Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Bob Morgan

GET UPDATES FROM Bob Morgan
 

The Scouts Are Wrong to Imply Only the Religious can Behave Well

Posted: 20/10/2012 12:29

George Pratt - an eleven year old - has been prevented from joining the Scouts because he does not believe in a god. Looking at the Scout policies it appears that a belief in any god will do but a lack of belief will not. This policy is wrong and does not reflect a modern society or the reality that people do not need religion to make them behave.

The Scout movement provides a fantastic opportunity for young people but they are wrong in what they have done here. The Scout movement claims to treat everyone equally but clearly it does not since they have discriminated against this young man.

Their implicit message appears to be that young people (or any people) cannot be trusted unless they believe in a god - and presumably - this is because they can only be trusted if they fear some sort of celestial retribution should they misbehave. More specifically they must fear that this particular young man will not be able to abide by their code of conduct because of his lack of belief.

I don't know George Pratt but I would hazard a guess that he is just like any other 11-year-old boy but perhaps is slightly more principled than most given his stance here. In reality I suspect this young man will not suffer unduly and indeed I hope he gains something from the experience of standing up for what he believes in (or doesn't in this case) - he should take pride in this. But this does not make the Scouts right in what they have done here. The Scouts it would seem are not impressed by a young man with principles.

This also suggests that those many fine young people who have sworn a religious oath have all behaved themselves and upheld their oaths because of their claimed religious believes - I suspect that this is not the case. This policy must actually encourage some young people to make the oath in spite of not holding religious beliefs.

Even if we accept that the Scout movement should be free to discriminate in this way then they should be more honest and admit that they do not believe in equality for all. They should be more open and say that they think that young people who do not believe or fear a god cannot be trusted to behave themselves around other Scouts - because these are the implications of their policies. If they don't believe that then why not let George join?

In fact - a Scouting policy document contains the following Note: With reference to religious belief, the avowed absence of religious belief is a bar to appointment to a Leadership position. This note is positioned below their claim to treat everyone (else) fairly - an interesting contradiction. Still this suggests that you can actually join as an avowed non-believer but you will not prosper - George did not even get that far.

So their position is as follows - if you do not believe in a god - you might get in but you are not going to get promoted - that we are all for equality - but just not for you.

Why not just leave the Scouts alone some will ask? I personally do not believe in any god or hold any beliefs that could be called religious but I do believe in the potential for good in people and that we are part of a vast and fascinating universe that does not need a god to make it better. We do not need to fear the punishment of a god to behave well and to do the right thing. The Scouts are a great organization full of good hard-working people but their policies discriminate against people like me - and more importantly George - for no good reason.

Is criticizing the Scouts for their position in fact discrimination against religious people? No it isn't because I am not arguing that they should lose anything except the ability to deny other people opportunities because of their beliefs.

In fact we are increasingly hearing the argument that to question the right of religious people to discriminate is in it-self discrimination - in public servants who will not counsel gay couples to religious organizations who claim marriage as their property alone to do with as they see fit and don't want gay people to get married or the religious people who don't want gay couples to stay as paying guests at their B and Bs.

The vast majority of people who believe in god, or gods, or in a life after death are decent people who do good and don't discriminate: but so are the majority of those that do not believe in these things and society (and the Scouts) should reflect that.

 
FOLLOW UK
 
 
  • Comments
  • 16
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dean J Smith
Trying to be rational
21:08 on 07/11/2012
I suspect if all the atheist scouts in the UK were rooted out, the organization would find itself decimated.
17:20 on 24/10/2012
The fact that belief in a god is required, but that it can be any god, is a nonsense. It makes a virtue out of faith itself, when mere faith has no moral basis whatsoever. One might take the view that certain religions have useful moral teachings (although that's debatable), but one cannot transpose that to "faith" in general.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:01 on 23/10/2012
I suspect that lots of Scouts don't believe. They just go along with the whole ridiculous oath-thingy so they can scamper around and have fun with their friends.

The only problem with this lad is his honesty.
17:24 on 24/10/2012
Quite right. I was in the scouts and remember parroting that I would "do my duty to god and to the queen". I never did any such thing - the first is meaningless and the second was already sufficiently well taken care of without any need for me to help her across the road. I was more interested in lighting fires and climbing trees.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dean J Smith
Trying to be rational
21:05 on 07/11/2012
To be fair to those who 'fudge' the oath, I think a case can be made that an atheist's duty to God is not to believe in it without convincing evidence.
13:06 on 22/10/2012
This article argues that the old bone of morality springing from religion is the basis for atheists exclusion from the Scouts. Its a nice rationalisation, but I don't think it is true. Whenever you get discrimination, whether on race, gender, sexuality, age, or for any other reason, you always get some trite justification for why such discrimination is perfectly acceptable. Look back through history and you will find such commentary: "Black people are savages, gays are diseased and un-natural, women are the weaker sex and need to be protected, old people are too frail" and so on.

I suspect the real truth to this is that we are different to them, they find that threatening and they simply do not like us. It is prejudice, no more no less, and trite justifications should not be allowed. The Scouts do not present themselves as a religious organisation these days, so they should lose their protection from legal challenge under equality laws, allowing this to be investigated under the law.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Bob Morgan
18:45 on 24/10/2012
You could be right of course - my explanation cannot be proven. But in as much as a blog of the Huff Post can achieve anything it was meant to add to the challenge or argument around this decision to exclude this principled young man from joining the Scouts. It could be that no conscience decision was made to exclude non-believers from the Scouts - but of course - we now set the bar at examining the unintended consequences of such policies.
18:35 on 27/10/2012
If you dont like the rules, dont join the club.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rob Ferris
16:49 on 05/11/2012
Makes sense, if the club is willing to put its rules over government support. What it can't do is choose it's own rules, contrary to those of civilised people, and expect the government to back them regardless. Can't have it both ways.
12:40 on 22/10/2012
Interesting how some theists suggest he just fudge the issue and take the oath, rather than staying true to what he honestly believes. Raises the question who has the superior moral code.
As an ex member of the Baden Youth, I don't remember any specific god of knot-tying, or recall why belief in any deity was needed to understand how to put up a tent (or who should be allowed to do so).
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Bob Morgan
12:07 on 22/10/2012
You refer to belief as if was a conscious decision to believe in something - surely a person finds they either do or do not believe something. It appears this young man does not believe in a god. If this is the case then he is merely being honest. Your reference to 'consequences' seems to suggest he deserves to be excluded because of what he finds he believes - and his honesty. As for the notion of not having havings in common with other members - is this why he was excluded do you think?
14:30 on 22/10/2012
I guess it is a decision - you decide whether you believe or not!

Once you've made a decision there are inevitably consequences (and I don't mean that in any dramatic sense, just that a different course of action is likely to be followed as a result), but perhaps I should have said 'consequent actions' to be clearer.

I don't really have any strong opinion on this, other than that members of a group (whether the Scouts, Armed Forces, a golf club or fine arts society) have the right to select who they wish to allow in as members, providing they do not break any discrimination laws. It's as much about their right to free speech and opinions as anyone else's.

I personally don't enjoy golf - nothing good or bad about that opinion - but it does mean I'm unlikely to want to join a golf club, as I'd be chin-deep in people who do like golf! They're similarly going to be unlikely to let me join, once my views are known. If you don't like one of the key requirements, why do you want to join??

If this no doubt fine young man wishes to engage in all sorts of adventurous pursuits, engaging with other young people, developing himself and his self discipline, why doesn't he join the Army cadets or similar?
21:09 on 22/10/2012
"members of a group... have the right to select who they wish to allow in as members, providing they do not break any discrimination laws."

One of those anti-discrimination laws is that you can't discriminate against people on the basis of their religion - there is an exemption for membership of associations which appears to have been added, in part, to allow the Scouts to continue this policy.

There are a few things that make me uncomfortable with the Scouts behaving like this. Since they welcome members of any religion, provided they believe in a deity of some sort, it is hard to imagine a rational reason for the policy - it can't be because they want members to take part in religious events, or to have certain moral beliefs, because those aren't consistent between different religions. I was in the Cub Scouts, and don't remember any mention of religion beyond the "Cub Scouts Promise". They don't usually present themselves as a religious organisation (presumably to avoid putting off people who aren't devoutly religious, which seems a little hypocritical), and because they are so ubiquitous (in many places they are closely associated with schools, community centres, etc.) there is a lot of pressure on kids to get involved.

This isn't like the situation in the US, where the Scouts ban LGBT and non-religious people because they receive so much funding and advertising from the Mormon and Catholic churches. It just seems to be bloodymindedness.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dean J Smith
Trying to be rational
21:02 on 07/11/2012
Would you demonstrate please? Perhaps you could believe the Moon is made of green cheese for a month. You could have someone remind you switch back to rational belief after the month as passed, so you don't completely abandon your original position.

I've never had that facility: I've ever always only believed what I am convinced of, rather than picking what I will and won't believe with consequences in mind.
10:05 on 22/10/2012
It occurs to me that the Scout movement are just as entitled to write their own entry qualifications as any other private members' organisation providing, of course, that they do not contravene any civil or criminal laws.

Having a religious faith, belief in God or any other 'Supreme Being,' is a private matter for the individual concerned and represents a freedom of choice. How the person makes that decision is up to them, just as the consequences of that decision - inclusion or exclusion from certain groups in our society - are also their responsibility.

If you don't share the values of the existing members, you probably wouldn't enjoy being a member yourself. Go find something else to do - there's plenty of alternatives!