Talk:Religion in Scouting

Scouting Start‑class Top‑importance

	Scouting portal Religion in Scouting is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ScoutingWikipedia:WikiProject ScoutingTemplate:WikiProject ScoutingScouting articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

An entry from Religion in Scouting appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on December 4, 2006.

Wikipedia

Promise

The sentence on the Promise seems unclear to me. When is it adapted and how? In my association the only used adaption is the cutting off of the religious formula...
Should we mention the Alternative Promises and the Outlander Promise? Both show a different approach on religion in the younger days of the movement. --jergen 14:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On point 1 - The Scout Association proscribes a number of adaptations for the various faiths. Horus Kol 14:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you mean prescribes. Proscribes means forbids. --Erp 22:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hehe - yeah... funny thing, the English language... Horus Kol 09:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What should this article cover?

I see at least two aspects.

Duty to God which exists in most Scouting/Guiding organizations but the interpretations varies
Sponsorship and restrictions on scouting/guiding units by religious organizations whether at the troop or national level and possible restrictions by such on member's religious views. These may include organizations affiliated with either WAGGGS or WOSM or some other international org or they may be independent.

Thoughts?--Erp 22:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the BSA, despite what you may have heard, all that is required is a belief in a higher power. Rlevse 22:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WAGGGS and WOSM have slightly different interpretations and have had discussions on how to reconcile them. In addition I was thinking of independent organizations and even, perhaps, spin offs. Also as far as the BSA, leaders do have an additional requirement beyond the promise and law; the Declaration of Religious Principle which in its full form states

“The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise the member declares, ‘On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law.’ The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members. No matter what the religious faith of the members may be, this fundamental need of good citizenship should be kept before them. The Boy Scouts of America, 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 the organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life.”

which does seem to go beyond just belief in a higher power. Notably it requires the recognition of the higher power as the ruling and leading power in the universe and a requirement to be grateful for 'His' favors and blessings. Note the use of capitalized 'His' which pretty much an indication of Abrahamic faiths and not faiths like Buddhism, Wicca, etc. --Erp 18:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but one can be Buddhist (and a multitude of other religions) and be in the BSA, though I believe the official BSA policy does not accept Wicca. On a more practical and day-to-day note, the only times that I personally have actual witnessed Scouts and Scouters knock heads with BSA over this when they toot their horn about being an atheist. It is certainly not required that one be a devout church-going Christian. Rlevse 19:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

maybe also the issue with the Boy Scout Jamboree and the ACLU.... Blueaster 07:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might also be worth considering what happens when Scouting policy and religious faith are at odds. For example, the problems that the BSA had with the UUA over homosexuality (UUA tolerates it, BSA does not — and yes, I know that's an oversimplification) or the formation of the American Heritage Girls over the perceived de-Christianising of GSUCA's religious and sexual orientation policies. Also, policies of non-WAGGGS and non-WOSM groups, such as Camp Fire USA, whose Law includes "Worship God" and whose membership "is open to all youth of any [...] creed, religion, [etc.]"— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.106.4 (talk • contribs)

Organisations other than BSA...

I appreciate that some people consider the sentence:

"It must be said that most other Scouting organisations do not suffer the same controversies."

to be POV - but how can a citation be provided to show lack of something? How do you reference articles that weren't written about a problem that did not exist? Horus Kol 11:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By referencing an article that HAS been written and that says the problem does not exist in other Scouting organizations. If you can't do that, then drawing this conclusion (i.e., "Most other[s ... ] do not suffer...") without providing an external citation is original research. The "For example, in the UK" section newly added does not support the "Most others do not suffer" conclusion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.106.4 (talk • contribs)

I wish those anonymous editors would stop removing that line! Horus Kol 16:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then provide something that fits the guidelines and is verifiable. For example, change the name of the "Controversies" section to "BSA Controversy" (which could be a subsection of a larger "Controversies" section, should other non-BSA examples be brought forward). Remove the current first paragraph (which is redundant anyway; see the "Many Scout/Guide groups are supported by local religious bodies" in the previous section) and the "Most other organizations" paragraph (the UK example can become part of the previous section), and you're all set.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.106.4 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure I really want to get into this discussion with some fly-by anonymous poster... the fact is, most other organisations have no controversy - either because the organisation is aligned with national beliefs (like in France) or are much more flexible, reflecting the society around them (like the UK). Its hard to provide evidence for lack of a problem, simply because a non-issue doesn't get written about... Horus Kol 16:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that your conclusion was wrong, merely that it was not verified.

I just want to take exception with calling it original research. The mere fact that a citation is not provided does not make something original research. It is still entirely possible that the fact can be provided with a citation. Right now, it's merely uncited. You can mark it with a {{fact}} tag to indicate that. Wjhonson 17:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and the tag was removed. If a citation can be provided to an article or study (other than WP) that supports this claim, great. Otherwise, drawing such a conclusion is tricky, to say the least. For the same reason, I've added the {{fact}} tag to Horus Kol's info about the UK procedures and policies; it would be nice to have a citation for official policy and/or guidelines.

BTW, I did not consider the statement to be OR simply because a citation was not provided, but because it was an analysis that "appears to advance a conclusion." I don't consider Horus Kol's addition of UK policies to be OR (although they do need to be verified), but the conclusion that other organizations do not have the same issues as the BSA definitely is. Cite a reliable published source that draws this conclusion, and we can leave the statement in.

I have removed the "conclusion" that most other countries do not suffer from the controversies... I have also added cites for the UK situation... it is now there as a counter-example to the BSA policy and situation - I hope that this satisfies Mr Anon. As for when the {{fact}} tag was removed - sorry, that might have been lost in a revert. Horus Kol 09:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely better, but see below. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.202.106.49 (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

British or American version

A lot of edits are reverting back and forth between British and American English. Let's pick one and stay with it. Rlevse 14:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in keeping with the WikiProject standards, since this is global article it should be American English - but you'll have to forgive me if I start in British English when I create new content... Horus Kol 15:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, if it's a global article then the regional spelling of the original contributor to the article is generally the one it should stay at. Saying that, switching from one to t'other doesn't really bother me that much, so long as it's done consistently. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Switiching from one to the other is unstable, causes inconsistencies, and irksome. It should be one or the other. Rlevse 16:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting Project rules are to use the dialect of the country in question and for generic/international articles, to use American dialect. See the project [[1]] page. This was agreed upon a long time ago. Rlevse 20:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC) OK, maybe it wasn't so long ago...-;) Rlevse 21:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

France?

An added link here might be of value: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouts_et_Guides_de_France . Thus, in France 'Scoutism' seems to have acquired a Roman Catholic connotation. For 'Non-Catholics' in France there is a similar but 'neutral' organisation, 'Eclaireurs': http://www.eclaireurs.org/ 86.138.126.188 15:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation move

The citation that Egel provided did not directly address the question of the District Commissioners' discretion in accepting a particular adult and judging whether that adult's beliefs "will not interfere with the spiritual development of the young people in their charge". However, it was a very good bit of information, so I moved it to a more relevant spot rather than delete it. If Egel or Horus Kol could provide a citation that verifies that the DCs have the stated discretion, that would be grand. In the mean time, I've restored the {{fact}} tag.

Sincerely, "fly-by anonymous poster"

While seeking for such a citation myself, I found the following interesting item:

"Note: With reference to religious belief, the avowed absence of religious belief is a bar to appointment to a Leadership position."

This is at the bottom of [2], and would appear to directly contradict the previous assertion that an atheist or an agnostic could be appointed as a leader (although a pagan presumably could be). Thoughts?

Sincerely, "fly-by anonymous poster"

Ah, heck... we've both put in the same cite... anyway, I found a cite for the DC's discretion of District Appointments and sorted out that paragraph. Horus Kol 09:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good cite, and it's good verification that the final decision rests with the DC. Rule j in particular shows that the DC must be satisfied that the applicant is qualified, able to fulfill the various roles, etc. This presumably could be interpreted as giving the DCs discretion to ignore atheism or agnosticsm if "they are satisfied that a leader's personal beliefs [...] will not interfere with the spiritual development of the young people in their charge [...]", as has been claimed. However, the Key Policies' statement about "the avowed absence of religious belief" (see quote above) is explicit, as is Form AA, which states "The atheistic absence of religious belief is a bar to becoming a Member of the Movement" [3]. As it stands now, the assertion that the DCs "are free to allow the prospective [atheist or agnostic] leader into the organisation" is still not verified.

It seems to me that, given the explicit language prohibiting atheistic or avowed absence of religious belief, we need an equally explicit verification that the DCs have the authority to override this prohibition. Thus, an acceptable citation would be to either (A) an official policy stating that the DCs are free to admit an atheist or agnostic leader if they are satisfied that the young people's spritual development will not be adversely affected or (B) an outside source (article, website, etc) that documents that DCs have exercised such authority, even if unofficially. In this latter case, we should change the article to say something like "The final decision rests with the DCs. In practice, DCs have allowed such leaders when they are satisfied that a leader's personal beliefs will not interfere with the spiritual development of the young people" or whatever is appropriate to verifiable reality.

I want to be perfectly clear that I am not trying to say that the DCs do not or cannot exercise such discretion or that the Scouting Association has not managed to avoid the BSA's controversies. As they say, I don't have a dog in this fight. However, the assertion that "by allowing this freedom the Scout Association avoids the controversies facing its brother organisation in America" calls out for verification that the Association does allow this freedom, either officially or unofficially.

Sincerely, "fly-by anon" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.106.4 (talk • contribs)

And now we get to a problem - I know, and could present to you, several adult members of the Scout Association who are Humanists and Wiccans - meaning that they are atheist... They hold positions at Group, District and County levels - and while they did have to jump a couple more hoops in their appointment process, they were all given their warrant because it was realised by the various commissioners that an atheist is less likely to interfere with the spiritual development of a Young Person than an religious extremist... however, beyond confidential records, there is no documentary evidence for this. It doesn't stop it being true though. Horus Kol 09:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the WP:V policy clearly states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If the statement as it stands cannot be documented, then we have to delete it or change it to something that can be.

As a separate issue, the original statement in the article and your comment above are not completely consistent. As stated in the article, decisions are made on an individual basis. As described in your comment above, the DCs are – in effect – making policy, based on a POV that religious extremism (as defined by whom?) is more damaging than being led by an atheist. What may be true in individual cases (that is, atheists or agnostics who respect the religious practices of their charges) certainly is not true in all cases. I imagine that few religious parents would be comfortable entrusting any of their child's spiritual care to, for example, Madalyn Murray O'Hair (were she still alive). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.202.106.49 (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

the information is verifiable, in that you are able to get the information from The Scout Association given good enough cause... it just isn't citable. Horus Kol 13:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to quote from WP:V again, ""Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." In other words, for WP purposes, "verifiable" and "citable" are the same thing.

actually - any extemism is undesirable, and the DC has final say on all appointments in his District. I don't see how you get that they are making policy from my comment - all appointments are individually assessed by an appointments committee and then the DC (pending the appointments committee recommendations). Horus Kol 13:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I should have said was "effectively making policy", sorry. "[I]t was realised [...] that an atheist is less likely to interfere [...]" is a blanket, policy-like statement, whereas the original content and your most recent comment here are much more focused on individual situations. (BTW, personally, I quite agree that "any extemism is undesirable", in whatever variety it comes.)