developed to varying degrees (presumably
> through practice), and is the foundation of "faith".
>
> The devout deist Knows that god exists and that atheists are
> simply unaware of this Truth and being obstinate about it.
> In their minds, asking an atheist to "do your best to do your
> duty to God" is comparable to encouraging a friend to keep trying
> to see the 3-D image in the stereogram. How could that possibly
> be considered offensive?
You talk a lot of sense (which, as an aside, raises the question
of why you prevent it being archived?).
Chimp
Lee
That was a checkbox I selected a long time ago, possibly with
some reason in mind, and have never revisited until now.
--
Chicago Paddling-Fishing
<snip>
: the BSA Religious Committee and we agreed to "A Scout is Reverend" or A
<snip>
Did you sent back a reply to this note asking if he meant to say "Reverent"?
Nothing worse than ordering stuff to be printed and finding out later it's
misspelled...
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/local_story_230061241.html
" CTA Misprints Station Name In 3,000 Signs
...
The person responsible for the proofreading error was a CTA employee. That
is, until they were fired yesterday after the errors were discovered."
--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)
Graham Holland
I notice you haven't replied to this post. Are you STILL refusing to
recognise that there exist Buddhists who *do* (not _may_) have a
problem with the word "God" in the BSA Scout Oath?
Are you still refusing to recognise that some of these Buddhists who
have this problem are current members of the BSA?
>
> > What I see is that
> > Buddhists are eligible for BSA membership. If there's an issue with
> > the text of the Oath, that's a totally different matter entirely.
>
> "If" there's an issue? More weasely words? Stan.
Are you still refusing to say that there *is* an issue???
> What you also FAILED to comment on is the way in which the BSA's
> Buddhist Scouts "get around" their very real problem with "duty to
> God".
I notice you've got nothing to say about this either. You obviously
don't mind that there are some members of the BSA who don't make the
full Oath or PoA!
Graham
Stan
Conclude whatever you want, Graham.
I had never opened any discussion about BSA and non-theist religions.
Once I saw that Buddhists are eligible for BSA membership, there was no
longer any issue to discuss. If you want to discuss non-theists
religions, fine, but I'm under no obligation to participate in a
discussion you want to have.
The issue I'm concerned with is when some piece of crap openly attempts
to block 6-17 year old American boys from having access to the BSA
program because, God forbid, American boys are expected to acknowledge
that they're part of the One Nation under God who In God We Trust.
Brian Westley
...
>The issue I'm concerned with is when some piece of crap openly attempts
>to block 6-17 year old American boys from having access to the BSA
>program because, God forbid, American boys are expected to acknowledge
>that they're part of the One Nation under God who In God We Trust.
The issue I'm concerned with is when people like you want government
agencies like public schools to violate the civil rights of atheists
by owning & operating a "no atheists allowed" private club.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Stan
Expecting American boys to adhere to a Code of Conduct consistent with
our being One Nation under God who In God We Trust does not constitute
any sort of "no atheists allowed" club. It constitutes an organization
that merely reminds of American boys of their culture, values, and heritage.
Lee
Stan, you've admitted more than once, as has BSA, that the requirements
block atheists from membership. You can dance around the words all
you like, but nobody else here is as stupid as you, so you're not
fooling any of us.
--
Brian Westley
>Brian Westley wrote:
>> Stan <stan...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> ...
>>
>>>The issue I'm concerned with is when some piece of crap openly attempts
>>>to block 6-17 year old American boys from having access to the BSA
>>>program because, God forbid, American boys are expected to acknowledge
>>>that they're part of the One Nation under God who In God We Trust.
>>
>>
>> The issue I'm concerned with is when people like you want government
>> agencies like public schools to violate the civil rights of atheists
>> by owning & operating a "no atheists allowed" private club.
>Expecting American boys to adhere to a Code of Conduct consistent with
>our being One Nation under God who In God We Trust does not constitute
>any sort of "no atheists allowed" club.
Stan, nobody believes this pathetic lie.
The BSA says atheists can't be members. It's a "no atheists allowed" club.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Stan
And if a boy engages in other conduct that conflicts with the BSA Code
of Conduct, he can be separated as well.
The bottom line remains that the BSA Code of Conduct is not designed to
exclude anybody, but rather to encourage compliance. And wrt the Duty
to God, there is nothing that BSA expects that's not already an
established and integral part of American culture, values, and
heritage.
Bottom line- the BSA Code of Conduct is not exclusionary or
discriminatory.
Lee
>The bottom line remains that the BSA Code of Conduct is not designed to
>exclude anybody, but rather to encourage compliance.
And what happens to those who cannot comply without violating
their personal values? They're excluded, aren't they?
>And wrt the Duty
>to God, there is nothing that BSA expects that's not already an
>established and integral part of American culture, values, and
>heritage.
>
>Bottom line- the BSA Code of Conduct is not exclusionary or
>discriminatory.
Ok Stan, here's another opportunity for you to explain how the
fact that what BSA expects is an established and integral part
of American culture, values and heritage means that it isn't
religious discrimination as a membership requirement.
--
Stan
There is nothing more to "explain".
Lee
>
>
>Lee wrote:
>> Ok Stan, here's another opportunity for you to explain how the
>> fact that what BSA expects is an established and integral part
>> of American culture, values and heritage means that it isn't
>> religious discrimination as a membership requirement.
>
>There is nothing more to "explain".
How about explaining:
how the
fact that what BSA expects is an established and integral part
of American culture, values and heritage means that it isn't
religious discrimination as a membership requirement.
--
Graham Holland
I will, as, I'm sure, will you.
>
> I had never opened any discussion about BSA and non-theist religions.
So? Nobody is claiming that you ever opened any discussion about BSA
and non-theist religions.
Having said that, however, Buddhists have problems with the BSA Oath
for exactly the same reason that atheists have problems with it. It's
just that atheists are explicitly excluded whereas Buddhists aren't.
> Once I saw that Buddhists are eligible for BSA membership, there was no
> longer any issue to discuss.
And once you saw that the Buddhists who have joined the BSA *do* have
problems with the Oath (they stay silent or substitute during DtG) you
STILL think that there's no issue to discuss.
> If you want to discuss non-theists
> religions, fine, but I'm under no obligation to participate in a
> discussion you want to have.
Indeed. And we are under no obligation to believe your lies when you
refuse to provide citable evidence or use logical argument.
> The issue I'm concerned with is when some piece of crap openly attempts
> to block 6-17 year old American boys from having access to the BSA
> program because, God forbid, American boys are expected to acknowledge
> that they're part of the One Nation under God who In God We Trust.
Actually, it's not really about blocking the BSA, because the BSA is
doing nothing wrong. It's more about blocking public bodies from
supporting an organisation which has a religious oath as part of its
membership criteria.
Graham
buzzm...@gmail.com
My son, daughter and myself have been active to some degree or another in BSA since 2001. My daughter is now an officer in the US Army and my son is soon to be a police officer for a large metro department and both were active Buddhist scouts. My daughter earned Ranger as a Venturing coed scout and my son is an Eagle with three silver palms and I have The District Award of Merit and an OA Vigil Honor Arrowman. We are all members of SGI-USA and devout Buddhists in our community. Our family has been able to understand the need for spirituality in all members of BSA and simply remain silent when the word God is expected and we replace it with Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo. Quick fix scoutmaster, put your shirt back on! If a person like myself as a Buddhist can not tolerate the practices of the dominant religion, why should we as Buddhists expect the dominant religion to tolerate us. I have had nothing but acceptance and genuine curiosity from fellow scouts and scouters about my practice. My children and myself have seen the scouting experience to be a workable means to world peace as it was intended by Baden-Powell over a hundred years ago and owe much to the program. If you or anyone else finds the program offensive or non-conducive to your lifestyle, find another program. Doesn't that make sense? If I don't care for Chinese food, I do not go to Happy Egg-roll Restaurant. The choice is ours to make, no one forces anyone to join scouting. Period.
J. Hugh Sullivan
>SA since 2001. My daughter is now an officer in the US Army and my son is s=
>oon to be a police officer for a large metro department and both were activ=
>e Buddhist scouts. My daughter earned Ranger as a Venturing coed scout and =
>my son is an Eagle with three silver palms and I have The District Award of=
registered 58 years. Your son's 9 palms is almost as many as my 5 plus
those of 2 Eagle sons and 2 Eagle grandsons. As for your personal
awards you are 1 Silver Beaver behind me. I am a retired Navy 0-5, a
rank with which your daughter might be familiar.
My sole purpose in responding is to congratulate you on your mild
response below. I tell them to STICK IT.
>If you or anyone else finds the program offensive or non-conducive to your lifestyle, find another pr=
>ogram.
That has been underway since a recent vote of the BSA Board. I would
join them but I must remain registered to retain my active Vigil
status.
Hugh
st0u...@gmail.com
That is really the only thing that matters.
What the main issue seems to be is semantics.
Does one achieve enlifghtment when the flower blooms or just the lotus?