Skip to main content

The Scouts clarify: atheists are not welcome

Just been listening to a debate on Radio 5 live between Derek Twine (Scouts) and Keith Porteus Wood (Nat. Secular Soc.).

The Scouts require all members swear an oath to God. The NSS wants this oath optional, as atheist children are thereby excluded (or else must lie).

Derek Twine pointed out that those of other faiths are welcome - Sikhs, Hindus, etc. But he made clear that those of none are not. Scouts welcome everyone - except atheists.

Should the Scouts be free to discriminate in this way, or not?

Is this like e.g. a political club discriminating against those of other political persuasions (ok, surely), or more like a golf club discriminating against women/black people (not ok, I think)?

POST SCRIPT at 14.57pm.

One thought I have had about this is, whether or not the discrimination is morally permitted (I don't think it is - but I'll explain why later), there's something slightly distasteful about it . As there would be if secularists started up a similar organization that excluded religious kids (by making them swear an oath). I mean, why would they do that? Why go out of your way to exclude perfectly nice, decent kids in that way?

I sense that lurking back there somewhere is the view that while kids of other faiths are acceptable, there's something rather objectionable about atheists and their kids. There's a sort of implicit "fuck you" being directed at them (as there surely would be if the Scouts accepted kids of all faiths - except Jews).

Which is especially unpleasant when you're dealing with kids. Kids who may even be close friends and school mates of Scout troup members. Frankly, how petty and pathetic to insist, "Atheist? Nope, you're not coming in."


Joe Otten said…
I wonder if Wicca would be OK. Or whether it would be deemed not a proper faith. Or Jedi...
Anonymous said…
looks like almost any FAITH goes, as long as they believe you can produce an oath by it:-)
I somehow doubt they will accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but the old Nordic gods would probably make an interesting test case.

In Cod we trust
Anonymous said…
Commenting on myself re. Nordic mythology.

The main god Odin even had two ravens (Hugin and Munin) as scouts, what could be more appropriate :-)

In Cod we trust
Paul C said…
When I was taken along to Scouts, everything went well for the first couple of weeks. Then it was time for the oath-taking, and I told them that I didn't believe in God (and that I didn't feel any allegiance to the Queen). They tried to persuade me that I should take the oath anyway, even if I didn't believe what I was saying, which made me feel very uncomfortable.

I never went back to the troup - I can't say that it scarred me for life, but I wasn't exactly happy about it. Admittedly, I was likely being a precocious twerp, but two things stay with me even today.

First, that I wasn't allowed to join the Scouts because I didn't want to swear allegiance to two authority figures of which I knew nothing, and which had nothing to do with the Scouts on a day-to-day basis. Second, and more important, that they were prepared to accept me as long as I took a false oath - which surely can't be a good example to set a young kid?

This trip down memory lane is now officially over. Normal service will be resumed.
Stephen Law said…
There's also the case of Buddhists. A faith, yes. But many would not be able to swear allegiance to God as they are not (all) theists. So I guess some members of some faith groups will be excluded.
anticant said…
They used to be the same about gays - probably still are - although there were loads of closet cases among the seniors [as there always are in officially homophobic organisations, such as the Catholic Church].
Jezebeau said…
So lie. Discrimination against religious beliefs is prohibited by many (I should think 'most') human rights charters. I imagine this would have been fought and struck down but for the cost of doing so.

I also balked, and decided to just go with the lie. One thing to note is that they didn't make a big deal of faith. I don't remember ever being told to pray, nor were divine beings ever referred to outside that oath.

That's not the only example of an organization which has changed its belief-in-god clause to one which asserts belief in a supreme being. American immigration, and joining the Freemasons require the same. I don't advocate this, but it's a step in the right direction.
anticant said…
Steve, I'm currently reading Sissela Bok's "Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life". She maintains that even white lies are damaging not only to the character of the liar, but to the social fabric. Of course, she was writing long before near-universal mendacity took over the world.
Unknown said…
Kids don't have to lie, the scouts religious policy only encourages the belief in god and to be members of a religious body.

Leaders should be "fit and proper", but not atheists or paedophiles. The former can, it appears, be a helper. The latter isn't welcome in any form (do they really a statement of policy about paedophiles?)

Of course, apart from the obvious, the main difference between an atheist and a paedophile in this circumstance, is that an atheist would probably tell the scout organisation they that they are an atheist... (I'm not implying atheists are paedophiles, although the scout movement seems to view atheists in the same light as paedophiles.

Strangely, they have a policy about valuing diversity. Encouraging scouts to embrace the benefit that diversity brings to scouting. This appears to be at odds with the attitude to atheism.

Scouting isn't a religious movement, but does profess to work to the values shown in religion & faith, whatever that faith may be. But, it recognise that many of its members do not have active faith or belong to any religious body... which is at odds to Derek Twines view.

It would appear that the scout movement is increasingly evangelical. Seeing its role as trying to encourage religious faith... and failing. Most kids want to go camping and climb mountains. While hanging from a rope in Idwal, God is far from their minds, but the awesome power of glaciation may not be.
Stephen Law said…
Thanks Jacky - kids don't have to lie? That contradicts the Scout guy. Maybe there's a lack of consistency across the movement?
Unknown said…
Strangely I always objected to having to swear allegiance to the Queen and Flag. I've never been patriotic.
Anonymous said…
There was nothing particularly religious about either the cubs or the scouts. In fact I probably learnt enough of self-reliance through attending that I had the insight to be an atheist. Yes there was an oath but in light of the various god concepts that doesn't mean much. As a child I thought it was a game adults played to get people to do things. As an adult I see that I wasn't far off the mark. Maybe the lunatic fringe has managed to take over what was once a great movement that once sought to bring different people together?
anticant said…
"The scout movement seems to view atheists in the same light as paedophiles."

"It would appear that the scout movement is increasingly evangelical."

Both these statements would appear to be true not only of the scouts, but of an increasing number of other Christian-orientated organisations - including the Church of England itself.
Anonymous said…
Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster count as an acceptable faith?
Anonymous said…
Derek Twine could probably do with understanding his organisations own key policies before making an ass of himself on air.

And I like to hear the justification for such a clause:
"Note: With reference to religious belief, the avowed absence of religious belief is a bar to appointment to a Leadership position."

What makes a religious person more suitable for working with young people?
Anonymous said…
Forgot to include this reference:

And here's an interesting one on God in scouting.
Anonymous said…
"There are so many possible
pictures of God picked up for one reason or another
in childhood that as we move towards adulthood we
rightly reject as non-acceptable. But that does not
mean that we necessarily reject God. An atheist is a
person for whom the whole of reality, and it must be
the whole of reality, is limited to what they
experience - that is the material world around them.
If a person is completely satisfied that there is no
more to life than ‘brute facts’ then, for such a
person the word God is a non-word. But a person
can be sure that there is more to life than ‘brute
facts’, but not sure what. If such a person is searching
for meaning, looking for a way in which they can
‘make sense’ of their lives, then, I believe, a person is
beginning a search, a search for God."

That last link includes this useful piece of propaganda against the atheist position.
Unknown said…
"Note: With reference to religious belief, the avowed absence of religious belief is a bar to appointment to a Leadership position."

Is this statement even legal within a equal opportunities framework, scouting isn't officially a religious organization. Although, often sponsored by some local church. Scouts us church halls to meet, but not always.

Does the word "avowed" mean that as long as you don't acknowledge atheism you can be a scout leader, or as long as you act within the religious policy you can be a scout leader. Is this like working for a company whose policies do not reflect your own personal world view, like a vegetarian working for Macdonalds (some do!).

Is this lying?

Should equal opportunities statements about religious belief be word differently. Should they be more "belief about religion", rather than "belief in religion"

Reading through the scout policies you come to realize that the scout movement seems to be at odds within itself. Recognizing the changing nature of scouting, while trying to cling to outdated aspects of religious understanding. I think I may look at this more deeply, as scouting, for me, was always worthy. And never took part in the religious aspect, even as a child.
Anonymous said…
Hi Stephen,
An association of any kind can place certain rules that are coherent with their objectives.
If Scouts could prove that their objectives, whichever they may be and without tampering them with manipulation, have anything to do with lack of faith in a god or superior being, then it would be totally legitimate to exclude atheists. Since I doubt that is the case, without a large amount of manipulation on their objectives, then there should be a case for discrimination.
The reason why some associations target certain groups (this is a manifestation of violence as far as I am concerned) is because it is easy for them to do so without the risk of retaliation.


Anonymous said…

An interesting website that highlights some of the important issues of scouting.

The move from the executives of the UK scouting movement follows similar moves witnessed with the Boyscout of American (BSA). It seem apparent that scouting objectives and principles are being turned on there head to further the agenda of a certain ideological stand point. Unfortunately these activists are claiming religion, in this case, God, is at the center of the scouting movement. Which is patently a false claim.

What is really needed is for reasonable people of diversity to take a stand against those that seek to sow the seed of discontent and false division amongst us all.
Anonymous said…
A possible reason for this is because Scouts are trying to get back it is origins, which has a strong link with regular freemasons (who also expect its members to be believers of some faith).
anticant said…
Here is an excellent post on this issue:
Anonymous said…
"Is this like e.g. a political club discriminating against those of other political persuasions (ok, surely), or more like a golf club discriminating against women/black people (not ok, I think)?"

1. I think it's time to fix the use of the word "discrimination". We all discriminate, say, on grounds of ability, when choosing to hire someone. It's not discrimination which is bad, but irrelevant discrimination. Political societies discriminating on political beliefs is relevant. Golf clubs discriminating on sex/race is irrelevant because they have nothing to do with golf.

2. Irrelevant discrimination might be bad, but should it be illegal? The Scouts are a private organisation. Why the hell shouldn't they discriminate on any wacky criteria they like? By all means campaign against it to try to get them to change their minds, but don't campaign for a change in the law to force them to change their minds.

Similarly, why the hell shouldn't members of a private club be allowed to refuse women or black people from joining?

"I always objected to having to swear allegiance to the Queen and Flag. I've never been patriotic." I consider myself patriotic but probably wouldn't swear allegiance to the Queen and Flag. Though I probably wouldn't particularly object to it if the social situation required it.
Anonymous said…
I started Scouts as a Cub at age 8 and am now a Leader aged 40. My atheism has grown despite the Scouts and gets stronger with everything I learn.

I refuse to lie about my atheism.

I often wonder how they'd react when they demand belief in "a" god, if I was to tell them I beleieve "I am God - therefore I have a belief in a deity and should be permitted to stay".
Paul said…
As a child I was very upset by the oath and left the scouts. I think it was the first time I realised how much our society discriminates against people who do not claim to believe in the supernatural.

I don't think most atheists are anti-religious to start with but after a a lifetime of exclusion and put downs it is hard not to see religion as a negative force in our society.
Rick said…
I'm an Eagle Scout and have been agnostic since I was about 16 years old. I was raised in a Christian family so never made a big deal out of my beliefs. I was never really pushed to express a faith or belief in god any stronger than just simply reciting the scout oath which isn't a whole lot different that what we all say when we say the pledge of allegiance. Now here I am 35 years later and my middle son goes before the Eagle board of review soon. He asked tonight what to say if they ask if he believed in god. We have openly let our kids know that we are agnostic and let them make up their own mind about god and religion. Of my 4 kids, 2 are agnostic, one believes in god, and one is exploring the buddhist philosophy. My young buddhist is about to potentially become an Eagle Scout. We advised him not to lie and we'll see what happens if he is quizzed on his religious belief. The non-religous people are essentially discriminated against in much of our public society. Who was the last agnostic or atheist President of the United States? If there was one, he wasn't telling.
Anonymous said…
The scouting association's website explicitly states; "[one] requires that the person taking the promise believes in a higher being".

Therefore implying that an atheist is unable to commit to the promise.
Anonymous said…
I've been hold by my local Cub Scout leader that I need to be an assistant leader if my son is to have any chance of joining our local pack. The application form has a field for religious faith which I left blank. I was told that if I put atheist in the field I would be excluded from the movement to which I replied, "How very Christian". For the sake of my son, the Scouts now recognise me as a Buddhist. - Boom Shanka.

Popular posts from this blog


(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o